Check out this new article by Erin M. Kearns and Adam K. Ghazi Tehrani, which examines how people decide whether a violent attack should be called terrorism, a hate crime, mass violence, or some combination of these labels. This matters because real world attacks do not always fit neatly into one category, and the label attached to an incident can influence media coverage, public reactions and government responses.
The researchers conducted an online survey experiment with 1,181 adults in the United States. Each participant was shown 10 hypothetical violent incidents. Using a method called a conjoint experiment, the researchers randomly changed nine characteristics of each incident, including the weapon used, target, number of people killed and injured, number and race of perpetrators, mental health history and motive. Participants then selected whether each incident was best described as terrorism, hate crime, mass violence, a combination of these, or none of them. This allowed the researchers to isolate which characteristics affected how people labelled otherwise comparable acts of violence.
The findings show that labels are shaped by several characteristics of an attack. Motive was particularly important. Anti government violence was more likely to be labelled terrorism, while religiously motivated attacks were more likely to be classified as terrorism, hate crime, or both. Attacks targeting churches, mosques and synagogues were more likely to receive a hate crime label.
The scale and method of violence also mattered. As fatalities and injuries increased, participants became more likely to describe incidents as mass violence, including in combination with terrorism or hate crime. Weapons commonly associated with terrorism, including bombs and firearms, also increased the likelihood of terrorism related labels. Multiple perpetrators similarly increased the likelihood that participants would see an incident as terrorism or as fitting several categories simultaneously.
Some findings complicate assumptions about public bias. Perpetrator race was largely unrelated to labelling overall, although incidents involving Middle Eastern perpetrators were more likely to receive certain combinations involving terrorism. Mental health information also mattered. When perpetrators had a suspected or confirmed history of mental illness, participants were more likely to decide that none of the three labels applied.
The policy implications go beyond terminology. Labels can determine which agencies respond, how incidents are investigated, what support victims receive and which communities become eligible for funding. In the United States, terrorism, mass violence and hate crime classifications can open access to different victim assistance, civil rights and security programs. The findings therefore show why consistent, evidence based classification matters. Decisions should be based on relevant features such as motive and behaviour rather than assumptions about perpetrators or particular types of attacks.