Explaining public support for violence against politicians during conflict: Evidence from a panel study in Israel
| Author | Julia Elad-Strenger,Daphna Canetti,Stevan E Hobfoll,Brian J Hall |
| Date | 01 May 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343320905355 |
| Published date | 01 May 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Explaining public support for violence
against politicians during conflict:
Evidence from a panel study in Israel
Julia Elad-Strenger
Department of Political Studies, Bar-Ilan
University
Brian J Hall
Department of Psychology, University 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 agains t 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.
Keywords
intergroup conflict, perceived threat, political ideology, political violence, psychological distress
Throughout history, the deliberate use or threat of vio-
lence against politicians by citizens of the nations they
represent has been a persistent feature of the political
landscape, often bearing substantial and even long-
lasting effects on political and societal realities. Numer-
ous historian accounts argue that the assassination of
Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in 1914 eventually
lead to the eruption of World War I (Keegan, 2014).
Similar associations were made between the assassination
of John F Kennedy and the subsequent escalation of the
Vietnam War (Jones, 2003), and between the assassina-
tion of Israeli Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin in 1995 and
the consequent collapse of the peace process between
Israel and the Palestinians (Rapoport & Weinberg,
Corresponding author:
eladstj@biu.ac.il
Journal of Peace Research
2021, Vol. 58(3) 417–432
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022343320905355
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpr
2013). Although the direct consequences of such assaults
against political figures on specific historical turning
points are largely hypothetical, their effects on the soci-
eties involved, particularly their morale and sense of
political stability, are undeniable (Iqbal & Zorn, 2008).
To this day, verbal threats and physical assaults
against politicians are considered legitimate pathways
of political expression and goal-attainment for some
citizens, even in highly stable Western democracies
(Kalmoe, 2010). Despite its potentially devastating
effects, this phenomenon has received relatively little
scientific attention, particularly compared to other forms
of political violence such as direct and indirect aggression
towards out-groups (see Ben Shitrit, Elad-Strenger &
Hirsch-Hoefler, 2017) and terrorism against ordinary
civilians. Although considered a form of political vio-
lence, citizens’ aggression towards politicians has several
unique features. First, it targets individuals rather than
groups. Second, it is carried out against domestic targets
rather than national out-group members. Finally, it tar-
gets official representatives of the national in-group
rather than ordinary civilians. This form of political vio-
lence can therefore be considered a subtype of domestic
terrorism (Berkebile, 2017; Griset & Mahan, 2003)
which, unlike other forms of political violence and vio-
lent protest, specifically targets individuals who hold
official political positions (even if the perpetrator’s objec-
tive is to intimidate a large audience beyond that of the
immediate victim).
Rather than focusing on the factors that mobilize
citizens to engage in these forms of domestic terrorism
as a means to achieve political goals, this study focuses on
the factors underlying justification and legitimization for
such acts in the context of ongoing conflict. Clearly, the
magnitude of support for violence against formal repre-
sentatives of one’s nation may not match the magnitude
of support for violence against national out-groups. Nev-
ertheless, public legitimization of such acts may have
dramatic effects on society, as support for violence
against public figures reflects delegitimization and mis-
trust of the nation’s institutions (Pedahzur, Hasisi &
Brichta, 2000), and lack of faith in the rules of democ-
racy (Yuchtman-Yaar & Hermann, 1998). Furthermore,
even when most citizens refrain from violence, citizens
with less restraint may be encouraged to act in an atmo-
sphere that accepts such violence (Kalmoe, 2014). The
justification of such acts may thus in itself threaten polit-
ical stability. The present research integrates contextual,
psychological, and political variables to examine the
motivations underlying citizens’ support for violence
against politicians as a specific form of political violence
during ongoing violent conflict.
Past political-psychological research has identified
threat perceptions as one of the strongest predictors
of public support for political violence, particularly
against national out-groups and ethnic minorities, in
the context of ongoing conflict (e.g. Canetti et al.,
2015, 2018; Canetti-Nisim et al., 2009; Huddy, Feld-
man & Weber, 2007). Although much is known about
the effects of threat perception on support for violence
against national outsiders, much less is known about
the conditions in which such threat perceptions trigger
support for violence against formal representatives of
the national in-group.
We identify two factors which may play a key role in
determining the extent to which citizens support (or
reject) violence against politicians to defend the social
order against threat. The first is citizens’ core values,
motivations, and orientations, as they are reflected in
their self-identification as leftists or rightists. We build
on previous research on the association between political
orientation and responses to perceived threat on the one
hand (e.g. Feldman & Stenner, 1997; Greenberg, Solo-
mon & Pyszczynski, 1997), and between political orien-
tation and relation to in-group authorities on the other
(Kugler, Jost & Noorbaloochi, 2014), to examine the
effects of perceived threat on support for this unique
form of political violence.
Second, we hypothesize that the extent to which per-
ceived threat affects citizens’ support for such an extreme
form of political violence is influenced by the more
‘chronic’ psychological implications of conflict exposure.
Indeed, research suggests that chronic psychological dis-
tress resulting from exposure to prolonged conflict facil-
itates and exacerbates the experience of acute threat
perceptions and the extent to which they trigger aggres-
sive responses (e.g. Canetti et al., 2015; Canetti-Nissim
et al., 2009). Based on this literature, this study examines
whether (and how) the acute and chronic psychological
implications of exposure to prolonged conflict interact
with citizens’ ideological self-identification to predict
support for violence against politicians, as a unique form
of political violence.
Political orientation and the nature
of responses to threat perceptions
Research on threat perceptions in the context of pro-
longed conflict suggests that supporting violence against
the source of threat is seen by many citizens as the most
effective way to minimize current and potential risks and
418 journal of PEACE RESEARCH 58(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial