Observer perceptions of the justifiability of the actions of nations in conflict: The relative importance of conveying national vulnerability versus strength.

Kimberly Matheson,Yechiel Klar,Nyla Branscombe,Hymie Anisman

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0220303

Kimberly Matheson, Yechiel Klar + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220303

Copy DOI

Abstract

Because the underdog in a conflict typically gains the support of observers, nations will often adopt a narrative that persuades both their domestic following and international allies that they are the true victim in the conflict. Three survey studies were conducted to assess the perceptions of citizens of a third-party observer nation (Canada) in relation to two nations in conflict that differ in their historical persecution, namely the U.S. and Israel. Perceptions of the vulnerability of their safety and survival, and their strength to protect themselves against their opponents were hypothesized to mediate differences in the perceived justification for each nation’s conflict actions. Study 1 (N = 91) supported this mediational model, with the U.S. seen as less vulnerable and more powerful than Israel, and perceptions of vulnerability accounting for differences in the justifiability of their respective conflict actions. Study 2 (N = 315) further demonstrated a moderating effect of Canadians’ shared identity with the nations in conflict; only at lower levels of a shared identity was Israel perceived to be more vulnerable and the mediated relation with the perceived justifiability of its conflict actions retained. Study 3 was conducted 10 years later (2018), administering measures to an independent sample of Canadian participants (N = 300). Canadians were found to be significantly less likely to share a common identity with Americans than previously; once again, the mediating role of the perceived vulnerability of the nations in conflict and the justifiability of their actions was conditional on shared identification. The findings contribute to understanding influences on the credibility of victim claims by nations in conflict, as well as implications for how their actions are construed by citizens of a third-party observer nation.

Highlights

In Western cultures, there is a predilection to support the underdog in conflict situations [1,2,3]
In Study 1, it was hypothesized that compared to Israel, the U.S would be perceived as lower in the vulnerability of its safety and survival, and higher in its strength to confront its adversaries successfully, and these perceptions would mediate differences in the perceived justifiability of conflict actions
Students who self-reported being Jewish, Muslim or of Middle Eastern or American origins were not included in the analyses, as they may be less likely to perceive themselves as observers of the conflicts

Summary

Introduction

In Western cultures, there is a predilection to support the underdog in conflict situations [1,2,3]. The credibility of a nation claiming victim status varies with the historical persecution of its peoples, but as well as a function of perceived size relative to its opponent, the resources at its disposal, the aggressiveness of the actions taken, and whether the conflict is viewed as deserved or brought upon itself [3,26] These elements need to be balanced so that the nation in conflict is not itself perceived as the top dog, but rather as the victim of an enemy that is evil and of sufficient strength that the nation’s survival is at risk [1,27,28]. In Study 1, it was hypothesized that compared to Israel, the U.S would be perceived as lower in the vulnerability of its safety and survival, and higher in its strength to confront its adversaries successfully, and these perceptions would mediate differences in the perceived justifiability of conflict actions

Materials and methods

Results and discussion

Method and materials