Framing Domestic Extremism: How Labels Influence Public Support for Counterterrorism Measures

How does the labeling of violent domestic groups influence public support for counterterrorism policies, and how do partisan identities shape those effects? This study examines how Americans respond to domestic violent actors labeled as terrorists or extremists, arguing that labeling effects are conditioned by partisan alignment. Using a pre-registered survey experiment conducted in the United States, I first document partisan filtering in support for counterterrorism measures based on the perpetrating group’s ideology. I then test whether labeling the group as terrorist or extremist mitigates this bias. However, I find no consistent evidence that labeling increases support for counterterrorism responses. Instead, partisan identity and ideological proximity strongly shape attitudes toward counterterrorism measures. Further analysis shows that these divides operate through perceived threat, perceived credibility of the attack, perceived personal risk, and moral justification of violence. The findings suggest that elite and media framing may exert limited influence without deeper shifts in partisan perceptions, highlighting affective polarization’s central role in shaping responses to domestic extremism.