IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/joupea/v58y2021i3p417-432.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining public support for violence against politicians during conflict: Evidence from a panel study in Israel

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Elad-Strenger

    (196687Department of Political Studies, Bar-Ilan University)

  • Brian J Hall

    (Department of Psychology, 59193University of Macau)

  • Stevan E Hobfoll

    (STAR – Stress, Anxiety and Resilience Consultants)

  • Daphna Canetti

    (School of Political Sciences, University of Haifa)

Abstract

What drives citizens’ support for violence against domestic political actors? Despite its potentially devastating consequences, there is surprisingly little research on the antecedents of this unique form of political violence. Building upon recent insights on the psychological implications of exposure to conflict on support for political violence, we examined the motivations underlying public support for violence against politicians in the context of protracted conflict. Using a two-wave panel design among Jewish-Israelis, we examined the interactive effects of conflict-induced perceived threat, psychological distress, and political orientation on support for violence against politicians. Consistent with previous findings on the psychological implications of conflict, our findings suggest that conflict-induced threat perceptions play an important role in predicting support for violence against politicians. Nevertheless, our findings point to important boundary conditions to these effects: the strength of the relationship between perceived threat and attitudes towards political violence is qualified by the level of chronic conflict-related psychological distress, and the direction of the effects of perceived threat is qualified by individuals’ self-placement on the left-right continuum. More specifically, we found that perceived threat increased rightists’ support and decreases leftists’ support for violence against politicians, only under high, but not low, conflict-related psychological distress. The main conclusion of this study is that support for violence against politicians can be seen as an ideology-driven protective strategy against the negative psychological implications of exposure to violent conflict. By pointing to the importance of understanding the interactive role of psychological and political factors in determining public support for such acts, our findings therefore contribute to the understanding of a relatively understudied phenomenon with potentially catastrophic effects on political stability.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia Elad-Strenger & Brian J Hall & Stevan E Hobfoll & Daphna Canetti, 2021. "Explaining public support for violence against politicians during conflict: Evidence from a panel study in Israel," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(3), pages 417-432, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:joupea:v:58:y:2021:i:3:p:417-432
    DOI: 10.1177/0022343320905355
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022343320905355
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022343320905355?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eran Zaidise & Daphna Canetti‐Nisim & Ami Pedahzur, 2007. "Politics of God or Politics of Man? The Role of Religion and Deprivation in Predicting Support for Political Violence in Israel," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(3), pages 499-521, October.
    2. Shamir, Michal & Arian, Asher, 1994. "Competing Values and Policy Choices: Israeli Public Opinion on Foreign and Security Affairs," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 249-271, April.
    3. Browne, Mark J & Hoyt, Robert E, 2000. "The Demand for Flood Insurance: Empirical Evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 291-306, May.
    4. Eran Zaidise & Daphna Canetti-Nisim & Ami Pedahzur, 2007. "Politics of God or Politics of Man? The Role of Religion and Deprivation in Predicting Support for Political Violence in Israel," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55, pages 499-521, October.
    5. Marc Hetherington & Elizabeth Suhay, 2011. "Authoritarianism, Threat, and Americans’ Support for the War on Terror," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 546-560, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rebekah Herrick & Sue Thomas, 2023. "Research note: Rise in violence against U.S. mayors: 2017 to 2021," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(2), pages 81-91, March.
    2. Alrababah, Ala & Casalis, Marine & Masterson, Daniel & Hangartner, Dominik & Wehrli, & Weinstein, Jeremy, 2023. "Reducing Attrition in Phone-based Panel Surveys: A Web Application to Facilitate Best Practices and Semi-Automate Survey Workflow," OSF Preprints gyz3h, Center for Open Science.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Wolfowicz & Yael Litmanovitz & David Weisburd & Badi Hasisi, 2021. "Cognitive and behavioral radicalization: A systematic review of the putative risk and protective factors," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), September.
    2. Rami Zeedan, 2019. "The Role of Military Service in the Integration/Segregation of Muslims, Christians and Druze within Israel," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, January.
    3. Peter John Robinson & W.J.W. Botzen & F. Zhou, 2019. "An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand," Working Papers 19-19, Utrecht School of Economics.
    4. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    5. Borisova, Ekaterina & Gründler, Klaus & Hackenberger, Armin & Harter, Anina & Potrafke, Niklas & Schoors, Koen, 2023. "Crisis experience and the deep roots of COVID-19 vaccination preferences," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    6. Shi-jie Jiang & Feiyun Xiang & Iris Yang, 2023. "Effect of Prevention Focus on the Relationships Among Driving Accident History, Risk Perception, and Consumers’ Automobile Insurance Coverage Decisions," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    7. Daniel, Vanessa E. & Florax, Raymond J.G.M. & Rietveld, Piet, 2009. "Flooding risk and housing values: An economic assessment of environmental hazard," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 355-365, December.
    8. Alexa Bankert, 2022. "The Personality Origins of Positive and Negative Partisanship," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(4), pages 299-310.
    9. Erwann O. Michel‐Kerjan & Carolyn Kousky, 2010. "Come Rain or Shine: Evidence on Flood Insurance Purchases in Florida," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 77(2), pages 369-397, June.
    10. Marielle Brunette & Stéphane Couture & Serge S. Garcia, 2011. "Determinants of insurance demand against forest fire risk: Evidence from experimental and real world data," Post-Print hal-01191123, HAL.
    11. Mark Browne & Christian Knoller & Andreas Richter, 2015. "Behavioral bias and the demand for bicycle and flood insurance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 141-160, April.
    12. Arash Malekian & Ali Azarnivand, 2016. "Application of Integrated Shannon’s Entropy and VIKOR Techniques in Prioritization of Flood Risk in the Shemshak Watershed, Iran," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(1), pages 409-425, January.
    13. Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2013. "Finance des risques catastrophiques. Le marché américain est en plein bouleversement," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 64(4), pages 615-634.
    14. Carolyn Kousky & Howard Kunreuther, 2018. "Risk Management Roles of the Public and Private Sector," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 21(1), pages 181-204, March.
    15. Michèle Cohen & Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva, 2008. "Dynamic Decision Making when Risk Perception Depends on Past Experience," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 173-192, March.
    16. Surminski, Swenja & Eldridge, Jillian, 2015. "Flood insurance in England: an assessment of the current and newly proposed insurance scheme in the context of rising flood risk," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 66256, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Staněk, Rostislav & Krčál, Ondřej & Čellárová, Katarína, 2022. "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps: Identifying procedural preferences against helping others in the presence of moral hazard," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    18. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Fujin Zhou, 2021. "An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 275-318, December.
    19. Pih-Shuw Chen & Jia-Jan Lee & Pei-Fen & Ou, 2020. "A Study of Taiwanese Banks’ Home Loan Life Insurance Attached to Home Loans," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 10(6), pages 1-11.
    20. Craig E. Landry & Dylan Turner & Daniel Petrolia, 2021. "Flood Insurance Market Penetration and Expectations of Disaster Assistance," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(2), pages 357-386, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:joupea:v:58:y:2021:i:3:p:417-432. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.prio.no/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.