Read on Twitter
My paper Are we all Charlie? has been published in @WEPsocial. It studies the consequences of the Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher terrorist attacks for immigration attitudes. While negative reaction outside France, not in France.Some background: http://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2019.1683791
Much research after 9/11 has found that (Islamic) terrorism increases negative attitudes towards out-groups such as immigrants,Muslims and even Jews.This research has often interpreted this increase as caused by the increased feelings of threat and anxiety after an attack.
On the one hand, being reminded of our mortality makes us intolerant according (Terror Management Theory). On the other, threats may make us anxious and lead us to seek security from the threat, increasing support for security policies or creating rallies around political leaders
However, starting out on my PhD-project, I felt that these explanations overlooked crucial factors in the consequences of terrorism,namely the role of the media,of political leadership and of the public reaction itself after an attack (see also my thesis: http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-70741
Coming from Norway, my own experience with terrorism was precisely the importance of political leadership, demonstrations and the media coverage, something I have tried to study during the PhD (See also https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2018.1457526 about Norway).
The new article compares the reaction to the attacks in France with the reaction in six other countries. A simple expectation would be a stronger negative reaction towards (Muslim) immigration in France than the other countries. I find the opposite.
No change in France, but a negative effect outside France. Puzzlingly non-french respondents who watch TV-news were _less_ likely to become more negative towards immigration than those who didn't.
Two explanations: 1. The massive French mobilizations and the political leadership emphasised tolerant values. Possibly primed the French public with these tolerant values.
2. This was not covered as much outside France, but the attacks were framed as attacks on free speech. This reduced the connection between the attacks and immigration for people who watched news and made them less likely to become more negative towards immigration than others.
The article shows that there may be more to the mechanisms behind negative reactions after terrorism than what has been recognized so far. The media and political leadership have central roles in the aftermath of attacks.
For those of you without access, here are 50 free passes:
https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Q8TEYVMBCU4PGANNRB5J/full?target=10.1080/01402382.2019.1683791
Or the accepted manuscript:
http://folk.uio.no/oyvinbso/Solheim%20-%20Are%20we%20all%20Charlie.pdf
Og for norskspråklige snakket jeg blant annet om dette paperet i Morgenbladet i vår:
https://morgenbladet.no/aktuelt/2019/04/ordene-som-teller
https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/Q8TEYVMBCU4PGANNRB5J/full?target=10.1080/01402382.2019.1683791
Or the accepted manuscript:
http://folk.uio.no/oyvinbso/Solheim%20-%20Are%20we%20all%20Charlie.pdf
Og for norskspråklige snakket jeg blant annet om dette paperet i Morgenbladet i vår:
https://morgenbladet.no/aktuelt/2019/04/ordene-som-teller
(This paper would not have been possible without the support and feedback from a great deal of people, especially my advisers: @ksteenjo and Knut Heidar and other members of the project: @samfunnsforsker and Marte Winsvold. Also: @helgerenaand many more at @ISFnytt.)
(And the thread was inspired by @dsquintana)
