Marching to the left: Building an Integrated Process Model of ideological threat response
Authors:   , Janse van Rensburg Gerard 
Published: January 2025

<p dir="ltr"><b>Intergroup conflict is one of the most powerful forces that has shaped, and continues to shape, the nature and development societies and cultures. A variety of theories have emerged that seek to uncover the psychological, societal, and/or contextual factors that drive individuals, or groups of people, into conflict with one another. Some theories have focused on group-level processes, such as group formation and normative belief systems, while others focus on individual level processes such as the biopsychological processes in threat response. My thesis is an attempt at synthesising some of these theories to develop a more holistic framework for understanding of the drivers of intergroup conflict.</b></p><p dir="ltr">The first chapter of my thesis provides an overview of core concepts that underpin intergroup conflict such as the evolution and formation of social groups, the nature of intergroup threats and their perception, and an individual level model on the ideologies that drive prejudice and conflict, i.e. the Dual Process Model (DPM) of prejudice. I then provide an overview of a biopsychological model on threat response and our fundamental motivations to avoid the aversive, and approach the appetitive, i.e. the General Process Model (GPM) of approach and avoidance motivation.</p><p dir="ltr">Chapter 2 presents my first study, which merges the DPM and GPM to propose and test an Integrated Process Model (IPM) of ideological threat response. Results supported the integration of the DPM and the GPM with meaningful relationships found between approach-avoidance motivations, threat perceptions, world beliefs, and ideology. Different ‘clusters’ of perceptions, motivations, and beliefs were also identified. Belief in a dangerous world and support for right-wing authoritarianism was linked to fear and perceptions of symbolic threats. Endorsement of social dominance, on the other hand, was associated with a belief in and perceptions of a competitive world, combined with an aggressive defensive fight mentality. This model, however, inherited biases from the precursor theories, such as the limited focus on right-wing and conservative ideologies.</p><p dir="ltr">In Chapter 3, I discuss these limitations further, and propose additional relevant theories and concepts (e.g., System justification and Left-Wing Authoritarianism) to improve the IPM’s ability to capture a broader range of ideological threat responses. Study 2 expanded the IPM through network analysis and SEM approaches. The initial fear and aggressive fight clusters were replicated, though the aggressive fight cluster was also linked with an impulsive and generalised need for chaos. I also identified two additional clusters of threat perceptions, beliefs, and ideology. These were situated around belief in a fair or just society and perceptions of marginalisation. Those who did not feel marginalised, and felt society to be fair, also supported submission to existing authority. Those who did feel marginalised believed society to be unfair, and supported radically restructuring social hierarchies. Consequently, four subcomponents of the IPM were identified, i.e. Fearful Repression, Machiavellian Dominance, System Conservation, and System Attenuation. </p><p dir="ltr">To further validate the IPM, Chapter 4 presents a third study which confirmed the validity of the expanded model in a new sample, as well as a fourth and final study that explored the short-term temporal relationships captured in the IPM. Both studies supported the four subcomponents but also highlighted issues, such as unaccounted for factors, that affect estimated relationships in models like the IPM and those it was derived from.</p><p dir="ltr">I conclude my thesis with a final chapter that reflects on the overall findings and themes that emerged from the studies in lieu of the broader body of research on intergroup conflict and threat response. My doctoral journey led to an integrated model of ideological threat response that was not only generally statistically well-supported, but also made theoretical and narrative sense. The IPM of ideological threat response provides a unified framework within which to describe and understand how our evolved psychological threat responses operate and interact in relation to ideology and intergroup conflict. Approach-avoidance motivations describe the nature and functioning of our cognitive alarm systems, while ideologies and their related world beliefs describe the cognitive-affective responses resulting from these alarm systems specifically attuned to intergroup threats. The IPM blends these theories together to differentiate types of responses in terms of the evolutionary needs for ingroup cohesion and cooperation or outgroup dominance required for group survival. Specifically, fearful repression of dissidents results from perceptions of social chaos; happiness with the status quo coincides with obedience to authority; and feeling marginalised corresponds with counterdominance. It also identifies an individualistic threat response more reflective of clinical psychological phenomena. Ultimately, this thesis found that approach-avoidance motivations, perceptions of intergroup threats or marginalisation, world beliefs, system justification, social dominance orientation, right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism do all work together in understanding intergroup conflict.</p>