Does threat really shift political orientation? A scoping review of competing theories

A growing body of research suggests that exposure to threat may shape political orientation, yet findings remain highly inconsistent. Some studies support the Conservative Shift Hypothesis, according to which threat promotes more conservative attitudes, whereas others point to liberal shifts, ideological entrenchment, or rally-’round-the-flag effects. To clarify the current state of the literature, the present study offers a scoping review examining changes in political orientation following exposure to threat. While a large body of experimental research has examined reactions to threat, only a limited number of studies have adopted longitudinal or pre–post designs in which variables related to political orientation are measured before and after a relevant threat. These designs are crucial as they are capable of testing whether individuals actually change their political orientation over time. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we systematically searched Scopus and Web of Science using predefined search strings. The searches yielded 1,552 records, of which 205 were duplicates. After title, abstract, and full-text screening based on predefined inclusion criteria—namely, the presence of a threat between at least two measurements of variables related to political orientation—only 19 studies were retained. This sharp reduction highlights how rarely political change is examined using designs that can validly assess change over time. Results revealed substantial heterogeneity across both types of threat and observed outcomes. Terrorism-related studies most frequently supported conservative shifts and rally-’round-the-flag effects, suggesting that security-related threats may foster either ideological movement toward the right or increased support for incumbent leadership, depending on contextual and political factors. Studies focusing on the COVID-19 pandemic yielded particularly mixed findings, with evidence of entrenchment, temporary liberal shifts, rally dynamics, and null effects. Systemic threats (e.g., societal instability, war-related consequences, or large-scale mortality) produced similarly inconsistent outcomes, alternating between conservative shifts, liberal shifts, and ideological reinforcement. In contrast, identity-related and physical threats were underrepresented in the literature and showed mostly inconclusive effects, further limiting generalizability. Overall, no single theoretical model consistently accounted for the observed patterns across threat domains. Across studies, methodological heterogeneity emerged as a major source of inconsistency. The operationalization of both threat and political orientation varied widely, ranging from objective real-world events to experimental primes, and from broad self-reported ideological placement to specific policy attitudes or implicit measures. Moreover, the timing between pre- and post-measurements differed substantially, complicating comparisons across studies and limiting conclusions about the durability of observed effects. Taken together, the findings indicate that the relationship between threat and political orientation is complex, context-dependent, and strongly influenced by methodological choices. The current literature appears fragmented and insufficient to support definitive conclusions about whether and when threat leads to enduring ideological change rather than short-lived attitudinal fluctuations. This scoping review highlights the urgent need for more systematic, theoretically grounded, and methodologically standardized longitudinal research. Future studies should directly compare different types of threats using shared measurement frameworks and extended follow-up periods, in order to clarify whether distinct threats produce distinct ideological trajectories and to better understand the psychological mechanisms underlying political change under conditions of threat.