The Political Consequences of Perceived Threat and Felt Insecurity

Huddy, Leonie; Feldman, Stanley; Weber, Christopher

doi:10.1177/0002716207305951

Cited by 147 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(61 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

102

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, the violence carried by the rival provides clear-cut evidence about its inhumane character and its mal-intentions (5). Second, living in fear and uncertainty can increase group polarization and extremism (6)(7)(8). Third, examining scaled-up interventions in field studies poses methodological constraints on implementing a successful intervention and designing rigorous research to assess the interventions' effectiveness (e.g., refs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Moderating attitudes in times of violence through paradoxical thinking intervention

Hameiri

Porat

Bar‐Tal

et al. 2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the current paper, we report a large-scale randomized field experiment, conducted among Jewish Israelis during widespread violence. The study examines the effectiveness of a "real world," multichanneled paradoxical thinking intervention, with messages disseminated through various means of communication (i.e., online, billboards, flyers). Over the course of 6 wk, we targeted a small city in the center of Israel whose population is largely rightwing and religious. Based on the paradoxical thinking principles, the intervention involved transmission of messages that are extreme but congruent with the shared Israeli ethos of conflict. To examine the intervention's effectiveness, we conducted a large-scale field experiment (prepost design) in which we sampled participants from the city population (n = 215) and compared them to a control condition (from different places of residence) with similar demographic and political characteristics (n = 320). Importantly, participants were not aware that the intervention was related to the questionnaires they answered. Results showed that even in the midst of a cycle of ongoing violence within the context of one of the most intractable conflicts in the world, the intervention led hawkish participants to decrease their adherence to conflict-supporting attitudes across time. Furthermore, compared with the control condition, hawkish participants that were exposed to the paradoxical thinking intervention expressed less support for aggressive policies that the government should consider as a result of the escalation in violence and more support for conciliatory policies to end the violence and promote a long-lasting agreement. Extreme violence in intergroup conflicts has an immense emotional impact and plays a pivotal role in the perpetuation and intractability of conflicts (3, 4). Thus, finding ways to moderate attitudes in violent times is crucial but often seen as an extremely difficult mission for three major reasons. First, the violence carried by the rival provides clear-cut evidence about its inhumane character and its mal-intentions (5). Second, living in fear and uncertainty can increase group polarization and extremism (6-8). Third, examining scaled-up interventions in field studies poses methodological constraints on implementing a successful intervention and designing rigorous research to assess the interventions' effectiveness (e.g., refs. 9-11).The present research provides evidence of how a psychological intervention can moderate negative attitudes even in the context of widespread violence. It does so by creating a multichanneled campaign based on the theoretical framework of paradoxical thinking (12, 13). Although attempts of promoting peaceful and harmonious intergroup relations among adversary groups have received increasing scholarly awareness, only limited research examined largescale interventions in contexts of widespread violence, when they are needed the most (e.g., refs. 14−15). Paradoxical ThinkingParadoxical thinking is "the attempt to change attitudes u...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Moderating attitudes in times of violence through paradoxical thinking intervention

Hameiri

Porat

Bar‐Tal

et al. 2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consistent with this idea, Huddy et al (2007) found that felt security was influenced by factors other than perceived threat, and feeling insecure interacted with perceived threat to predict aggressive post-9/11 foreign policies. Because the security condition in this experiment was added for methodological rather than theoretical reasons, I did not have specific hypotheses about the impact of security cues.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…For instance, national threats predict public support for domestic security policies and aggressive foreign policy, including preemptive wars (e.g., Carnagey & Anderson, 2007;Herrmann, Tetlock, & Visser, 1999;Huddy, Feldman, & Weber, 2007). In the aftermath of 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government devised a color-coded warning system to alert American people about the level of threat facing their country.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do terrorist threat alerts increase perception of threat and legitimization of in‐group's wars? The moderating role of perceived in‐group homogeneity

Bilali

2014

J Applied Social Pyschol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the impact of external cues of (experimentally induced) terrorist threat or security on perceived threat and legitimization of the U.S.'s war in Iraq as a function of perceived in‐group homogeneity and in‐group identification. In‐group identification did not moderate the effects of external cues of threat or security. External cues of threat resulted in higher legitimization of war via heightened perceived threat, but only among participants who rated low or moderate in perceived in‐group homogeneity. By contrast, cues affirming the security of the in‐group resulted in lower legitimization of war among group members who viewed their in‐group to be homogeneous. These results draw attention to in‐group homogeneity's role in increasing perceived group's agency to cope with threats.

show abstract

“…Surprisingly little work has been done on grievance as 25 I have relied a great deal on the extensive work of Leonie Huddy et al (2007) in this field, which directly explores threat and its connection to emotion. Surprisingly little work has been done on grievance as 25 I have relied a great deal on the extensive work of Leonie Huddy et al (2007) in this field, which directly explores threat and its connection to emotion.…”

Section: Transgression/grievancementioning

confidence: 99%

The concept of normative threat

Creppell

2011

Int. Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why are some acts, events, or people elevated to a status of a threat, when no hostile action or direct physical damage appears imminent? Why are some relationships of threat infused with intense emotionality and ethical language? In this paper, I argue that puzzles such as these can be understood if we develop a concept of normative threat. The role of ethical values and beliefs has not been sufficiently integrated with the threat literature. Many writers assume that ethical language tied to constructions of threat serves merely to disguise and palliate the underlying hard reality of struggles for power. This is too simplistic. I offer an approach that takes seriously the normativity of the threat experience for people as members of political bodies. I argue that perceptions of threat emerge and carry a heightened emotional and moral energy when basic features of a political body's normative order appear to be at stake and people believe action affirming their strength as a collective body is required. Normative order comprises a set of principles citizens believe to be necessary for the functioning, justifiability, and indeed 'reality' of their political body. A normative threat is perceived as a promise of harm to the political body through defiance of basic principles of order and right that constitute one's group. The paper describes three main types of normative threat: transgression/grievance, subversion/ insecurity, abomination/indignant aversion.

show abstract

The Political Consequences of Perceived Threat and Felt Insecurity

Cited by 147 publications

References 52 publications

Moderating attitudes in times of violence through paradoxical thinking intervention

Moderating attitudes in times of violence through paradoxical thinking intervention

Do terrorist threat alerts increase perception of threat and legitimization of in‐group's wars? The moderating role of perceived in‐group homogeneity

The concept of normative threat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About