Emotionally Coping with Terrorism

Abstract

Individuals often experience anger after exposure to news about a terrorist attack. Are the coping strategies available to them effective in reducing anger, and with what consequences for policy attitudes? We argue that because terrorism is a complex problem, people should feel better distancing themselves from the threat than engaging in confrontive strategies against it, and this should lead to less extreme attitudes. Across three experimental studies, we induced anger about terrorism and then randomly assigned participants to different opportunities to cope with their anger. The findings show that an emotion-focused coping strategy of distancing oneself from the threat is more effective at reducing anger than a problem-focused coping strategy involving support for confrontational strategies to address it. Furthermore, only distancing strategies reduced extreme stances on terrorism policy. These findings help us understand why some people may disengage from politics, even when angered by it.