Wired for conflict? Neurocognitive mechanisms linking threat perception and support for war

Why do some civilians support war despite its moral cost? Although threat perception appears to be a key psychological driver of this support, the underlying neurocognitive mechanisms remain unclear. This narrative review integrates psychological and neuroscientific evidence to delineate plausible neurocognitive pathways through which distinct threat types and temporal profiles may relate to war-supporting attitudes.

A two-phase narrative review was conducted. Phase I systematically screened psychological literature on threat perception and war support across major databases. Phase II targeted neurobiological studies on threat perception using operationalizations consistent with the psychological research identified in the first phase. Eligible publications included empirical studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses involving human participants.

By typology, realistic threats are hypothesized to engage amygdala-periaqueductal gray (PAG)-insula circuits, a pattern computationally consistent with defensive reflexes; symbolic threats involve self-referential and moral appraisal networks that could plausibly facilitate the justification of violence; and existential threats relate to anterior cingulate cortex-insula-bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) dynamics that may reinforce worldview defense and group cohesion. By temporal profile, immediate threats involve rapid subcortical responses theoretically linked to biased punitive reactions, while prolonged threats are hypothesized to be sustained by BNST-insula vigilance and a potential weakening of prefrontal regulation, patterns consistent with hypervigilance and ideological rigidity.

War support is best understood as an emergent outcome of dynamic interactions across salience, valuation, and control networks that reconfigure based on threat type, duration, and context. This synthesis outlines a neurocognitive framework suggesting how the strategic manipulation of threat perception might plausibly be related to conflict mobilization and the entrenchment of group hostility. The framework provides a bridge for future research to explore translational opportunities for prevention and intervention.