Inter-Sect Solidarity in Wartime Lebanon

This cross-sectional study examined which interpretations of shared adversity were associated with solidarity across sectarian boundaries during the 2026 hostilities in Lebanon. In a face-to-face survey of 450 Lebanese adults (August 2026), we assessed common and intergroup threat, three formulations of inclusive victimhood, inter-sect contact, sectarianism, political interpretations, and hosting displaced people. In preregistered adjusted models, common threat was positively associated with inter-sect solidarity, whereas inter-sect and displacement-related threat were negatively associated. Common-humanity victimhood, which recognizes shared humanity despite differences in suffering, showed a substantial positive association with solidarity; beliefs that sects suffered equally showed no association. Global victimhood similarity was positively associated only when examined separately from common-humanity victimhood. Contact frequency and quality were positively associated with solidarity, whereas sectarianism was negatively associated; the hypothesized common-threat × sectarianism interaction was not supported. Lebanon–Israel framing and having hosted displaced people were also positively associated with solidarity in their respective models. In exploratory omnibus models, common-humanity victimhood, contact, and displacement-related threat retained independent associations, but common threat, sectarianism, and war framing did not. These correlational results distinguish recognizing shared vulnerability from perceiving other groups as threats and suggest that solidarity can coexist with recognition of different experiences of suffering.