Three recent articles explore different aspects of terrorism. From Newswise.com (4 April), a report on a new study by Tom Pyszczynski and colleagues showing that when US or Iranian student participants are asked to focus on their own mortality they are more likely to support extreme military interventions or suicide bombings than when they are asked to focus on neutral topics.
“Despite their differences, Americans and Iranians have something in common – thoughts of death increase the willingness of people from both nations to inflict harm on citizens of the other nation,” the authors wrote. “The same psychological inclinations that make them want to kill us make us want to kill them – regardless of which specific group is referred to by the words ‘us’ and ‘them.’”
- Reference: Mortality Salience, Martyrdom, and Military Might: The Great Satan Versus the Axis of Evil. Tom Pyszczynski, Abdolhossein Abdollahi, Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, David Weise. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 32, No. 4, 525-537 (2006).
Gerd Gigerenzer, Director of the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition at the Max Planck Institute, has published a thought provoking analysis of the increase in transport mortality in the US post-9/11. The Society for Risk Analysis press release (12 April) highlights Gigerenzer’s key findings:
Shortly after the September 11, 2001 airplane highjackings and crashes in the U.S., Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer observed that “Americans reduced their air travel…[and] a proportion of those who did not fly instead drove to their destination.” [...] In the year following 9/11, some 1,500 more Americans died on the highways than would have been expected, based on highway accidental death statistics from the previous 5 years.
Gigerenzer’s argument is that “strong emotional forces – such as fear and anxiety – can lead to dramatic behavioral changes, with unintended consequences”, although he goes on to report that the same “risk avoidance” behaviours were not seen in Spain in the aftermath of the 3/11 Madrid train bombings, citing “cultural differences between Europeans and Americans” as potentially responsible for the difference. I haven’t read the article yet, but I wonder if the fact that distances are so much larger in the US might be a more likely explanation (more time in the car = greater fatigue = more likely to have an accident)?
I hope that someone will do a similar analysis of deaths on the roads in London in the aftermath of the 7/7 tube bombings. There was a rush on bicycles in the weeks following the terrorist attacks, and, I predict, an increase in cycle-related injuries as inexperienced riders took to the dangerous streets of our capital.
- Reference: Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire: Behavioral Reactions to Terrorist Attacks. Gerd Gigerenzer. Risk Analysis 26(2), April 2006.
The final item of interest this week is the use of victim testimonies from 9/11 in the trial of Zacharius Moussaoui. As the Christian Science Monitor (14 April) reports, some have concerns that the use of such testimony may bias the jurors (though I guess that is kind of the point?):
In Moussaoui’s trial, it can help jurors grasp the full impact of 9/11, say some. Opponents say it encourages jurors to rely on emotion. [...] “The jurors are [being] reminded of all the emotions they felt from that day, from watching television or whatever connections they have to 9/11,” says Joshua Dressler, a professor at Ohio State’s Moritz College of Law in Columbus. “I find it difficult to imagine how they will find mercy for someone who had put them and those victims and families through that.”
Post a Comment