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

Abstract

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.

Many ways to walk a mile in another’s moccasins: Type of social perspective taking and its effect on negotiation outcomes

“…This finding is congruent with the concept that the framing or bias with which individuals process information as they engage in the social perspective taking process can affect the outcomes of the SPT attempt (e.g., Maoz, Ward, Katz, & Ross, 2002).…”

Biased assimilation: the role of source position

“…For example, Maoz, Ward, Katz, and Ross (2002) examined responses of Middle East partisans to authentic peace plans offered by opponent sides in the conflict. In one study, participants received an actual Israeli-authored peace proposal.…”

“…To summarize the investigations by Maoz et al (2002) and Cohen (2003), when evaluating an argument, people appear to be more affected by the source's position (i.e., the political standpoint that is represented by the source of the argument) rather than argument content. However, in both investigations, responses to only a single issue (peace plan or welfare reform) were examined.…”

“…However, because people can support a position even if they feel that the arguments for that position are questionable (and they may also refuse a position although they accept that there are good arguments in favor of that position), the results of the above-mentioned studies do not necessarily imply that biased (argument) assimilation is affected by source position. Thus, we followed the line of the Maoz et al (2002) and Cohen (2003) studies, while focusing on measures of biased argument assimilation.…”

Adult literacy education and human rights: a view from Afghanistan

“…Taking what others say seriously is generally known to be essential as well in resolving intergroup conflict and negotiation (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993;Maoz et al, 2002).…”