This Article Full Text (PDF) Data Set References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Maoz, I. Articles by McCauley, C. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Threat, Dehumanization, and Support for Retaliatory Aggressive Policies in Asymmetric Conflict

Department of Communication Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

Clark McCauley

Department of Psychology Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania

Public opinion can permit or encourage retaliatory aggressive state policies against vulnerable but threatening out-groups. The authors present a model in which public support for such policies is determined by perceived threat from and dehumanization of the target group. This two-factor model predicts Israeli Jews' support for two retaliatory aggressive policies: the more hypothetical notion of Palestinian population transfer and concrete, coercive actions toward Palestinians. The authors find (1) that threat and dehumanization are distinct constructs, each having unique contributions to explaining support for aggressive retaliatory policies, (2) that threat and dehumanization significantly explain support for aggressive retaliatory policies when respondents' hawkishness, socioeconomic status (SES), and education level are taken into account, and (3) that the association of hawkishness and SES with support for aggressive retaliatory policies is largely mediated by threat perception. Results are highly consistent across two studies, suggesting the two-factor model may be useful for understanding support for aggressive action in situations of asymmetric conflict.

Key Words: asymmetric conflict • Israeli—Palestinian conflict • public opinion • perceived threat • dehumanization

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 52, No. 1, 93-116 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0022002707308597


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				I. Maoz and C. Mccauley Threat Perceptions and Feelings as Predictors of Jewish-Israeli Support for Compromise with Palestinians Journal of Peace Research, July 1, 2009; 46(4): 525 - 539. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. H. Gries, Q. Zhang, Y. Masui, and Y. W. Lee Historical beliefs and the perception of threat in Northeast Asia: colonialism, the tributary system, and China-Japan-Korea relations in the twenty-first century International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, May 1, 2009; 9(2): 245 - 265. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]