Reactive Devaluation of an “Israeli” vs. “Palestinian” Peace Proposal

Bibliographic Data

ID6285019
AuthorsIfat Maoz (0000-0002-8524-1297, Department of Communication Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Andrew Ward (0000-0002-8726-1312, Department of Psychology Swarthmore College), Michael Katz (0000-0002-6238-376X, Faculty of Education Haifa University, Israel), Lee Ro, Lee Ross (Department of Psychology Stanford University)
Year2002
Volume46
Issue4
Pages515-546
Publication date2002-08-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Conflict Resolution (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0022-0027 • E-ISSN: 1552-8766
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/0022002702046004003
OpenAlexW2123883317
LanguageEN
Citations received73
References cited47

Three studies used the Palestinian-Israeli context to investigate the tendency for political antagonists to derogate each other's compromise proposals. In study 1, Israeli Jews evaluated an actual Israeli-authored peace plan less favorably when it was attributed to the Palestinians than when it was attributed to their own government. In study 2, both Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs similarly devalued a Palestinian plan when it was ascribed to the “other side.” Furthermore, both Arabs and Jewish “hawks” (but not Jewish “doves”) perceived a proposal attributed to the dovish Israeli government as relatively bad for their own people and good for their adversaries. Study 3 explored the role that differences in construal of proposal terms play in mediating “reactive devaluation.” These studies expand theoretical understanding of this devaluation phenomenon and the barrier it creates to the resolution of real-world conflicts

Compromise · Context (archaeology · Devaluation · Economics · Government (linguistics · Judaism · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Conflict Management and Negotiation · Cultural Differences and Values · History · Law · Social and Intergroup Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub