Intergroup commonality, political ideology, and tolerance of enemy collateral casualties in intergroup conflicts
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343318818658 |
| Author | Noa Schori-Eyal,Eran Halperin,Tamar Saguy |
| Published date | 01 May 2019 |
| Date | 01 May 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Regular Articles |
Intergroup commonality, political ideology,
and tolerance of enemy collateral casualties
in intergroup conflicts
Noa Schori-Eyal
Eran Halperin
Tamar Saguy
School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya
Abstract
Despite their pernicious effect on intergroup conflict, collateral casualties are seen as inevitable and justified by many
members of the groups involved, particularly those who endorse a right-wing ideology. Drawing on social psycho-
logical literature, we examined whether a perception of commonality between in-group and out-group can be
beneficial for reducing tolerance to collateral causalities. We hypothesized that viewing the out-group as sharing
commonalities with the in-group can reduce processes of out-group delegitimization, which are common among
right-wingers in intractable conflicts, and may therefore serve to explain reduction in tolerance to collateral casualties.
Three correlational studies were conducted among Jewish-Israelis in the context of the conflict with the Palestinians
to test this. In Study 1, right-wing political ideology was associated with stronger support for enemy collateral
casualties, and the effect was moderated by perceived intergroup commonality. While leftists were overall non-
supportive of collateral casualties, rightists who perceived high intergroup commonality were less tolerant of collateral
casualties than those low on intergroup commonality. In Study 2, conducted during violent escalation, we replicated
these results while controlling for anger, fear, and hatred. In Study 3, we found that the effect was mediated by
delegitimization of the out-group. These results extend the range of beneficial impact of intergroup commonality,
and imply that it may be used as a tool to promote conflict resolution.
Keywords
aggression, commonality, ideology, intergroup conflict
They are not as we are.
Though they are curiously like, even to the bleeding
and the terrible cries among rubble,
they are not as we are.
They are the collateral damage.
(Thomas W Shapcott, 1995)
Although the exact numbers will probably never be
known, US drone attacks in Afghanistan and other areas
have led to multiple civilian deaths. Despite the rising
death toll and the highly disturbing nature of some of the
incidents – for example, the Deh Bala wedding party
airstrike in 2008, in which 47 Afghan wedding guests
were killed in a US military aircraft attack – the majority
of the US public continues to support such military
actions. A recent poll indicates that over 58% of US
respondents approve of the USA conducting missile
strikes from drones to target extremists in such countries
as Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia (Pew Research Center,
2013). More generally, almost half (49%) of US respon-
dents in another survey believed military attacks
Corresponding author:
snoa@idc.ac.il
Journal of Peace Research
2019, Vol. 56(3) 425–439
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022343318818658
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpr
To continue reading
Request your trial