Effects of Fear and Anger on Perceived Risks of Terrorism

The aftermath of September 11th highlights the need to un- derstand how emotion affects citizens' responses to risk. It also provides an opportunity to test current theories of such effects. On the basis of appraisal-tendency theory, we predicted opposite effects for anger and fear on risk judgments and policy preferences. In a nationally representative sample of Americans ( N � 973, ages 13-88), fear increased risk esti- mates and plans for precautionary measures; anger did the opposite. These patterns emerged with both experimentally induced emotions and naturally occurring ones. Males had less pessimistic risk estimates than did females, emotion differences explaining 60 to 80% of the gender dif- ference. Emotions also predicted diverging public policy preferences. Dis- cussion focuses on theoretical, methodological, and policy implications. Terrorist attacks on the United States intensely affected many individu- als and institutions, well beyond those directly harmed. Financial markets dropped, consumer spending declined, air travel plummeted, and public opinion toward government shifted. These responses reflected intense thought—and emotion. The attacks—and prospect of sustained conflict with a diffuse, unfamiliar enemy—created anger, fear, and sadness.