Decision Framing and Support for Concessions in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3918563 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ifat Maoz (0000-0002-8524-1297, Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Ilan Yaniv (0000-0003-4960-4975, Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Naama Ivri (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) |
| Year | 2007 |
| Volume | 44 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 81-91 |
| Publication date | 2007-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Peace Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0022-3433 • E-ISSN: 1460-3578 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343307071496 |
| OpenAlex | W1484117193 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 26 |
The purpose of the study is to explore, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the influence of framing a decision task as inclusion or exclusion on Israeli Jewish respondents' support for the concession of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Respondents received a list of 40 Jewish settlements. Details such as the number of residents and geographical location were provided for each settlement. The respondents were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the inclusion condition, 55 respondents were asked to mark the settlements for which they recommended that Israeli sovereignty be conceded. In the exclusion condition, 53 respondents were asked to mark the settlements for which they recommended that Israeli sovereignty not be conceded. The findings confirm the predictions tested and indicate that: (1) Framing the task in terms of inclusion or exclusion affects respondents' support for territorial compromise, so that respondents in the exclusion condition support the concession of more settlements than respondents in the inclusion condition. (2) Framing the task in terms of inclusion or exclusion has a greater effect on support for conceding options (settlements) that are perceived as ambiguous (less consensual in the climate of opinion) in comparison to options (settlements) that are perceived as more clearcut (more consensual). The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed
Framing (construction) · Geography · Human settlement · Inclusion (mineral) · Political science · Sovereignty · Jewish and Middle Eastern Studies · Law · Middle East and Rwanda Conflicts · Psychology · Social Psychology
Choosing versus rejecting
Barriers to Conflict Resolution
Societal Beliefs in Times of Intractable Conflict
Choices, values, and frames
Israeli Society between the Culture of Death and the Culture of Life
Characteristics of protracted, intractable conflict
Elimination and Inclusion Procedures in Judgment
Inclusive and exclusive modes of thinking
From Intractable Conflict Through Conflict Resolution To Reconciliation
Psychological Correlates of Support for Compromise
Why Does Fear Override Hope in Societies Engulfed by Intractable Conflict, as It Does in the Israeli Society
Reactive Devaluation of an “Israeli” vs. “Palestinian” Peace Proposal
Threat and Decision Making
They saw a negotiation
The perceptual and inferential effects of situational inducements on dispositional attribution
Anomalies
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,17 |
| Citation span | 2008 - 2022 (15) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |