When Victimhood Goes to War? Israel and Victim Claims

Prominent sociopsychological approaches interpret collective victimhood as inseparable, central characteristic of societies involved in intractable conflicts. Victimhood is broadly perceived as an essential conflict‐supportive belief also in other disciplines. In the context of Israel, there is a cross‐disciplinary consensus that collective victimhood is the country's foundational identity. This project argues that states' employment of this theme changes and is context dependent. It discusses under what conditions Israel's political elites incorporate victim narratives towards armed conflicts. It examines public communication during the 2012 Operation Pillar of Defense (OPD) and the Yom Kippur war of 1973 (YKW). Employing a modified method of narrative conceptualization analysis, the research demonstrates that victim narratives were used almost twice as much during OPD than during YKW. The findings suggest that we need to differentiate between the role these narratives play for collectives versus states. For the latter, the presence of victim narratives is highly variable and reflects strategic developments. The project is the first systematic study exposing that victim narratives can be a challenge for governance. By conceptualizing victim narratives as claims, it captures the dynamic, contextual characteristics of collective victimhood in state affairs offering a theoretical tool for understanding the political dimension of this identification

The Informative Process Model as a New Intervention for Attitude Change in Intractable Conflicts: Theory and Empirical Evidence

Peacemaking is especially challenging in situations of intractable conflict. Collective narratives in this context contribute to coping with challenges societies face, but also fuel conflict continuation. We introduce the Informative Process Model (IPM), proposing that informing individuals about the socio-psychological processes through which conflict-supporting narratives develop, and suggesting that they can change via comparison to similar conflicts resolved peacefully, can facilitate unfreezing and change in attitudes. Study 1 established associations between awareness of conflict costs and conflict-supporting narratives, belief in the possibility of resolving the conflict peacefully and support for pursuing peace among Israeli-Jews and Palestinians. Studies 2 and 3 found that exposure to IPM-based original videos (vs. control) led Israeli-Jews to deliberation of the information presented, predicting acceptance of the IPM-based message, which, in turn, predicted support for negotiations. Study 3 also found similar effects across IPM-based messages focusing on different conflict-supporting themes. We discuss the implications to attitude change in intractable conflicts

: realism in face of terrorism in an Israeli nationwide sample

In a nationwide study, we explored how Israelis, currently stricken by an intense wave of terrorism, perceive the risk of being the victim of a terrorist attack. We studied both absolute and comparative (i.e., vis-a-vis other people at the area of residence) perceived controllability and vulnerability. The picture that emerges is one of realism. We found no evidence of the comparative optimistic illusions, which characterizes the risk-perception literature. Most participants report some level of behavior change and precautions against the threat of terrorism, but most of them were doubtful about the effectiveness of these precautionary attempts. Perceived absolute vulnerability was the only risk perception variable related to precautionary behaviors. We discuss the disappearance of comparative optimistic biases when the threat is clearly realistic.

Do I Shoot Faster Because I Am Thinking about an Outgroup or a Threatening Outgroup?: Shooter Bias, Perceived Threat, and Intergroup Processes

International audienceThis research examines if aggressive responses through a shooter bias are systematically generated by priming outgroups or if a threat stereotypically associated with the primed outgroup is required. First, a pilot study identified outgroups stereotypically associated and not associated with threat. Afterwards, the main study included a manipulation of target group accessibility - ingroup versus nonthreatening outgroup versus threatening outgroup. Following exposure to primes of the group categories, the participants in all conditions played a shooter game in which the targets were males and females with ambiguous ethnicity and religion. Results demonstrated that while only priming of an outgroup stereotypically associated with threat elicits aggressive responses, priming of both nonthreatening and threatening outgroups leads to an increase in the ability to distinguish between stimuli compared to ingroup priming. These effects are discussed in terms of priming effects, dimensions of threat, and possible interpretations of this ability increase

Thinking about Arabs and Muslims makes Americans shoot faster: Effects of category accessibility on aggressive responses in a shooter paradigm

International audienceIs the same person perceived as more dangerous if the perceiver is induced to think about Arab and Muslim categories versus no category? Using the shooter paradigm, this study investigated the effects of the accessibility of ethnic (Arab) versus religious (Muslim) categories versus no category on spontaneous aggressive responses toward a target with an ambiguous appearance. Results demonstrated that shooting reactions toward armed targets were faster than non-shooting reactions toward unarmed targets, especially if the target was a man. Despite these main effects, participants made faster decisions to shoot an ambiguous armed target if primed with the category Arab or Muslim (versus no category priming). The findings indicate that the mere priming of these social categories is sufficient to facilitate aggressive responses, even if the targets themselves are ambiguous