The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Threat, Dehumanization, and Support for Retaliatory Aggressive Policies in Asymmetric Conflict
Abstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03206553 · Cited by 17,383
Perception and Misperception in International Politics
Jervis, R. (2017) · doi:10.1515/9781400885114 · Cited by 3,199
Dehumanization: An integrative review
Haslam, N. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4 · Cited by 2,919
Moral Exclusion and Injustice: An Introduction
Opotow, S. (1990) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb00268.x · Cited by 1,313
Threat, Anxiety, and Support of Antiterrorism Policies
Huddy, L., Feldman, S., Taber, C., & Lahav, G. (2005) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00144.x · Cited by 948
With Malice toward Some: How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments
Marcus, G. E., Sullivan, J. L., Theiss-Morse, E., & Wood, S. L. (1995) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174046 · Cited by 387
Effects of right-wing authoritarianism and threat from terrorism on restriction of civil liberties
Cohrs, J. C., Kielmann, S., Maes, J., & Moschner, B. (2005) · Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy · doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2005.00071.x · Cited by 173
Cited by
Quest for Significance and Violent Extremism: The Case of Domestic Radicalization
Jasko, K., LaFree, G., & Kruglanski, A. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12376 · Cited by 258
Socio-psychological barriers to peace making: The case of the Israeli Jewish Society
Bar-Tal, D., Halperin, E., & Oren, N. (2010) · Social Issues and Policy Review · doi:10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01018.x · Cited by 105
Harel, T. O., Nir, N., Vandermeulen, D., Maoz, I., & Halperin, E. (2025) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/00220027241247033 · Cited by 13
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Maoz, I., & McCauley, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Conflict Resolution
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-02
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 93-116
- ISSN
- 0022-0027 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8766
- OpenAlex
- W2010433701
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 16.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Threat, Dehumanization, and Support for Retaliatory Aggressive Policies in Asymmetric Conflict. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0022002707308597
- The paper
- Maoz, I., & McCauley, C. (2008). Threat, Dehumanization, and Support for Retaliatory Aggressive Policies in Asymmetric Conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002707308597
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.