https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369841671 or https://doi.org/10.1556/2055.2023.00029
This study is based on a large data set from the World Values Survey covering 79 countries. It finds that fear of violent conflict is associated with increased religiosity, regard for family and tradition, respect for authorities, support for a strong leader, nationalism, strict sexual morals, disapproval of domestic violence, less trust in other people, feeling of closeness to home town and country, willingness to fight for one's country, confidence in armed forces and government, prioritization of security over freedom, less support for democracy, and acceptance of economic inequality.
The effects of individual danger go in the opposite direction for many of the outcome variables: Individual danger is associated with less religiosity (but not less religious behavior), less regard for family, tradition, and authorities, less nationalism, more permissive morals, less disciplining of children, less allegiance to home town or country, less support for war, less confidence in government, less satisfaction with the political system, less happiness, more support for democracy, and more support for economic equality. Individual danger and collective danger go in the same direction with respect to religious behavior, support for a strong leader, distrust, and perceived corruption.
This study was prompted by the prediction of regality theory that individual danger and collective danger have different effects. This prediction is strongly confirmed. In fact, I was quite surprised that the correlations of individual danger with many of the outcome variables are reversed when the statistic is controlled for the effect of collective danger. This means that many other studies may be misleading if the effects of individual danger and collective danger are confounded.
The article discusses how these findings fit with a number of other psychological and cultural theories:
- Theory of right wing authoritarianism (RWA): This theory posits that RWA is caused by the view of the world as a dangerous place. The current findings are in agreement with this if we equate dangerous world with collective danger. RWA theory makes no clear distinction between individual and collective danger. The validity of RWA theory is limited to a particular historical and cultural setting.
- Terror management theory: This theory predicts that people become more authoritarian when reminded about their own mortality. This theory is contradicted by the current findings because it is related to individual danger rather than collective danger.
- Realistic group conflict theory: This theory has an explicit focus on resource conflicts between groups. It is supported by the current findings.
- Modernization theory: This theory predicts that increasing existential security is driving a cultural change from survival values to self-expression values. This theory makes no clear distinction between individual and collective security, but the theory is in agreement with the current findings if we narrow down the focus to collective security.
- Theory of tight and loose cultures: This theory predicts that cultural tightness is caused by many different dangers, including man-made as well as natural dangers, infectious diseases, and natural disasters. The current findings suggest that the range of dangers that have these effects is more narrow.
- Pathogen stress theory: The effects of infectious diseases are weak in the present study and not as predicted by pathogen stress theory (also called parasite stress theory).
- Democratic peace theory and territorial peace theory: The democratic peace theory says that democracy causes peace, while the territorial peace theory makes the opposite claim that peace causes democracy. The current findings confirm the connection between peace and democracy, but the direction of causality cannot be determined from the data used here. The article cites historical studies showing that peace comes before democracy. Democracy may improve peaceful relations between countries that are already at peace, and between countries that have no shared border, but peace is a necessary precondition for democracy. Regality theory adds a plausible theoretical explanation why territorial conflict is destructive for democracy.