This Article Full Text (PDF) Datasets References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Maoz, I. Articles by Ivri, N. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Decision Framing and Support for Concessions in the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict

Department of Communication, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, msifat{at}mscc.huji.ac.il

Ilan Yaniv

Department of Psychology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, ilan.yaniv{at}huji.ac.il

Naama Ivri

Department of Psychology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

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.

Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 44, No. 1, 81-91 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0022343307071496


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				I. Maoz and C. Mccauley Threat Perceptions and Feelings as Predictors of Jewish-Israeli Support for Compromise with Palestinians Journal of Peace Research, July 1, 2009; 46(4): 525 - 539. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Hirschberger, T. Pyszczynski, and T. Ein-Dor Vulnerability and Vigilance: Threat Awareness and Perceived Adversary Intent Moderate the Impact of Mortality Salience on Intergroup Violence Pers Soc Psychol Bull, May 1, 2009; 35(5): 597 - 607. [Abstract] [PDF]