Observer perceptions of the justifiability of the actions of nations in conflict: The relative importance of conveying national vulnerability versus strength

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.Because the underdog in a conflict typically gains the support of observers, nations will often adopt a narrative that persuades both their domestic following and international allies that they are the true victim in the conflict. Three survey studies were conducted to assess the perceptions of citizens of a third-party observer nation (Canada) in relation to two nations in conflict that differ in their historical persecution, namely the U.S. and Israel. Perceptions of the vulnerability of their safety and survival, and their strength to protect themselves against their opponents were hypothesized to mediate differences in the perceived justification for each nation’s conflict actions. Study 1 (N = 91) supported this mediational model, with the U.S. seen as less vulnerable and more powerful than Israel, and perceptions of vulnerability accounting for differences in the justifiability of their respective conflict actions. Study 2 (N = 315) further demonstrated a moderating effect of Canadians’ shared identity with the nations in conflict; only at lower levels of a shared identity was Israel perceived to be more vulnerable and the mediated relation with the perceived justifiability of its conflict actions retained. Study 3 was conducted 10 years later (2018), administering measures to an independent sample of Canadian participants (N = 300). Canadians were found to be significantly less likely to share a common identity with Americans than previously; once again, the mediating role of the perceived vulnerability of the nations in conflict and the justifiability of their actions was conditional on shared identification. The findings contribute to understanding influences on the credibility of victim claims by nations in conflict, as well as implications for how their actions are construed by citizens of a third-party observer nation.Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (435-2018-1220

Observer perceptions of the justifiability of the actions of nations in conflict: The relative importance of conveying national vulnerability versus strength

Because the underdog in a conflict typically gains the support of observers, nations will often adopt a narrative that persuades both their domestic following and international allies that they are the true victim in the conflict. Three survey studies were conducted to assess the perceptions of citizens of a third-party observer nation (Canada) in relation to two nations in conflict that differ in their historical persecution, namely the U.S. and Israel. Perceptions of the vulnerability of their safety and survival, and their strength to protect themselves against their opponents were hypothesized to mediate differences in the perceived justification for each nation's conflict actions. Study 1 (N = 91) supported this mediational model, with the U.S. seen as less vulnerable and more powerful than Israel, and perceptions of vulnerability accounting for differences in the justifiability of their respective conflict actions. Study 2 (N = 315) further demonstrated a moderating effect of Canadians' shared identity with the nations

The Shadows of the Past

We examined associations between two orientations based on historical group trauma, a form of enduring group victimhood (Perpetual Ingroup Victimhood Orientation [PIVO]) and the belief that one’s group might itself become a victimizer (Fear of Victimizing [FOV]), and attitudes, cognitions, and emotions related to intergroup conflicts. PIVO was positively and FOV was negatively related to aggressive attitudes and emotions toward the outgroup (Studies 1a-1c, Israeli–Palestinian conflict), and to the attribution of responsibility for a series of hostilities to the outgroup (Study 3, Israeli–Palestinian conflict). PIVO was negatively and FOV positively related to support for forgiveness and reconciliation (Study 2, Northern Ireland conflict). In Experimental Study 4, FOV predicted greater accuracy in remembering harm, regardless of victims’ group identity, whereas PIVO was associated with reduced accuracy only when victims were Palestinians (outgroup members). Taken together, these findings indicate that both orientations have a significant impact on intergroup conflicts and their resolution

Unite against: A common threat invokes spontaneous decategorization between social categories

A frequent rhetoric in the political arena calls members of larger groups like nations to lay aside all dividing differences and unite in face of a common threat. In the present research we sought to test whether such a unifying effect of external threat already manifests in such basic cognitive processes as automatic categorization even for such strong schisms as the ones between black and white Americans or Israeli Jews and Arabs. In Studies 1 & 2 (N = 183/144, USA), we established the decategorization effect in the context of black and white US Americans. In Study 3, we showed the effect again in a German lab for the gender category (N = 101). In Study 4 (N = 168, Israel), we transferred the effect to the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and teased apart the separate effects of intergroup threat, common goal and common threat, and category membership of participants. In summary, a common enemy leads to the decategorization of social groups already at an early automatic stage

: realism in face of terrorism in an Israeli nationwide sample

In a nationwide study, we explored how Israelis, currently stricken by an intense wave of terrorism, perceive the risk of being the victim of a terrorist attack. We studied both absolute and comparative (i.e., vis-a-vis other people at the area of residence) perceived controllability and vulnerability. The picture that emerges is one of realism. We found no evidence of the comparative optimistic illusions, which characterizes the risk-perception literature. Most participants report some level of behavior change and precautions against the threat of terrorism, but most of them were doubtful about the effectiveness of these precautionary attempts. Perceived absolute vulnerability was the only risk perception variable related to precautionary behaviors. We discuss the disappearance of comparative optimistic biases when the threat is clearly realistic.

Reactions of Arab-Palestinians in Israel Toward an In-group Member: Mixing Hebrew or English With Arabic

Klar Y, Mar'i AA-R, Halabi S, Basheer A, Basheer B. Reactions of Arab-Palestinians in Israel Toward an In-group Member: Mixing Hebrew or English With Arabic. JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY. 2020;39(4):516-533.Code-mixing with a dominant language can appeal to members of linguistic minorities because it signals bilingual proficiency, modernity, and social mobility. However, it can also pose a threat to the minority's group vitality and distinctiveness. In Study 1 (N= 208), Palestinian citizens of Israel (a linguistic and national minority) listened to a recorded message by a fellow group member, either in pure Arabic or in Arabic mixed with Hebrew or English. Code-mixing elicited negative evaluations. In Study 2 (N= 276), Arabic mixed with Hebrew was crossed with messages on the relations with the Jewish-Israeli majority. Speakers who advocated full independence from the majority or an impartial view, but expressed linguistic dependency on Hebrew through code-mixing lost credit. Identification with the national group affected the effects in both studies. The implications of code-mixing for identity-related processes and its potential use as a social barometer for intergroup relations are discussed

Group-centric attitudes mediate the relationship between need for closure and intergroup hostility

A model of the relationship between need for closure (NFC) and intergroup hostility was tested in four studies. According to the model, heightened NFC promotes glorification of the ingroup which fosters support for extreme measures against the group’s perceived enemies. In a parallel process, high level of NFC induces perceptions of ingroup victimhood, which also adds support for aggressive actions toward rival outgroups. In the first two studies, conducted in Palestine’s West Bank (Study 1) and in the United States (Study 2), NFC promoted a greater sense of moral entitlement to engage in violence against the outgroup, and this was mediated by perceived ingroup victimhood. The subsequent two studies tested the full hypothesized parallel mediation model among students in Northern Ireland (Study 3) and Jewish-Israelis (Study 4). Results largely supported the proposed model. Findings are discussed in relation to additional evidence linking NFC to phenomena of intergroup hostility