Friend-enemy divided thinking ignites flames of conflict

Fukuoka, Japan―From heated election campaigns to regional wars, 2024 has witnessed many dramatic political conflicts across the globe. Understanding the underlying causes of these conflicts is crucial for finding pathways to peace.

Researchers from Kyushu University, Fukuoka University, and Fukuoka Jo Gakuin University conducted an interdisciplinary study combining insights from political science and psychology. Their research aimed to uncover the psychological mechanisms that contribute to political conflicts. They focused on how “friend-enemy divided thinking” influences political attitudes regarding international relations and conspiracy beliefs.

As humans, we have grown accustomed to categorizing people into “us” and “them” based on characteristics like nationality, gender, or beliefs. When such binary categorizations are coupled with “friend” versus “enemy” labels, it deepens opposition, which can create the smoke of intergroup conflict—even when there's no real fire.

Analyzing 735 survey responses from Japan, the researchers found that individuals with a strong “friend versus enemy” mindset are more likely to perceive threats in matters of national security and immigration, supporting negative policies toward international relations. These people also hold stronger conspiracy beliefs, particularly those suggesting other groups are secretly plotting harmful actions. The study was published in SAGE Open on May 28, 2024.

“Those who strongly differentiate between friends and enemies hold biases that outsiders are unfriendly, untrustworthy, and impossible to communicate with,” says Toru Oga, Associate Professor at Kyushu University's Faculty of Law and co-author of the study. “This mindset fosters defensive and hostile political attitudes toward international issues, making individuals more likely to perceive military threats and feel anxious about increasing numbers of foreign residents.”

The research also revealed a strong connection between this friend-enemy thinking and conspiracy beliefs. These individuals are more likely to see significant social and political events as deliberate plots by foreign nations or interest groups. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, they tended to believe that governments were concealing true infection numbers, media outlets were profiting from public fear, and another country engineered the virus as a bioweapon.

“Among all the factors we studied—including gender, education level, and ideology like conservative or liberal—friend-enemy divided thinking emerged as the strongest driver of conspiracy beliefs,” notes Oga. “When people view the world through this lens, they often interpret opposing viewpoints not as simple disagreements, but as deliberate attempts to deceive or harm them. This makes them particularly vulnerable to conspiracy theories.”

Such cognitive biases play a powerful role in shaping social polarization by fueling hostility and exclusionary attitudes. The research team hopes their findings can help predict public responses to policies and guide strategies for bridging societal divides.

Looking ahead, the team plans to investigate friend-enemy thinking patterns across different cultures and countries. By better understanding these cultural variations, they aim to encourage dialogue that fits different cultural contexts, ultimately promoting better global cooperation and understanding.

“At a time when political polarization and flaming on social media are intensifying, dialogue remains our essential tool for conflict resolution,” Oga emphasizes. “While differences in opinions and preferences are natural, understanding how to engage in meaningful discussion can prevent conflicts from escalating. Instead of pursuing a conflict-free world, we're working to develop better ways to handle disagreements when they emerge.”

### 

For more information about this research, see “Friend–Enemy Divided Thinking from the Perspective of Intergroup Conflict: Relationship with International Attitudes and Conspiracy Beliefs,” Nawata Kengo, Makoto Fujimura, and Toru Oga, SAGE Open, https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241249166

Research-related inquiries

Toru Oga, Associate Professor
Faculty of Law
Contact information can also be found in the full release.