What is it about?
What happens to people in post-conflict societies when the international organizations protecting them suddenly withdraw their support? This research explored that question through three experiments. Participants learned that key international allies were either maintaining or pulling back their military and economic support. Losing either type of support on its own increased anger toward historical enemies, support for more confrontational forms of protest, and feelings that the whole group had been wronged. Losing both at the same time made all of these reactions even stronger. Importantly, it was anger that drove these effects, and a follow-up study two weeks later showed the reactions did not simply fade away. The findings reveal that international backing is not just a practical safety net but a psychological one, and removing it can push communities toward more radical responses even when the historical adversary has done nothing new.
Featured Image
Photo by David Knox on Unsplash
Why is it important?
Decisions about troop withdrawals or stalled economic integration are usually debated in geopolitical terms. This research shows they also carry significant psychological consequences for the populations left behind. When people feel abandoned by powerful allies, suppressed anger resurfaces and more confrontational responses become normalized. Policymakers and international organizations need to recognize that maintaining presence and commitment in fragile settings is not only a security calculation but a critical factor in preventing radicalization and sustaining peace.
Perspectives
This project started from a question that felt both academic and deeply human: what does it mean to depend on others for your safety, and what happens when that dependence is suddenly removed? Post-conflict communities often live with a fragile sense of security, one that relies not just on the absence of violence but on the continued commitment of outside protectors. We wanted to understand the psychological consequences when that commitment appears to waver. What struck me most in the findings was how little it took. A news report suggesting that military or economic backing might be withdrawn was enough to reactivate anger and shift people toward endorsing more confrontational responses, even though the historical adversary had done nothing new. That tells us something important: the presence of international support is not just logistical, it is emotionally regulating. Remove it, and grievances that had been held in check can resurface quickly. For researchers and policymakers alike, the takeaway is that stability in post-conflict settings is more psychologically fragile than it might appear from the outside. Sustaining peace requires sustained commitment, not just to institutions and agreements, but to the people whose sense of security those commitments underwrite.
Dr Islam Borinca
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: When everything is at stake: Understanding support for radical collective actions and collective victimhood through anger in a post-conflict setting, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, July 2025, Elsevier,
DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104752.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
