After the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, which killed 22 people, public concern about terrorism rose sharply across the UK. Surveys by YouGov have tracked how this concern changes over time. Immediately after major attacks, terrorism ranks among the country’s top worries, but in more recent years, public attention has shifted towards the economy, immigration, and the National Health Service. Psychologists describe this pattern as normalcy bias, the tendency to believe that life will continue as usual even after major shocks. It protects people from fear but can also make societies underestimate genuine risks.
Normalcy bias helps explain why people sometimes downplay extremism or treat violent incidents as isolated events. The 2005 London bombings, the 2017 Westminster and London Bridge attacks, and the 2021 killing of MP Sir David Amess each led to brief periods of heightened vigilance. Yet, as time passed, many returned to believing such events were unlikely to happen again. Denial becomes a form of emotional protection. The difficulty is that comfort and vigilance rarely exist together.
Another psychological process, known as cognitive dissonance, reinforces this pattern. It occurs when people hold two conflicting beliefs and try to reconcile them. In a society that values tolerance and diversity, it can feel uncomfortable to recognise that a very small number of individuals have distorted those same values to justify violence. To ease that tension, some people dismiss information about ongoing threats as exaggerated or politically motivated. This response allows them to protect their sense of moral consistency.
Differences in threat perception are well documented. Recent YouGov polling shows that older Britons and Conservative voters are more likely to see terrorism as a major threat, while younger and liberal groups express greater confidence in social stability. These contrasts do not reflect intelligence or morality but rather reveal how people manage anxiety. Minds interpret information through emotional filters that determine what feels safe to acknowledge.
Denial may bring peace of mind, but it carries risk. When societies avoid difficult conversations, they create room for harmful ideologies of any kind to develop unnoticed. Recognising psychological defences such as normalcy bias and cognitive dissonance does not mean living in fear. It means learning how the human mind avoids discomfort and how that avoidance can reduce collective awareness.
It is natural to seek comfort in stability, yet that same comfort can become a barrier to understanding. Seeing clearly is not pessimism. It is responsibility. Awareness, supported by evidence rather than emotion, allows communities to stay both open and secure.
This article was written under the pseudonym “Clara Jennings” at the author’s request to avoid potential backlash for addressing a sensitive public issue.
