Â鶹´«Ã½AV

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- How has the worst act of international terrorism ever perpetrated inside the United States affected Americans -- their outlook for the nation's future, their confidence in the economy, their attitude toward government and elected leaders, their sense of personal safety, the level of stress in their lives, their orientation toward religion and family, their positions on matters of domestic and foreign policy?

In some of these areas, hard facts, such as retail spending statistics, gun permit applications, and airline ticket sales, offer solid answers to various theories of how Americans are reacting. But in many other areas, public opinion surveys provide the best information to answer these important questions.

Major Conclusion

Scanning the results of Â鶹´«Ã½AV Polls conducted over the past year leaves little doubt that short-term changes occurred in the United States after Sept. 11. But evidence of major lasting effects is scarce.

America experienced a burst of patriotism last fall that was reflected in near unanimous public support for President George W. Bush, in heightened approval of Congress and the two major parties, and in elevated levels of trust in government to handle international and domestic problems alike. The perceived threat of future terrorism shot up, with the percentage of Americans worried about terrorism affecting their own lives reaching as high as 58% post-attack, compared to only 24% pre-attack. As a result, a substantial minority of Americans were reluctant to fly on commercial aircraft, they expressed a greater willingness to have the federal government use its powers to solve problems, and they became less supportive of immigration.

With the notable exceptions of attitudes toward immigration, toward President Bush and, to a lesser degree, toward the Republican Party, these reactions have largely subsided over the past year.

Other things stayed remarkably stable throughout the post Sept. 11 period, despite rampant speculation to the contrary. Â鶹´«Ã½AV polling found no evidence that Americans were flocking to church in any greater numbers. Nor did self-reports of gun ownership increase. Nor did the attacks rattle the public's confidence in the current or future state of the economy.

The Fear Factor

A key aspect of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack that would presumably spark lifestyle and attitudinal changes in Americans is that the attack made the threat of future terrorism more palpable.

Prior to Sept. 11, in a Â鶹´«Ã½AV Poll taken in April 2001, only 4% of Americans said they were "very worried" about the chances of becoming a victim of terrorism or of a family member becoming a victim; another 20% were "somewhat worried." In the first two months after Sept. 11, those figures increased sharply. A mid-October poll found close to one-quarter of Americans "very worried" about terrorism striking their own lives, and another third were "somewhat worried," for a total of 59% feeling worried. Within a few months, however, the total percentage saying they were worried had dropped to well below half, and today that figure stands at just 38%.

It is important to remember that the Sept. 11 attack was not the first major terrorist event in the United States to sadden and stun the American public. The 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City also triggered significant public alarm about one's vulnerability to this kind of violence. In fact, today's level of concern about being a terrorist victim is very similar to fear levels in the first year after the Oklahoma City bombing.

Thus, it is not surprising that, along with the ebbing of fear, there has been a gradual return to normal in Americans' lives and in their attitudes toward government and public policy.

Daily Life for Americans Since 9/11

Few Americans perceive or admit that they have altered their own behavior as a result of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Only about one-quarter say they changed the way they lived their daily lives in the first days and weeks after Sept. 11. Only 18% say that their lives have changed permanently as a result of the attacks.

At the same time, about half now say they are more suspicious of strangers and two-thirds say they are more aware of things that affect their own personal safety. These findings have changed little since the month after the attack.

A consistent one-third of Americans say they are risk averse when it comes to engaging in activities that might make them terrorist targets. One third say they are less willing to fly on airplanes, 30% are less willing to go into skyscrapers, and 29% are less willing to attend events where there are thousands of people. A somewhat larger number, 47%, is less willing to travel overseas.

But apart from these perceptions, polling provides little evidence that Americans are living their lives differently.

Despite widespread speculation and assumptions that Sept. 11 caused Americans to turn to religion in greater numbers or rushed out to arm themselves with guns, the poll data finds no evidence of these behaviors. To the extent that Americans became more religious after Sept. 11, the available evidence suggests it involved small numbers of Americans and was short-lived. One of Â鶹´«Ã½AV's key long-term measures of religiosity asks respondents how important religion is in their lives. The percentage saying "very important" generally ranges between 55% and 62%. Ten days after the terrorist attacks last September, Â鶹´«Ã½AV found 64% of Americans saying religion was very important in their lives. A separate question asking Americans whether they had attended their place of worship in the past week found 47% responding that they had in mid-September of 2001, slightly higher than the typical figure of 41-44%. But both of these indicators showed a return to normal rates of religious observance within a month.

Nor has Sept. 11 sparked a heightened interest in public affairs among Americans. The current percentage of Americans saying they closely follow the news about national politics is almost identical to a poll conducted a year ago, just prior to Sept. 11. Only a quarter say they follow this news very closely, while about half the public follows it somewhat closely; another quarter follow it only a little or not at all.

One place to look for evidence that Americans have re-evaluated their lives and have a greater appreciation for friends and family is Â鶹´«Ã½AV's annual measure asking the public how satisfied they are with various aspects of their lives. These findings, which are updated each June, show no significant change between June 2001 and June 2002 in the percentage of Americans who say they are "very satisfied" with their family life or their local community. They show little to no change in personal satisfaction with one's material well-being, such as housing or financial situation.

Rattled Nerves Slows Air Travel

One of the clearest messages out of public opinion polls after Sept. 11 was that Americans were concerned about airline security. Further, they blamed lapses in that security, more than national intelligence agencies, for the hijacking of four commercial jets that occurred on Sept. 11. For Americans, this concern translated directly into a heightened reluctance to fly. In the first week after Sept. 11, 43% of Americans polled by Â鶹´«Ã½AV said they were less likely to fly as a result of the attacks. That exceeded the percentage less likely to attend events with large crowds (30%) and the 35% who were less likely to enter skyscrapers. A year later, a third of Americans still report being more reluctant to fly due to the events of Sept. 11.

Are You Less Willing to Fly Since Sept. 11?

As the graph below shows, commercial airline travel between January and August 2001 was running on par with the previous year. But after Sept. 11, the number of passenger trips dropped sharply and remained well below normal through the end of 2001. According to the Air Transport Association, the airline industry's trade association, passenger travel in September 2001 was 34% lower than it had been in September 2000. The year-to-year decline improved to -23% in October, -19% in November and -13% in December. But since then, passenger travel has reached a plateau at about 10% below normal.

Commercial Air Travel

Some of this decline could reflect a slowdown in business travel due to the poor economy. But the Â鶹´«Ã½AV data suggests that consumer fears could also be reducing the demand for flying.

The Altered Political Landscape

The Sept. 11 attacks triggered an immediate response among the American public in support of their government. This fact is well established, and perhaps best understood in terms of the exceptionally high rate of public approval accorded to President Bush in the first few months after the attack. This "rally around the flag" effect was also seen in higher public ratings for the way Congress was handling its job, and in higher levels of expressed trust in the federal government to do what is right or to handle international and domestic affairs.

President Bush's approval rating has gradually declined from the high mark of 90% recorded Sept. 21-22, and now stands at 66%. However, his approval rating was only 51% in a Â鶹´«Ã½AV Poll conducted Sept. 7-10 last year, so his public image today is still elevated compared to the pre-attack period. Public approval of Congress also remains higher than pre-attack, at 52% today, compared to 42% last Sept. 7-10, although far lower than the 84% recorded last October.

The Republican Party's image has been strengthened over the past year, perhaps reflecting the very popular President Bush's image. Last year just prior to the attacks, more Americans had a favorable view of the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. But Â鶹´«Ã½AV trends document that positive views of the Republican Party grew substantially in the first few months post-attack, at the same time that the Democratic image was unchanged. Favorable ratings of the GOP have declined slightly since then, but remain seven points higher than pre-attack. The two parties now receive nearly identical image ratings, and both are positive.

In contrast with Americans' ratings of specific government leaders and institutions, which remain at more positive levels than pre-attack, their general trust in government has reverted to pre-attack levels. Shortly after Sept. 11, Â鶹´«Ã½AV found a sharp increase in public trust with a question from the University of Michigan National Election Studies series: How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right -- just about always, most of the time, or only some of the time?

According to Â鶹´«Ã½AV's trend on this question, public trust in government (the percentage who trust government just about always or most of the time) shortly after Sept. 11 reached levels not seen since the 1960s, increasing from 42% in July 2000 to 60% in October 2001. But this subsequently declined nearly back to its pre-attack level, and is now 46%.

A similar pattern is seen with Â鶹´«Ã½AV's own historical trends on trust in government, which include a separate pair of questions about confidence in the federal government to handle international problems and domestic problems. Â鶹´«Ã½AV recorded a sharp spike in confidence in the government a month after the attacks, in mid-October, after which confidence has subsided to near pre-attack levels.

Policy Attitudes

The areas in which the attacks may have caused changes in Americans' policy attitudes include the role of the federal government in policy making, immigration laws, defense policy, and privacy rights.

According to one Â鶹´«Ã½AV question dealing with the role of government, there has been a slight increase since Sept. 11 in the percentage of Americans who want an activist government, although this is down from the first month after the attack. Prior to Sept. 11, 55% of Americans said that government was doing too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses, while 36% felt the government should do more to solve the country's problems. After the attacks, in an early October survey, Â鶹´«Ã½AV found a near reversal in these views -- only 41% said government was doing too much and 50% said it should do more. Today, however, Americans have switched again and, by a 50% to 43% margin, the plurality again believe government is doing too much.

One area in which Americans' views seemed to have changed in a meaningful way over the past year is immigration. Prior to Sept. 11, Americans were relatively positive about immigration to this country, with the majority saying it should remain at the present level or be increased. Immediately after Sept. 11, Americans reversed their position; with a majority saying immigration should be decreased. That continues to be the prevailing view today.

How Should Immigration Change?

Also, fewer Americans now say that current immigration is good for the country. This view has dropped 10 points, from 62% in June 2001 to 52% in June 2002. Four in 10 Americans now consider current immigration a bad thing for the country, up from 31% last year.

Along these lines, close to half of Americans (44%) say they have less trust in Arabs living in the Unites States today than they did before the terrorist attacks. This attitude has expanded since the initial post-attack period, when only 35% admitted to being more skeptical of Arabs in the United States.

The available evidence on American support for defense spending and defense measures paints a mixed picture. On the one hand, the percentage of Americans saying that the government is spending "too little" on defense declined between February 2001 and February 2002 (from 41% to 33%), while the percentage saying that defense spending is "about right" rose 10 points (from 38% to 48%). Rather than an indication of lack of support for defense spending, however, this change could be interpreted as a sign of Americans' confidence in the capabilities of the nation's defense system. Only 17% today believe "too much" is being spent on defense -- a figure that reached 50% at the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

On the other hand, Â鶹´«Ã½AV has recorded an increase in support for the building of a missile defense shield. As of February 2002, 51% of Americans said this should be built, up from 41% the year before.

A broad variety of recent poll questions on the topic of privacy and civil liberties suggests that Americans are generally amenable to curtailing personal rights for the cause of fighting terrorism. This includes support for specific measures such as national identity cards and expanded federal wiretapping. But whether these anti-civil libertarian positions emerged only after Sept. 11 or existed prior to that date is a bit unclear.

One question asked on and off since 1995 by the Los Angeles Times Poll and by Princeton Survey Research Associates suggests that acts of terrorism heighten Americans' perception that giving up some civil liberties is necessary to curb terrorism. The question was first asked by the Los Angeles Times Poll shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, at which time 49% of Americans said it was necessary for average Americans to give up some civil liberties in order to curb terrorism; 43% disagreed. The "necessary" figure dropped to about 30% in 1996 and 1997. Shortly after Sept. 11 the question was asked again, at which time 63% believed it would be necessary to sacrifice civil liberties. However, in recent months, attitudes have softened and now only 49% (the same as in 1995) hold this view.

Survey Methods

These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,004 adults, 18 years and older, conducted July 9-11, 2002. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95 percent confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is plus or minus 3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

How likely is it that there will be further acts of terrorism in the United States over the next several weeks -- very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely?

How worried are you that you or someone in your family will become a victim of terrorism -- very worried, somewhat worried, not too worried, or not worried at all?

As a result of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, have you permanently changed the way you live, or not?

BASED ON --496-- NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM B

Would you say you are you more suspicious of strangers than you were prior to Sept. 11, or not?

Would you say you are more aware of things that affect your personal safety than you were prior to Sept. 11, or not?

As a result of the events that occurred on Sept. 11, would you say that now you are less willing to -- [RANDOM ORDER], or not?

A. Fly on airplanes

B. Go into skyscrapers

C. Attend events where there are thousands of people

D. Travel overseas

SUMMARY TABLE: WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES

In the days and weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, did you [ROTATED: continue living your daily life as you had done before Sept. 11, (or did you) change the way you lived your daily life]?

How important would you say religion is in your own life -- very important, fairly important, or not very important? (Recent Trend)

Overall, how closely do you follow news about national politics -- very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all? (Recent Trend)

Now I'd like to ask you several questions about our governmental system. First, how much trust and confidence do you have in our federal government in Washington when it comes to handling [Read A-B] -- a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all? (Recent Trend)

A. International Problems

B. Domestic Problems

Next, please tell me whether you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of each of the following parties. How about -- [ITEMS ROTATED]?

A. The Republican Party

B. The Democratic Party

Some people think the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country's problems. Which comes closer to your own view?

In your view, should immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased?

On the whole, do you think immigration is a good thing or a bad thing for this country today?

Would you say that you now have less trust in Arabs living in this county than you did before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, or has your trust in Arabs living in this country not changed?

* -- Less than 0.5%