The Ingratitude Paradox: A Causal Mechanism of Democratic Discounting of Successful Protection
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18485/Keywords:
threat perception, securitization, democratic accountability, availability heuristic, retrospective accountability, counterfactual evaluationAbstract
Democratic publics evaluate protective action retrospectively, after the action has run its course and its outcome is known. This article specifies a causal mechanism through which aggregate public evaluation of protective action is systematically biased against action that has succeeded. The mechanism, termed the Ingratitude Paradox, operates in five stages: a threat generates demand for protection; the protective action imposes visible procedural costs; the action succeeds and eliminates the threat; the eliminated threat becomes perceptually invisible; and the visible cost is then weighed against the now-invisible benefit, producing a verdict that the protection was unnecessary or disproportionate. The mechanism's defining property is endogeneity: the threat-eliminating step is also the invisibility-generating step, so the tendency is intrinsic to protective success rather than a contingent failure of communication. This article is a theory-building and mechanism-specification study, not an empirical test. It grounds the mechanism in the securitization literature and the availability-heuristic tradition in risk perception, differentiates it systematically from adjacent concepts, demonstrates that it is symmetric with respect to warrant and therefore explanatory rather than justificatory, illustrates its logic through a documented positive case traced across all five stages, specifies scope conditions through a contrastive case in which it did not fire, and states a falsifiable prediction relating the depth of the discounting verdict to the completeness of threat-elimination. That cross-case prediction remains untested; its systematic evaluation is identified as the natural next step. The contribution is a specified, bounded, and testable addition to the study of threat perception and security politics.
Downloads
References
1. Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Aguirre, J., Castro, E. G., & López, J. T. (2026). Mexican cartels and U.S. national security: Between criminal economies and securitization discourses. International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies, 2(1), 61–70.
3. Balzacq, T. (2011). Securitization theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve. London: Routledge.
4. Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
5. Cvetković, V. M., Aleksova, B., Renner, R., Gačić, J., Ivanov, A., & Milašinović, S. (2025b). Community-based disaster risk reduction: Overcoming barriers to build stronger communities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 7(2), 113–130. https://doi.org/10.18485/ijdrm.2025.7.2.7
6. Cvetković, V. M., Lipovac, M., Renner, R., Stanarević, S., & Raonić, Z. (2025a). A predictive framework for understanding multidimensional security perceptions among students in Serbia: The role of institutional, socio-economic, and demographic determinants of sustainability. Sustainability, 17(11), 5030. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115030
7. Edmond, C. (2026). The balance of power in Ukraine and deterrence effectiveness against nuclear-armed Russia. International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies, 2(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.18485/fb_ijcss.2026.2.1.1
8. Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9. Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(3), 288-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.1.3.288
10. Gbambu, A. R., & Ibrahim, M. G. (2026). Security communication and the security dilemma: Insights from the Iran–Israel rivalry. International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies, 2(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.18485/fb_ijcss.2026.2.1.2
11. Guzzini, S. (2011). Securitization as a causal mechanism. Security Dialogue, 42(4–5), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611419000
12. Healy, A., & Malhotra, N. (2009). Myopic voters and natural disaster policy. American Political Science Review, 103(3), 387-406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055409990104
13. Healy, A., & Malhotra, N. (2013). Retrospective voting reconsidered. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 285-306. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-032211-212920
14. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034747
15. Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., & Ratick, S. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x
16. Kuran, T., & Sunstein, C. R. (1999). Availability cascades and risk regulation. Stanford Law Review, 51(4), 683-768. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229439
17. Mančić, T. (2025). Climate change as a security challenge, risk and threat of the 21st century and its consequences on critical infrastructure. International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies, 1(1), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.18485/fb_ijcss.2025.1.1.14
18. Mueller, J. E. (1970). Presidential popularity from Truman to Johnson. American Political Science Review, 64(1), 18-34. https://doi.org/10.2307/1955610
19. Mueller, J. (2006). Overblown: How politicians and the terrorism industry inflate national security threats, and why we believe them. New York: Free Press.
20. Parson, E. A. (2003). Protecting the ozone layer: Science and strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45(4), 595–628. https://doi.org/10.2307/2950710
22. Quiggin, J. (2005). The Y2K scare: Causes, costs and cures. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64(3), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2005.00451.x
23. Rose, G. (1985). Sick individuals and sick populations. International Journal of Epidemiology, 14(1), 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/14.1.32
24. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280–285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
25. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Facts versus fears: Understanding perceived risk. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 463–489). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9
28. United States Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. (1999). Investigating the impact of the Year 2000 problem. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
29. Wæver, O. (1995). Securitization and desecuritization. In R. D. Lipschutz (Ed.), On security (pp. 46–86). New York: Columbia University Press.
30. Weaver, R. K. (1986). The politics of blame avoidance. Journal of Public Policy, 6(4), 371-398. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00004219
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Burak Oktenli (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
By submitting a manuscript to the International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies, authors acknowledge and agree to the following copyright terms and conditions:
-
Author Rights and Ownership
- Authors retain the copyright to their submitted work. However, by submitting their manuscript, authors grant the International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies a non-exclusive right to publish, distribute, and archive the work in any format (print, digital, or electronic).
- Authors are free to share, reproduce, and distribute their published work, provided proper credit is given to the original publication in this journal.
-
Licensing and Open Access Policy
- The journal publishes under the [insert applicable license, e.g., Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY)], which allows others to share and adapt the work with appropriate attribution.
- Authors are responsible for ensuring that their submission complies with the journal's licensing terms and does not violate any third-party rights.
-
Originality and Permissions
- The submitted work must be original and not previously published or under consideration elsewhere.
- If the manuscript includes copyrighted materials (e.g., figures, tables, excerpts), authors must obtain the necessary permissions for reproduction and provide appropriate attribution.
-
Author Warranties
- By submitting, authors confirm that their work does not infringe on any intellectual property rights, is free from plagiarism, and adheres to ethical publishing standards.
- The journal is not responsible for any legal disputes arising from copyright infringement, misrepresentation, or unauthorized use of third-party materials.
-
Editorial and Publication Rights
- The International Journal of Contemporary Security Studies reserves the right to make editorial modifications to ensure clarity, consistency, and compliance with journal standards.
- If accepted, the manuscript will be published online and made publicly available according to the journal’s open-access policy.
By proceeding with submission, authors confirm that they have read and agreed to the terms outlined in this Copyright Notice.
