Paradoxical Thinking as a Conflict-Resolution Intervention: Comparison to Alternative Interventions and Examination of Psychological Mechanisms

Abstract

Conflict-resolution interventions based on the paradoxical thinking principles, that is, expressing amplified, exaggerated, or even absurd ideas that are congruent with the held conflict-supporting societal beliefs, have been shown to be an effective avenue of intervention, especially among individuals who are adamant in their views. However, the question as to why these interventions have been effective has remained unanswered. In the present research, we have examined possible underlying psychological mechanisms, focusing on identity threat, surprise, and general disagreement. In a small-scale lab study and a large-scale longitudinal study, we compared paradoxical thinking interventions with traditional interventions based on providing inconsistent information. The paradoxical thinking interventions led rightists to show more unfreezing of held conflict-supporting beliefs and openness to alternative information, whereas the inconsistency-based interventions tended to be more effective with the centrist participants. Both studies provide evidence that the effects were driven by identity threat, surprise, and lower levels of disagreement.

Paradoxical Thinking Interventions: A Paradigm for Societal Change

“…This article proposes a new and alternative approach to these interventions based on the principles of paradoxical thinking (Hameiri, Nabet, Bar‐Tal, & Halperin, ; Hameiri, Porat, Bar‐Tal, Bieler, & Halperin, ; Hameiri, Porat, Bar‐Tal, & Halperin, ; Swann, Pelham, & Chidester, ). In our research, conducted in the context of an intractable conflict, the conventional approaches to attitude change were found to be less effective, especially with individuals who are more adamant in their opposition to peaceful conflict resolution.…”

“…In our research, conducted in the context of an intractable conflict, the conventional approaches to attitude change were found to be less effective, especially with individuals who are more adamant in their opposition to peaceful conflict resolution. We examined whether an unconventional approach might be more useful in these cases (Hameiri et al., , , ). Paradoxical thinking interventions do not directly contradict the positions of these individuals as the conventional approaches do.…”

“…Rather, paradoxical thinking is a method of changing held societal beliefs and attitudes by providing a message(s) consistent with the message recipient's held beliefs and attitudes, but in an amplified, exaggerated, or even absurd manner. The paradoxical thinking message is intended to lead an individual to perceive his/her currently held societal beliefs and attitudes as irrational and perhaps even senseless (Hameiri et al., , , ; see also Swann et al., ). To a large extent, paradoxical thinking resembles the classic debating technique, reductio ad absurdum (Rescher, ) and is based on practical knowledge accumulated in clinical psychological treatments (e.g., Frankl, ; Miller & Rollnick, ; Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, ).…”

“…We will follow by describing the empirical work we have carried out in our lab and in the field, in which we designed and implemented different kinds of paradoxical thinking interventions to change conflict‐supporting beliefs. Our research on the effects of the paradoxical thinking interventions was carried out in Israel, among Israeli Jews, in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (Hameiri et al., , , ). We will then provide some initial evidence demonstrating how paradoxical thinking interventions were applied in two other contexts of social problems: attitudes toward refugees and asylum seekers, and gender‐based discrimination.…”

Towards a new framework of personalized psychological interventions to improve intergroup relations and promote peace

“…To address that challenge, Swann, and colleagues (Swann, Pelham, & Chidester, ) suggested that using messages which are consistent with an individual's view, but are formulated in an amplified, exaggerated, or even absurd manner, would ultimately lead to the unfreezing and reevaluation of held attitudes. A long series of lab and field studies then showed that such exposure to paradoxical messages can improve intergroup attitudes and lead people to increased support for political intergroup compromises (Hameiri, Porat, et al, ; Hameiri, Bar‐Tal, & Halperin, ; Hameiri, Nabet, Bar‐Tal, & Halperin, ). What content is embedded within paradoxical thinking interventions and to what extent is it congruent or incongruent with the content of certain ideological views?…”