Terrorism proves to be a more serious problem than anticipated, and it challenges both policymakers burdened with the design of countermeasures and social scientists who are called upon to explain it Terrorism’s unique nature is revealed by two phenomena. First, public perception of threat and danger seems to be disproportionate to terrorists’actual capabilities. Second, terrorism, more than any other form of warfare, has an impact on a target group immensely larger than that of the immediate victims and often on populations beyond that terrorism bears primarily on individuals’ perceptions, on the “public mind”; in other words, it is a form of psychological warfare.
The psychological impacts of political terrorism are potentially manifest in individuals’ emotional and attitudinal responses. In the realm of emotions, the fear and concern for personal safety, which terror tactics might give rise to, is a revealing indicator of their effectiveness. One could argue, of course, that terrorists’ability to sow widespread fear hardly needs proof as it is obvious that violence and particularly the terrorists’hallmark, randomly targeted violence, are anxiety inducing. It should be noted, however, that terrorism has claimed relatively few casualties to date, and that in most countries the actual probability of incurring harm from terroristic activity is only a fraction of, say, the risk of death or injury in vehicle accidents or common crimes. Hence, the power of terrorism to intimidate should not be taken for granted.
Intimidation and the induction of fear are not the ends of terrorists’activity but rather means to effect political change. Their violence is predicated on two assumptions: (a) Violent action can force the causes pursued by terrorists into the forefront of an indifferent public’s awareness; (b) faced with the choice between continuing violence and acceptance of the terrorists’demands, the public might opt for the latter. Thus, the attitudes that the targets of political terrorism develop toward its perpetrators, their objectives, and the actions that ought to be undertaken visrd-vis them constitute telling measures of the effectiveness of terrorism.
The present investigation sought to assess the psychological reactions of a public which has been exposed for a considerable length of time to the threats and actions of terrorist. Regarding emotional impacts, the data suggest that terrorism’s ability to intimidate, to induce worry and concern, disproportionally exceeds the actual damage it causes. According to the data gathered, the actual probability of being victimized by terrorist activity was extremely low; estimated at less than 1/20 of the likelihood of being hurt in a road accident. Yet a large majority of the respondents expressed worry about the risk of personally incurring the consequences of terrorism. It might be uncontrollability dramatically enhance its impact. Thus, while the risk of vehicle driving might be far greater than the danger of terrorism, the car driver is usually reassured by a subjective feeling of control which the potential victim of terrorism lacks.
The survey results indicate that terrorism has failed to produce the change in attitudes sought by its perpetrators. Most respondents favored, instead, the reliance on extreme counterterrorist measures. The hardening of Israelis attitudes toward terrorists and their objectives was also revealed by the respondents’unanimity of opinion. Taken together, the data concerning the emotional impact of terrorism and its effects on attitudes did not bear out the rationale which governs terroristic action. Despite the widespread concern and worry revealed by these data, there was no evidence of any willingness to politically concede to terrorists. On the contrary, and as already noted, the majority advocated the adoption of harsh measures against terrorists. Thus, at least insofar as Palestinian terrorism and the Israeli public are concerned, proves to be counterproductive.
1.According to the author, which of the following is true about terrorism?
2.The author states that injury or death is more likely to be sustained from automobile accidents than by terrorism, and from this we can conclude that（ ）.
3.According to the author, fear of terrorism is intensified by （ ）.
4.The author compares public perception of the threat of terrorism to the risk of vehicle injury or death in order to （ ）.
5.Which of the following best summarizes the author’s conclusions?
