Pride and prejudice: Exploring how identity processes shape public attitudes towards Australian counter-terrorism measures
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865819846944 |
| Published date | 01 December 2019 |
| Date | 01 December 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Pride and prejudice:
Exploring how identity
processes shape public
attitudes towards
Australian counter-
terrorism measures
Harley Williamson
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and Griffith
Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia
Abstract
Counter-terrorism measures are often described as pre-emptive, punitive, and afford author-
ities exclusive and expanded powers. Yet they continue to attract public support. Why is this
the case? A consistent finding in traditional crime control research shows a link between
perceived threat from racial or ethnic minority groups and their perceived involvement in
crime. This perceived relationship results in public support for punitive crime control meas-
ures for such groups. Similar connections can be made between terrorism and Muslims. It is
thus possible that perceiving Muslims to be threatening may help explain enhanced public
support towards harsh counter-terrorism measures. This study draws on survey data of a
national sample Australian residents (N ¼1199) to test this hypothesis. Findings show the
importance of both identity processes and perceptions of Muslims as threatening in shaping
support for punitive counter-terrorism strategies. Results also demonstrate how social iden-
tity can moderate the effect of perceived threat on support for such strategies. Theoretical
and policy implications of this study are outlined.
Keywords
Identity threat, Muslims, punitive attitudes, social identity, terrorism
Date received: 14 February 2019; accepted: 8 April 2019
Corresponding author:
Harley Williamson, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University,
Queensland, Australia.
Email: h.williamson@griffith.edu.au
Australian & New Zealand Journal of
Criminology
2019, Vol. 52(4) 558–577
!The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0004865819846944
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
Introduction
The terrorism threat has catalysed preventative and reactive legislative responses glob-
ally, which receive widespread public and political support (Huddy, Feldman, Taber, &
Lahav, 2005). Paralleling these measures are pervasive discourses associating terrorism
with Muslims and Islam (Cherney & Murphy, 2016). The normalisation of this rhetoric
within social and political narratives can be problematic for the livelihoods of those
feeling targeted by counter-terrorism responses and for perpetuating reactive responses
to national security threats. Thus, it is important to canvas how the public views legis-
lative responses to terrorism, and whether attitudes are influenced by prejudiced beliefs
towards Muslims.
Research highlights how some minority groups are perceived as more threatening
than others (e.g. Stephan, Diaz-Loving, & Duran, 2000). Perceptions of threat stem
from evaluating others as less favourable than oneself (Oliveira & Murphy, 2014). These
attitudes derive from Social Identity Theory (SIT), which conceptualises how individu-
als assign themselves to specific groups based on whether they perceive they are similar
or different to others (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). In recent years, public and political
sentiment has centred on the scrutiny of Muslims as a ‘suspect group’ (Breen-Smyth,
2014; Cherney & Murphy, 2016), thereby highlighting how Muslims can be perceived as
a threat and an outgroup in contemporary society.
Relatedly, scholarly interest has focused on the relationship between threat percep-
tions and punitive attitudes towards certain groups. Unnever and Cullen (2010a, 2010b)
argue that negative evaluations of minorities are likely to shape punitive attitudes
toward crime control measures. They hypothesise that individuals may believe the
crime control policies they support will target these minority groups. It is therefore
possible that perceiving Muslims as a threatening outgroup may elicit more punitive
attitudes to counter-terrorism measures that often target Muslims (Doosje,
Zimmermann, Ku
¨pper, Zick, & Meertens, 2009).
This study explores the impact of identity threat on public attitudes towards counter-
terrorism measures. In addition to understanding the effect of identity threats, this
paper canvases the relationship between social identity processes and attitudes support-
ive of punitive counter-terrorism initiatives. The following section overviews existing
literature on punitive attitudes, drawing from the traditional crime control literature and
studies that specifically examine terrorism. From here the theoretical framework under-
pinning this study is outlined, followed by the hypotheses and methodology. The find-
ings and wider contributions of the research are then discussed.
Public punitiveness and counter-terrorism
Following 9/11, counter-terrorism laws have been broadened and continue to receive
public support (Welch, 2016). Policies established in Australia and countries including
the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) are generally punitive because
they afford authorities exclusive powers to surveil, detain and interrogate individuals
without reasonable suspicion or proof of criminal intent (Lynch, McGarrity, &
Williams, 2015). The increasingly punitive nature of these measures since 9/11 is largely
a reflection of public support for harsh counter-terrorism policies (Huddy et al., 2005).
Williamson 559
To continue reading
Request your trial