Terrorism and Attitudes Toward Out-groups: A Political Perspective

How does terrorism affect attitudes towards out-groups? While research has found negative effects, these effects may be dependent on more factors than has been acknowledged so far. This thesis proposes a framework for understanding the consequences of terrorist attacks consisting of three parts; the terrorists’ group background, the framing of attacks and the public’s prior attitudes. Three empirical studies of surveys after attacks and of survey experiments explore this framework. The first investigates the reaction to the July 22, 2011 attacks in Norway and shows that the political response and people’s prior attitudes were central to the increase in out-group trust afterwards. The second studies the Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher attacks in Paris in 2015, showing that while people in France did not increase their opposition to immigration, people outside France did. This is interpreted in light of the French response with its emphasis on republican values such as tolerance. The last paper explores how the terrorist threat affects for support for counterterrorism and shows that this support increases even for measures that target other groups than the ones creating the threatpublishedVersio

Are we all Charlie? How media priming and framing affect immigration policy preferences after terrorist attacks

Terrorist attacks negatively affect support for immigration policy, and this has been linked to the extensive media coverage of terrorism. Yet, this coverage may also have a moderating effect. This article uses the timing of the fielding of the European Social Survey, which took place during the Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher attacks, as a natural experiment. Because the media coverage of the attacks varied between France and other European countries, it is possible to study how differences in the media framing and priming of the attacks affected attitudes. The expected negative effect on immigration policy preferences is found outside France, but not within France. This study’s findings lend support to a moderating effect of the media coverage of terrorist attacks, both as a framing effect that influenced the perceived relevance of the attacks to immigration attitudes and a priming effect that primed the public with tolerant French Republican values.acceptedVersio

Right-wing Terrorism and Out-group Trust: The Anatomy of a Terrorist Backlash

Terrorist attacks often lead to public backlashes. Following the attacks on July 22, 2011 in Norway, Norwegians showed support for democratic values such as “openness,” “democracy,” and “tolerance” in the public debate and in the commemorations across the country. They also reported higher out-group trust. This paper explores two possible reasons for this increase in trust using a unique panel fielded before and right after the attacks. The first is that cognitive disso- nance led people to dissociate from the terrorist and his ideology. The second is that the increase in trust was a response to the public backlash after the attacks. The increase in trust was not caused by cognitive dissonance. Rather, people who were already positive towards immigration, or who saw positive effects of the attacks, became more trusting than others did, and Progress Party supporters increased their trust less than others. These findings are interpreted as a response to the attacks and the political characteristics of the backlash. The study concludes by discussing implications for our understanding of the different consequences of attacks for the ter- rorists’ imagined constituencies and for the broader public.publishedVersio

Koalisjoner i Stortinget : Kompromiss og konfliktlinjer

Det norske politiske systemet har vært preget av mindretallsregjering og et sterkt Storting. Likevel har det i liten grad blitt studert hva som kjennetegner stemmegivningen i Stortinget. Problemstillingen for denne oppgaven er hvilke parlamentskoalisjoner som oppstår i Stortinget i perioden 1981 til 2009 og hva som forklarer dem. Det blir testet fire hypoteser på stemmegivningen i denne oppgaven. De to første er knyttet til partienes politiske ståsted: At høyre-venstreaksen er viktigst, at de kryssende konfliktlinjene også har betydning for stemmegivningen. I tillegg undersøkes det om flertallsregjeringer leder til at det kun er et skille mellom regjering og opposisjon, og om manglende vilje til kompromisser leder til tosidig opposisjon. Basert på en optimal classification-analyse viste høyre-venstreaksen seg som ventet å ha størst betydning. Dette for alle periodene utenom perioden rundt EU-avstemningen i 1994. Tre av holdningsdimensjonene til Valgundersøkelsen blir også funnet i stemmegivningen: sentrum-periferi, moral-religion og vekst-vern, mens innvandring ikke ser ut til å danne grunnlaget for koalisjoner. Disse har likevel en relativt liten betydning, og ser ut til å være nødvendig for å forklare de mindre partiene, og særlig sentrumspartienes, stemmegivning. Når det gjelder regjering mot opposisjon er dette hovedmønsteret for Willoch sine regjeringer (1981-1986), men ikke for Stoltenbergs flertallsregjering (2005-2009) eller andre perioder. Det ser altså ikke ut som skillet mellom mindretalls- og flertallsregjering er veldig viktig i stemmegivningen. Modeller med tosidig opposisjon leder til en viss grad av høyere tilpasning, men den er relativt liten. Partiene synes altså å være kompromissvillige. Hovedfunnet i oppgaven er at koalisjonene som dannes i stemmegivningen i Stortinget i stor grad følger holdningsdimensjonene, blant annet kjent fra valgforskningen. Partiene synes å være villige til å inngå kompromisser. Betydningen av flertallsregjeringer på stemmegivningen er sprikende, men synes ikke å være veldig forskjellig fra mindretallsregjeringer

Consensus or Conflict? A Survey Analysis of how Norwegians Interpret the July 22, 2011 Attacks a Decade Later

The dominant narrative about the right-wing terrorist attacks in Norway on July 22, 2011, suggests that they were an attack on the Norwegian democracy, that the perpetrator was motivated by right-wing extremism and that Norway reacted by emphasizing tolerance, democratic values, and inclusion. Surveys carried out in the aftermath of the attacks show that this narrative received widespread support. In this article, we use a nationally representative survey to analyze how Norwegians interpret the July 22 attacks today – a decade later. We find significant levels of consensus, but also traces of conflict. While there are high levels of agreement regarding many of the interpretive frames, some of the frames are more contested. Moreover, some of these contested interpretations are associated with three conflicting narratives about the terrorist attack: the democracy narrative, the diversity narrative and the far-right narrative. These narratives are all characterized by a distinct understanding of why the attacks happened, who was targeted and how society reacted to the attacks. Given that the support for the different narratives varies according to ideological beliefs, partisanship, levels of trust and, to some extent, emotional reactions, we argue that discussions about July 22 today are likely to be politically polarizing – or even irreconcilable. The article shows how terrorist attacks that appear uniting in the short run may become more divisive in the long run, mirroring other existing political conflicts in society

Tillit etter terror i Norge, Frankrike og Spania. Betydningen av narrativer og politisk kontekst

Artikkelen diskuterer narrativers betydning for befolkningens tillit til politikere etter terror, med utgangspunkt i angrepene i Oslo og på Utøya, i Barcelona og i Nice. I Norge så man etter 22.juli 2011 en sterk økning i politisk tillit, mens bildet for de to andre casene er mer sammensatt. Også etter angrepet i Barcelona i 2017 steg den politiske tilliten, mens den svekket seg fra et allerede lavt nivå etter angrepet i Nice i 2016. Mens myndighetene i Norge ser ut til å ha lyktes med å skape tillitvekkende og inkluderende narrativer i møtet med terroren, var det et tydelig fravær av samlende narrativer i Frankrike. Spania er en komplisert case, der katalansk selvstendighetskamp og mobilisering la viktige forutsetninger for hvilke narrativer som kunne formes, og befolkningen i Katalonia og i resten av Spania reagerte til dels på forskjellige måter. Vi argumenterer for at vellykkede narrativer styrker tiltroen til politikeres ærlighet og gode vilje, samt til den moralske og sosiale orden. Den politiske konteksten setter rammer for hvilke narrativer som kan formes og for hvilken gjenklang de finner

Does trust prevent fear in the aftermath of terrorist attacks?

publishedVersio