Understanding Political Polarization: Perceived Threat and Conflict Attitudes

Recent election results around the world reflect political polarization that is straining the fabric of democracy. Voting patterns indicate a preference for authoritarian leaders who promise closed borders and promote nationalism as an ideal. In a world where immigration is rising, it is important to understand both the resulting policy ramifications and the psychological impact of the perceived threats that accompany this movement.

A study by Julia Elad-Strenger and Golan Shahar discusses how the surge in far-right political discourse comes from perceived societal threats that encourage the endorsement of issue positions associated with far-right ideology. Conservative political ideology relieves uncertainty and anxiety associated with threats to “binding” moral foundations—such as language, religion, or ethnicity—and it therefore serves as an effective defense mechanism for these perceived threats.

By employing a three-wave longitudinal study, Elad-Strenger and Shahar sought to explain the relationship between value-specific perceived societal threats and political positions in situations of prolonged conflict. They hypothesize that threats perceived as challenging conservative values lead to political ideology that supports increased militaristic attitudes, closed borders and nationalism; conversely, challenges to liberal values lead to stronger endorsement of civil rights and democratic values. This latter position is one which has thus far been relatively unexplored. Through their research, the authors confirm these hypotheses. They suggest that certain types of conflict can increase endorsement of liberal political positions, even among conservatives, and that certain types of threats are best addressed by adopting a liberal political position.

Based in Israel and conducted on a nationally representative sample of 437 Jewish Israelis, the study was designed to examine the correlation between value-specific perceived threats and the ensuing political positions taken over time. The political positions were measured as “willingness to compromise for peace” and “militaristic attitudes,” based on the understanding that these are common threat responses for liberals and conservatives in the context of conflict. Party identification was used to classify study participants’ current political positions. Traditionally, left-wing parties are associated with “dovish” positions, such as civil rights, individual freedom, and separation of religion and state, while parties on the right are associated with “hawkish” positions, such as maintaining traditions and social order or strengthening ethnic identity. A cross-lagged panel design was used to isolate the “pure” effect of each threat variable on conflict-related attitudes. To control for the possibility that the effects of perceived threat originate in party identification, the authors used an alternative hypothesis model to test if value-specific perceived threats mediate the relationship between party identification and the dependent variables.

The study’s results supported their hypothesis: There was increased willingness to compromise for peace among liberals when faced with threat to liberal values. Similarly, there was an increase in militaristic attitudes among conservatives when faced with a threat that challenged conservative values. The results showed that a conservative in wave one of the study showed decreased willingness to compromise for peace in wave two and vice versa. Notably, a conservative threat was found to mediate the relationship between party identification and militaristic attitudes, implying that those who already identified as conservatives shifted further right when faced with perceived societal threats to conservative values.

This study is not generalizable beyond the chosen context of protracted conflict. The authors acknowledge the limited applicability and recommend examining a greater variety of perceived threat sources and issue positions to gain a more nuanced understanding of the effects of these perceived threats on political positions. Nonetheless, the conclusion of the study has interesting implications for those working in the field of mediation and conflict resolution. The study provides empirical support for the hypothesis that people are committed to certain, often conflicting, values, which results in pluralistic political views and that this plurality is crucial in understanding the impact of threat-perception on conflict-response. The study states that while most research assumes that threats will lead to inter-group hostility, it appears that some types of threats lead to conciliatory positions in the context of protracted conflict. The authors base their conclusions on the assumption that certain types of threats are best addressed using a liberal position, and this insight has significant practical implications: In a world where inter-group conflict is pervasive and on the rise, social interventions can mitigate conflict-supporting beliefs of both conservatives and liberals by reframing social and political events in terms of challenges to liberal values.

Article source: Elad-Strenger, Julia, and Golan Shahar. “Revisiting the Effects of Societal Threat Perceptions on Conflict-related Positions: A Three-wave Study.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 62, No. 8 (2017): 753-783.

Featured photo: cc/(Mattis Kaminer, photo ID: 960625204, from iStock by Getty Images)