2
them – and, if so, precisely which piece of it – versus how much their perceptions or fears emerge
exclusively from their “inner demons.” Similarly, studies that focus entirely on behavioral changes
caused by threatening stimuli (i.e., a → c) often fail to clarify the psychological mechanism underlying
the effect. In most cases, there is an assumption that external stimuli are causing a threat to be perceived
or felt and that this is why behavior changes.
We seek to decouple elements of political communication that are potentially threatening from the
individual perceptions or feelings of threat they may (or may not) generate. In other words, we hope to
demonstrate, rather than assume, whether external forces influence behavior by means of triggering a
change in perceptions, an emotional reaction, or both. One reason to “connect all the dots” is intellectual
fastidiousness. In recent years, our understanding of mass politics has advanced by more careful attention
to both the macro-level dynamics linking elite and mass behavior and the micro-level psychological
mechanisms mediating between cause and effect.
3
A second reason for examining the connections more
closely is that researchers have turned up quite distinct, even opposite, effects from threat. For example,
threat seems to stimulate critical reflection in some cases, but shut it down in others (Brader 2002). Part
of the confusion may stem from the fact that investigators have operationalized threat in a wide variety of
ways and made different assumptions about the psychological mechanism. Some speculate that fear or
other emotions mediate the impact of threats on behavior, while others stress the mediating role of
perceptions and do not posit any role for emotions.
4
Moreover, we know that threats have the potential to
elicit emotions other than fear, such as anger, with potentially distinct consequences for behavior (Lerner
et al. 2003; Nabi 2003). All of this underscores the need to scrutinize both the effect of external threats
on behavior and the psychological process mediating that linkage.
We believe that the mechanism matters, but which mechanism (perceptions or feelings) is at work?
The type and extent of reaction provoked by threatening communication may depend critically on
3
For a review and discussion of these developments, see Druckman and Lupia (2000), Iyengar and Simon (2000),
and Kinder (1998, 2003b).
4
Few studies, however, explicitly deny that perceptions or emotions are relevant. Most simply focus on one to the
exclusion of the other or assume implicitly that they are equivalent and rely on measures that blur the boundaries
between perceived threat and fear/anxiety.
Convention