Would you want to know about a terrorist threat at any cost?

September 9, 2010

As we approach the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks this weekend, many people may be thinking about the possibility of future terrorist strikes. If the government knew about a concrete threat, would you want it revealed to you, regardless of the consequences? A new study led by professor V. Kerry Smith of the W. P. Carey School of Business at ASU provides surprising details about how Americans view secrecy very differently, depending on the type of plot.

“There are dramatic differences in the willingness to accept government secrecy across various types of threats,” Smith said. “According to our surveys, policies that would withhold information about terrorist plots involving commercial airlines would not be acceptable to more than 80 percent of the respondents, but information about threats to airports or the financial system could be withheld from the perspective of the majority of the respondents.”

In December, Smith and his colleagues, Carol Mansfield of RTI International and H. Allen Klaiber of Penn State, surveyed about 2,000 Americans to find out their beliefs about government secrecy in connection with terrorism. The researchers believe this was “the first national survey of people’s attitudes toward public deception in the name of security.” The sample included adults from an Internet panel run by Knowledge Networks. The respondents were based in 33 large metropolitan areas, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington, D.C.

Participants were asked about three scenarios (summarized below), and they gave very different responses about whether to release the information in each case:

1. Should the government release the true cause of an airplane crash due to a terrorist attack, even if that will have major on commercial airlines, give the terrorists notoriety and create an increased fear of flying?
Release - 83 percent/Withhold - 17 percent

2. Should the government announce the details of a major plot to destroy airports in Los Angeles and New York after the terrorists have been captured, even though it might give away the techniques law enforcement used and make it harder to uncover future plots?
Release - 23 percent/Withhold - 77 percent

3. Should the government announce the details of a major terrorist plot to disrupt Internet service at commercial banks and prevent the processing of credit and debit card sales across the United States for 48 hours, if the terrorists have been captured, even though it would give away the techniques used to identify the suspects and reveal specifics of the security network?
Release - 24 percent/Withhold 76 percent

A second survey using different participants in four major cities in April confirmed the same results. Overall, Americans want to know about threats to commercial airplanes, even if that might result in significant damage to the U.S. economy. However, people are willing to tolerate a high level of secrecy about some other terrorist threats.

This was consistent regardless of whether or not the survey respondents lived in metropolitan areas likely to be potential terrorist targets. Women and people living in married households were more willing, in general, to support withholding information. Those with a college degree were less willing to allow limits on information.

“In a democracy, people allow their elected leaders to manage public affairs, but they expect to be told the truth,” Mansfield said. “This can create problems when the obligation to tell the public the truth conflicts with intelligence operations or economic security.”

Smith added, “Since 9/11, many high-ranking security officials believe secrecy is the best recipe for safety and that they are acting in Americans’ best interest. However, our research shows that people are only willing to have the government withhold certain types of information, regardless of the potential consequences for specific industries or future threats. As a result, the challenge for policy makers is to incorporate the preferences of the people facing the increased terrorist risk when the government makes these decisions.”

The new research was supported by the United States Department of Homeland Security through the Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE). It was recently published by the National Bureau of Economic Research and can be found at www.nber.org/papers/w16232 .

Explore further: U.S. infrastructure found vulnerable

Related Stories

U.S. infrastructure found vulnerable

August 18, 2005

U.S. infrastructure such as transport, agriculture, water, chemical, defense and telecommunications is vulnerable to terrorist attack, a government agency says.

Post-Sept. 11 surveillance impact studied

September 14, 2005

A Canadian study indicates people four years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks are becoming uncomfortable with increased government surveillance.

Security from chaos

April 16, 2008

There’s safety (and security) in numbers … especially when those numbers are random. That’s the lesson learned from a DHS-sponsored research project out of the University of Southern California (USC). The research is ...

Research Reveals Patterns of Terrorist Preparation

July 17, 2008

Analysis of an extensive terrorism database housed at the University of Arkansas has revealed patterns in activities of terrorists preparing for an attack, information that can be invaluable for law enforcement agencies seeking ...

Recommended for you


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2010
Rediculous and Silly study. Really though, if a threat is over, details of the threat, whether successful or not, should be released, let me explain. Just a quick example. Say a terrorist is able to throw a bomb over the checkpoint barrier past the guards and just pick it up and walk on the plane. The only way to mitigate the risk from this is to address it globally, or at least nationally, everwhere. You might install higher bariers or just train the guards to watch out for this. In order to do this, you have to desiminate the information about the attack to the officers and contractors reconstructing the barriers (so they build it right). 1,000s of airports means a lot of people will already know and it'll be leaked to the media. If you try to stiffle this info, designs will be less effective and you'll probably fail anyway. EVERY state secrete should require a timetable for public release, whether hours or decades. Security via ignorance is always a bad idea, trust me, its my field.
not rated yet Sep 12, 2010
If these were the entire scenarios I'd suggest that the nature of the terrorist threat was irrelevant - people want to know about stopped attacks, it is likely to have been the threatened loss of ability to maintain security that was the trade-off, not the nature of the threat. The commercial impact does not effect law-enforcement ability and thus individuals weight it less in their decision about public openness.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.