Too good to be true: The effect of conciliatory message design on compromising attitudes in intractable conflicts

Abstract

The aim of this article is twofold: first, to demonstrate how the use of experimental methods challenges the implicit assumption of progressive discourse analysts that ‘inspiring’ messages will have a positive effect on political attitudes and trust regardless of the recipients’ early political dispositions, and second, to examine the power of conciliatory message design to change political attitudes in favor of a peaceful solution to intractable conflicts such as the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. By employing the conceptual frameworks of progressive discourse analysis and experimental critical discourse analysis, we examined the most comprehensive hypothesis formulated thus far in the literature of conflict resolution with regard to the conditions under which conciliatory messages become successful. We found that the exposure of hawkish participants to highly conciliatory messages decreases both their support for compromise-based peace and their trust in the opponent’s leader, which underlines the need for more caution on the side of peace discourse scholars when assuming that conciliatory language has the power to bring about a (positive) political change. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for critical/progressive discourse analysts, conflict resolution scholars and professionals involved in conciliatory message design.

“Wait With Falling in Love”: Discursive Evaluation of Amicable Messages Conveyed by Opponents

“…Such contradictory outcomes following amicable messages have been documented in the past in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (Cohen-Chen et al, 2014; Kampf & David, 2019), which serves as the case study for the current exploration. This conflict was chosen because it allowed us to collect a large number of unexpected amicable statements made by controversial foreign leaders.…”

“…Studying the emotional factor, Cohen-Chen et al (2014) found that when encountered with information from the opposing group that opens an opportunity for initiation of a peace process, a sense of fear of the “enemy” will lead to selective exposure to information, which can thwart its conciliatory potential. Other receiver-oriented factors include political leaning, beliefs about the possibility of achieving lasting peace, perception of the conflict’s uniqueness, worldviews, general values (i.e., traditionalism) and conflict-specific societal beliefs (i.e., delegitimization of the out-group, sense of collective victimhood; see Kampf & David, 2019; Kudish et al, 2015). These factors can obstruct openness to new information about adversaries (Halperin & Bar-Tal, 2011) and willingness to make concessions (Kudish et al, 2015).…”

“…Accordingly, the source (i.e., the speaker) serves as a heuristic for the evaluation of the message and formation of political attitudes toward the state she or he represents (Balmas, 2019; Dragojlovic, 2013; Mondak, 1993). Attribution of credibility to a source is expected to lead to positive evaluation of the message (Golan & Yang, 2013; Goldsmith & Horiuchi, 2009; Mondak, 1993), and vice versa—perception of a source as noncredible leads to evaluation of the message as manipulative, and thus functions as a key factor in rejecting information in the context of intractable conflicts (Kampf & David, 2019).…”

“…Although intuitively convincing, studies in the psychology of conflict resolution show mixed findings regarding the connection between conciliatory message design and its effect. While some studies have found that specific verbal behaviors lead to a sense of rapport (Bronstein et al, 2012) and that expressions of empathy by a foreign leader in the face of in-group suffering have a positive effect on conciliatory attitudes (Nadler & Liviatan, 2006), others found that a highly conciliatory message may result in the attribution of insincerity to the messenger (Kampf & David, 2019; Maoz, 2012).…”

“…Whereas studies within the purview of social psychology of peace considered the effect of conciliatory-message design on compromising attitudes in political conflicts (e.g., Gayer et al, 2009; Kampf & David, 2019; Maoz et al, 2002), to date no study has examined on what grounds such messages are accepted or rejected by the target audience. Adopting a discursive approach, this study aims at filling the lacuna: By analyzing comments to news reports on amicable messages conveyed unexpectedly by opponent foreign statespersons, our goal is to identify the interpretative repertoires (Wetherell & Potter, 1988) Israeli news commenters apply to make sense of such messages, and to demonstrate how they work in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.…”