Cited by 13Social and Intergroup PsychologyPolitical Conflict and GovernanceElectoral Systems and Political Participation

A threat to cohesion: Intragroup affective polarization in the context of intractable intergroup conflict

Open access
Harel, Tal Orian, Nir, Nimrod, Vandermeulen, Daan, Maoz, Ifat, Halperin, Eran·2025·Journal of Conflict Resolution

Abstract

Growing affective polarization, or animosity between competing ideological groups, threatens to tear apart democratic societies worldwide. In nations that are facing external conflicts, the threat arising from these conflicts may boost internal cohesion and potentially reduce the internal threat of fragmentation. However, in the current study, we analyze survey datasets from two societies embedded in intractable conflicts, South Korea ( N = 897) and Israel ( N = 504), and demonstrate that gaps in the perception of the external threat between competing ideological groups are related to higher levels of affective polarization within these societies. We also find support for a mechanism that explains this trend: an internal threat from the ideological outgroup. We discuss the implications of our findings for the study of conflicts' impact on intragroup processes, specifically affective polarization, and for the understanding of how such processes might perpetuate the conflict itself.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/00220027241247033

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Disagreements about the likelihood of external threat could become a salient dividing disagreement within a country.

    “Even disagreements about the likelihood of external threat could become a salient dividing disagreement within a country (Harel et al., 2025).”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Harel et al., 2025

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harel, T. O., Nir, N., Vandermeulen, D., Maoz, I., & Halperin, E.
Affiliations
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Halperin, Eran
Venue
Journal of Conflict Resolution
Published
2024-04-16
Volume
69
Issue
2-3
Pages
491-517
ISSN
  • 0022-0027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8766
OpenAlex
W4394890251
Cited by
13
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1
FWCI
9.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Conflict Resolution (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
affective polarization, intergroup conflict, intractable conflict, social cohesion, South Korea, Israel, ideological groups

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