Animosity on the Home Front: The Intifada in Israel and Its Impact on Consumer Behavior

Abstract

International animosity significantly affects the purchase of foreign products. However, domestic conflicts are also rampant in many countries, giving rise to similar issues. October 2000 marked the beginning of the second Arab Intifada (uprising) in Israel. In contrast to the first Intifada of the late 1980s and early 1990s, this time, Israeli Arabs joined the Palestinians in violent demonstrations in Israeli locations with large Arab concentrations. This research studies Jewish Israelis’ reactions to Arab Israelis in the context of purchases and consumption of products and services produced or marketed by Arab Israelis. It examines animosity, its antecedents, and its consumption consequences within the large Jewish majority of the population in Israel. The authors find that dogmatism, nationalism, and internationalism affect animosity, which in turn predicts willingness to buy and actual changes in purchase behavior for goods and services produced or marketed by Israeli Arabs. In contrast to previous research, animosity also predicts product judgments.

Exploring the animosity domain and the role of affect in a cross-national context

“…al 1998 which found that animosity has no impact of animosity on product judgments. However a some studies refute this claim, and find animosity does impact evaluations of products from the animosity target (Huang, Phau & Lin, 2010;Leong et al, 2008;Rose et al, 2009;Shoham et al, 2006). All of the above research studies provide strong support for the notion that national animosities caused by war, economic policies, and other conflicts may have a profound impact on consumer buying behavior.…”

“…Published research in this area has also confirmed the impact of animosity for products in general, (Hinck et al, 2004;Huang et al, 2010;Leong et al, 2008;Nakos & Hajidimitriou, 2007;Witkowski, 2000), for specific categories of products (Ettenson & Klein, 2005;Hong & Kang, 2006;Jimenez & Martin, 2010;Klein, 2002;Klein et al,1998;Nijssen & Douglas, 2004;Russell & Russell, 2006;Shimp, Dunn, & Klein, 2004;Shin, 2001;Shoham et al, 2006), and finally for hybrid products with partial shifts in production to animosity targets (Funk et al, 2010). Some studies have tested and established a correlation between the level of animosity and actual product ownership (Klein, 2002;Klein et al, 1998;Shin, 2001).…”

“…Support for the psychological and social impact of animosity may also be found in cognitive dissonance theory as connoted by Shoham et al (2006). Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) suggests that a person has knowledge about himself, his past behavior, and his beliefs and attitudes.…”

“…Several animosity researchers suggest that social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982;Tajfel & Turner, 1986) is useful in explaining the nature and causes of animosity (Shimp et al, 2004;Shoham et al, 2006;Huang et al, 2010). However, increased understanding of why animosity leads to less buying has long been a missing piece in the puzzle of animosity research.…”

“…Previous studies find that animosity has some impact on various dependent variables, particularly buying intentions (e.g., Bahaee & Pisani, 2009;Funk, Arthurs, Trevino, & Joireman, 2010;Hinck, Cortes, & James, 2004;Hong & Kang, 2006;Huang, Phau, & Lin, 2010;Klein, 2002;Klein et al, 1998;Leong et al, 2008;Maher & Mady, 2010;Nakos & Hajidimitriou, 2007;Nijssen & Douglas, 2004;Parker, Haytko and Hermans 2011;Shin, 2001;Shoham, Davidow, Klein, & Ruvio, 2006;Witkowski, 2000).…”