Heterogeneous societies often experience tensions and struggles over political power and resources, which can lead to negative attitudes, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination (Bahns, 2017; Esses, 2021; Quillian et al., 2019; Wirtz et al., 2016). Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) offers a comprehensive framework for understanding the roots of prejudice and intergroup conflict (Stephan et al., 1998, 2000). ITT is grounded in the idea that intergroup relations are influenced by the perceived threats that groups pose to each other.

Stephan et al. (1998) delineates two primary types of threats: Realistic threats and symbolic threats. Perceived realistic threat refers to the apprehension individuals feel regarding the tangible, material threats that out-groups may pose to their own group’s well-being, resources, or security. This includes fears related to competition for jobs, social services, or even physical safety (Hellmann et al., 2022; Stephan et al., 2000). In contrast, perceived symbolic threat pertains to the fear that out-group members may challenge the in-group’s values, norms, and identity. This type of threat often involves concerns about cultural dilution or the erosion of social cohesion (Davidov et al., 2020; Stephan et al., 1999; Wirtz et al., 2016).

Symbolic and realistic threats are crucial concepts in understanding intergroup relations and prejudice formation, as they reveal the underlying mechanisms that drive negative attitudes toward outgroups by highlighting how perceived threats to cultural values and tangible resources shape intergroup dynamics (Martínez et al., 2022; Nir and Sophie, 2018; Riek et al., 2006). These threats may elicit different outcomes due to their distinct nature and impact on individuals and groups. Research has shown that symbolic threats are more strongly associated with hate and tend to persist over time, forming the “solid core of prejudice,” whereas realistic threats are more likely to evoke anger and may be more transient (Stephan et al., 1998). Additionally, the salience of each type of threat can vary depending on the context and the specific outgroup involved. For example, economically powerful outgroups might elicit realistic threats, while socially marginalized groups may engender symbolic threats (Velasco González et al., 2008).

ITT provides a framework for understanding how perceived threats from ethnic out-groups can lead to prejudice and negative attitudes (Bahns, 2017; Chiricos et al., 2020; Nir and Sophie, 2018; Wirtz et al., 2016). In the context of ethnicity, ITT posits that members of a dominant ethnic group may experience symbolic and/or realistic threats, which can arise from cultural differences, competition for resources, or historical conflicts between ethnic groups (Halperin, 2008; Hirschberger et al., 2016). As a result, dominant ethnic groups may perceive immigrant groups as threatening their economic well-being or cultural identity, leading to negative attitudes and resistance to integration efforts (Chiricos et al., 2020; Davidov et al., 2020; Nir and Sophie, 2018). For instance, research has explored how symbolic and realistic threats manifest in Jewish perceptions of Arabs as the “other,” with Jewish as the ingroup experiencing various anxieties toward Arabs as the outgroup (Hirschberger et al., 2016; Rozmann and Yehuda, 2023a).

Other studies have consistently demonstrated a relationship between perceived realistic threats and negative attitudes (Appel et al., 2015; Canetti-Nisim et al., 2008; Martínez et al., 2022; Nir and Sophie, 2018). Studies have shown that individuals who perceive economic competition from immigrants tend to express more anti-immigrant sentiments (Appel et al., 2015; Croucher, 2013; Curşeu et al., 2007). These perceptions are often exacerbated during economic downturns, where the competition for resources becomes more pronounced. Similarly, perceived symbolic threats have been linked to increased prejudice, as individuals who felt their cultural identity was threatened by immigration were more likely to endorse negative stereotypes about immigrants (Davidov et al., 2020; Rios et al., 2018). A meta-analysis of 70 studies revealed that perceptions of refugees as both symbolic and realistic threats were the strongest correlates of negative attitudes (Cowling et al., 2019). Additionally, opposition to immigration in European countries was found to be associated with symbolic threat, specifically the fear of losing cultural and national identity (Croucher, 2013; Wirtz et al., 2016).

Overall, the level of symbolic threat (Mean = 5.59, SD = 1.48, Range = 1–7) and the level of realistic threat (Mean = 3.46, SD = 1.18, Range = 1–5) were relatively high. T-test results indicated ethnic differences in perceived realistic threat, as Israeli-Arab were more likely to report high levels of realistic threat (M = 3.58, SD = 1.22) than Israeli-Jewish (M = 3.34, SD = 1.13), [t (657) = 2.67, p = 0.004]. No differences were found between Israeli-Jewish and Israeli-Arab in perceived symbolic threat (t < 1, p > 0.05). Israeli-Jewish were more likely to legitimize intergroup violence (M = 6.66, SD = 2.40) than do Israeli-Arabs (M = 6.15, SD = 2.34), [t (657) = 2.75, p = 0.003]. Several t-tests on religiosity, gender, and education were also conducted (see Supplementary Table S1). Also, Intergroup violence justification was positively correlated with both realistic and symbolic threats. As expected, the symbolic threat was positively related to realistic threat (see Supplementary Table S2).

In this study, I examined how perceived symbolic and realistic threats act as mediators in the relationship between ethnicity and intergroup violence justification. The overall PROCESS model, as can be seen in Figure 1, was statistically significant, F (3,655) = 10.41, p < 0.001. The total effect of ethnicity on violence was significant (b = 0.57, SE = 0.18, p = 0.006, 95% CI [0.15, 0.87]), indicating that ethnicity was associated with higher levels of intergroup violence justification. The direct effect remained significant when controlling for the mediators- perceived realistic and symbolic threat (b = 0.57, SE = 0.18, p = 0.002, 95% CI [0.21, 0.93]).The analysis of the first mediator (symbolic threat) revealed that ethnicity did not significantly predict symbolic threat (b = 0.05, SE = 0.09, p = 0.592), and symbolic threat showed a marginally significant relationship with violence (b = 0.16, SE = 0.08, p = 0.065). The indirect effect through symbolic threat was not significant (b = 0.008, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.04]). For the second mediator (realistic threat), ethnicity significantly predicted realistic threat (b = −0.25, SE = 0.09, p = 0.008), and realistic threat significantly predicted violence (b = 0.29, SE = 0.08, p < 0.001). The indirect effect through realistic threat was significant (b = −0.07, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.15, −0.01]). These results suggest that while both direct and indirect effects are present, realistic threat serves as a significant mediator in the relationship between ethnicity and intergroup violence justification, while symbolic threat does not demonstrate significant mediation effects.

This preliminary explorative study builds on previous research regarding the relationship between threat perception and the justification of intergroup violence in Israel. Israel serves as a significant context for examining this issue due to the ongoing conflict between Jews and Arabs, which has fostered intolerance, prejudice, and hostility toward outgroup members (Ayer et al., 2017; Bar-Tal and Hammack, 2012; Halperin and Bar-Tal, 2011).

This study advances our understanding of the relationship between ethnicity and intergroup violence justification by testing a theoretical model in which perceived symbolic and realistic threat acts as mediators. The results revealed that (a) ethnicity significantly predicted intergroup violence justification, as Israeli-Jewish were more likely to legitimize intergroup violence then Israeli-Arab participants; (b) perceived realistic threat mediated the relationship between ethnicity and intergroup violence justification.

The results show that Israeli-Jewish tend to justify intergroup violence, then did Israeli-Arab participants. Previous research has shown a link between threat perception and justification of intergroup violence in Israel (see Rozmann and Yehuda, 2023a). Presumably, Israeli Jews may experience higher levels of perceived threat due to historical trauma, ongoing conflict, and security concerns, which could contribute to a greater willingness to justify violence as a means of self-protection (Ayer et al., 2017; Halperin and Bar-Tal, 2011; Halperin and Gross, 2011).

The second hypothesis regarding the mediating role of perceived threat on the link between ethnicity and intergroup violence justification was partially confirmed. While previous studies have shown that symbolic threat is more significant than realistic threat in predicting negative attitudes toward outgroup members (see Riek et al., 2006), the results suggest that only perceived realistic threat predicts intergroup violence justification. Realistic threats typically stem from the perception of competition over scarce resources, such as jobs, land, and political or economic power, as well as from threats to physical safety and the overall well-being of the ingroup (Rios et al., 2018; Stephan et al., 1998). In the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict, realistic threats likely include concerns about safety and security, which are tangible and immediate (see Halabi et al., 2021). This aligns with the finding that realistic threat predicts violence justification, as it may be seen as a direct response to perceived physical dangers (Noor et al., 2012). However, the absence of the relationship of symbolic threat with intergroup violence justification in the Israeli context may indicate that immediate security concerns overshadow cultural or ideological differences in driving violence justification. As such, in prolonged, violent conflicts like the Israeli-Arab situation, realistic threats may become more salient and influential in shaping attitudes toward intergroup violence.

In this point, it is essential to note that this study took place during the “Iron Swords” War between Israel and Hamas, which was launched in response to the country’s worst terror incident on October 7th, 2023. The brutal terrorist attack unfolded under horrific circumstances, including shootings, arson, the pursuit of those attempting to flee, and acts of severe sexual violence. As a result, many Israelis grapple with a complex mix of post-traumatic stress and profound grief (Feingold et al., 2024; Hasson-Ohayon and Horesh, 2024; Levi-Belz et al., 2024), which may be related with justifying aggressive responses, as violence justification.

This preliminary explorative study has several limitations. First, a non-probabilistic sampling method within the Israeli population was used. This approach limits the study’s external validity, as the sample was neither random nor representing of Israeli society. Future research should include a random and representative sample. Future research should also consider other factors that may influence intergroup attitudes, such as social identification, fear of terrorism, and preferences for social control. In addition, data collection was conducted online. Online surveys research has limitations including potential sampling bias and reduced representativeness due to unequal internet access. They also face challenges with data reliability, as it’s difficult to verify respondent identities and prevent multiple submissions, potentially compromising the validity of research findings. Relationships between ethnic groups (majority and minority) can vary significantly across different cultural contexts. Therefore, this study should be replicated in other sociopolitical settings.

Importantly, it is essential to note that this study was conducted during the “Iron Swords” war and the brutal attack on Israel on October 7^th 2023, which may explain way participants were particularly concerned about the realistic threat at the time the study was conducted.

This preliminary explorative study enhances both theoretical and practical understanding of ITT by examining the real-world consequences of perceived threats. Social psychological literature emphasizes the role of symbolic threats over realistic threats in shaping attitudes toward outgroup members. This study contributes to the empirical body of research by demonstrating that realistic threats, compared to symbolic threats, correlate with the justification of intergroup violence among Jews in Israel. This finding is especially relevant today, given the stressful environment in Israel during the ongoing ‘Iron Swords’ War, which influence Israeli’s public health (see Dahan et al., 2024).

The finding that perceived realistic threat mediates the relationship between ethnicity and the justification of intergroup violence in Israel carries significant implications for both policy and community relations. This insight suggests that addressing the underlying perceptions of threat—particularly those grounded in economic competition, security concerns, and resource scarcity—can be pivotal in mitigating intergroup tensions. Policymakers may need to develop targeted interventions that foster understanding and collaboration between different ethnic groups, thereby reducing the perception of threat and, consequently, the justification of violence. Additionally, community programs that promote dialogue and integration can help shift focus away from perceived threats, fostering a more cohesive society. Ultimately, recognizing the role of perceived realistic threats can guide efforts to create a more peaceful coexistence among diverse ethnic communities in Israel, and across the globe.