In this so called ‘age of terror’, much of the rhetoric used to justify changes to procedural and/or substantive criminal law suggests that the ‘world has changed’, sometimes ‘forever’.^[3] As the rhetoric goes, the old ways of policing, prosecuting and imprisoning are simply inadequate. Much of the tradition and principle of criminal law and procedure is thought by some to be less relevant now and to create undue risks in the prevention or regulation of political violence. Such arguments proceed by suggesting that if we are to counter terrorism in this new age, investigative powers and criminal sanctions must be broadened if our efforts are to be effective in the face of new threats. This emphasis could be captured in the phrase ‘exceptional law for exceptional times’. The use of this phrase, or arguments consistent with it, was a key motivation for conducting this empirical work measuring perceptions of politically‑motivated violence and perceptions of the public responses to the use of such violence.

Insights into the social psychology of exceptionalism exist in research conducted before the attacks on America on 11 September 2001 (9/11). For example, the social psychological dynamics surrounding politically-motivated violence in the Middle East has been investigated by Israeli social psychologist Professor Daniel Bar-Tal from Tel Aviv University and colleagues. Bar-Tal has attempted to explain some of the social relationships in the Middle East in terms of the ongoing socialisation of Israeli Jews with a ‘siege mentality’. A siege mentality is a socialised psychological belief orientation that shapes conceptions of the other, especially conceptions of those Palestinians perpetrating politically-motivated violence. Bar-Tal has described the orientation in the following terms:

Also,

One striking aspect of this belief orientation is that it suggests more than simply feeling under threat by an outgroup and more than being motivated to promote your ingroup identity and to denigrate your opponent. In addition, those with a siege mentality believe that the rest of the world will not or cannot help them; those under siege perceive that they face this threat alone and in relative isolation from other potential allies and coalition members.

In light of this belief orientation, Bar-Tal lists four consequences of adopting siege mentality beliefs as being: (i) negative attitudes against ‘the world’, (ii) intergroup mistrust, (iii) pressure toward intragroup conformity, and (iv) self-protection and self‑reliance. It is interesting to note that the perceived isolation consequent upon holding negative attitudes against ‘the world’ is likely to have a chilling effect on the perceived utility of international institutions and concepts such as international human rights norms. This retreat from rights is one measurable consequence of the adoption of siege mentality beliefs and that relationship was tested in this empirical study. Bar‑Tal describes such a collective retreat from established norms in the face of siege in the following way:

There is one further point to note about this perceived isolation and negative attitude against ‘the world’: that, in principle, it would appear to be a belief that could be held plausibly by the victims of politically-motivated violence just as well as by those using politically-motivated violence. However, in the present study the cognition and belief orientation of politically active ‘terrorists’ was not measured. Instead, the attitudinal response of members of hypothetical victim groups to a threat of politically-motivated violence was measured.

Bar-Tal and colleagues have made empirical, social psychological measurements of a ‘siege mentality’ orientation in Israel by asking participants to indicate their level of endorsement of the following statements presented as questionnaire items with Likert‑scales (eg, 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree):

This work by Bar-Tal and colleagues is an example both of social scientific work conducted well before 9/11 and of work that had begun to describe and even explain some of the dynamics of fearing terrorism and justifying counter-terrorism responses. Simple generalisation of psychological belief orientation across time and political context is neither simple nor desirable. However, even if some new dynamics are observed, measured and understood, it is interesting to test whether the contemporary social manifestation of exceptionalism and the more modern justifications of counter‑terrorism responses can ever be said to be entirely new. For these reasons, it was considered timely to manipulate and measure exceptionalism in Australia using questionnaire items akin to Bar-Tal’s siege mentality scale.