The Revenge Motive: Understanding Public Bellicosity and Closure in a Post-9/11 World

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

Although some would argue that American's support for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars has been based on increased needs for security in a post-9/11 world, there is also evidence that public support for these wars has been more deeply rooted in needs for retribution and vengeance. Which explanation accounts for support for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq has important theoretical and practical implications. This research empirically tests competing hypotheses about what Osama bin Laden's (OBL's) death means to U.S. citizens, with a particular focus on the implications of his death for people's policy preferences with respect to continued American military involvement in the Middle East. OBL's death is a watershed moment and opportunity to study (a) how people cope with terrorist attacks, (b) the role that needs for and achieving vengeance play in Americans' public policy preferences, and (c) how important vengeful motives are relative to other concerns such as security, incapacitation, and deterrence. The participants for this study are a subsample of approximately 7,000 individuals who completed surveys in either 2001 or 2003 that included measures of desires for revenge/vengeance for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Although a great deal of time has passed since the initial surveys, the advantages of returning to these participants are numerous, including not having to rely on retrospective accounts of how vengeful people felt in the more immediate aftermath of 9/11, and the ability to more firmly establish that proposed causes (e.g., post-9/11 needs for vengeance and support for an expanded war against terrorism) preceded the proposed effects (e.g., a sense of "mission accomplished" at the death of OBL). This study adds to the still limited knowledge of how Americans respond to terrorist threats, and the full post-attack consequences of terrorist attacks for public opinion and policy preferences. This RAPID proposal fulfills the NSF RAPID funding criterion of the need for urgent support as well as the other funding criteria of intellectual merit and broader impacts. NSF reviewed this proposal internally.