Boaz Hameiri

Priming of Spatial Distance Enhances Children's Creative Performance.

According to construal level theory, psychological distance promotes more abstract thought. Theories of creativity, in turn, suggest that abstract thought promotes creativity. Based on these lines of theorizing, we predicted that spatial distancing would enhance creative performance in elementary school children. To test this prediction, we primed spatial distance by presenting 6- to 9-year-olds with pictures of increasingly distal objects (from their own desk to the galaxy) or increasingly proximal objects (from the galaxy to their own desk) and then assessed the fluency and originality of their ideas in a creativity test. We found, consistent with the hypothesis, that after priming of spatial distance, compared with priming of spatial proximity, children were more creative, as reflected in higher scores of both fluency and originality. This result was not qualified by childrens age or gender.

Challenges for Peacemakers How to Overcome Socio-Psychological Barriers

Resolving intergroup conflicts is one of humanity’s most important challenges. Social psychologists join this endeavor, not only to understand the psychological foundations of intergroup conflicts but also to suggest interventions that aim to resolve conflicts peacefully. The present article begins by describing a specific type of conflict, namely, an intractable conflict that has distinguishing characteristics. One characteristic that fuels its intractability is the presence of socio-psychological barriers. These barriers result in one-sided information processing that obstructs the penetration of new information to promote peace: Members of a society immersed in an intractable conflict are frozen in their conflict-supporting societal beliefs. The most challenging question is how to unfreeze these beliefs, to overcome these barriers. Various interventions have been designed to promote intergroup peace, within a new taxonomy specifying the nature and goals of the interventions. Peace-promoting interventions can be divided into three categories: (a) interventions that provide contradictory information, (b) interventions that provide information through experiences, and (c) interventions that teach a new skill. Finally, a number of conclusions and limitations stem from the reviewed interventions, suggesting a new line of intervention based on “paradoxical thinking.”

Self-censorship of Conflict-related Information in the Context of Intractable Conflict:

Self-censorship is of great importance in societies involved in intractable conflict. In this context, it blocks information that may contradict the dominant conflict-supporting narratives. Thus, self-censorship often serves as an effective societal mechanism that prevents free flow and transparency of information regarding the conflict and therefore can be seen as a barrier for a peacemaking process. In an attempt to understand the potential effect of different factors on participants’ willingness to self-censor (WSC) conflict-related information, we conducted three experimental studies in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Study 1 revealed that perception of distance from potential information recipients and their disseminating capabilities lead to higher WSC. Study 2 replicated these results and also showed that fulfilling different social roles has an effect on the WSC. Finally, study 3 revealed that the type of information has a major effect on WSC.

Looking Backward to Move Forward: Effects of Acknowledgment of Victimhood on Readiness to Compromise for Peace in the Protracted Israeli–Palestinian Conflict

Two large-scale surveys conducted in Israel (Study 1A) and the Palestinian Authority (Study 1B) show that the belief by group members that people in the “enemy” group acknowledge their victimhood (i.e., Holocaust and Nakba for Jews and Palestinians, respectively) is associated with Israeli-Jews’ readiness to accept responsibility for Palestinian sufferings and offer apologies. For Palestinians, this belief is linked to a perceived higher likelihood of a reconciled future with Israelis. Three field experiments demonstrate that a manipulated high level of acknowledgment of Jewish victimhood by Palestinians (Studies 2 and 4) and of Palestinian victimhood by Israeli-Jews (Study 3) caused greater readiness to make concessions for the sake of peace on divisive issues (e.g., Jerusalem, the 1967 borders, the right of return) and increased conciliatory attitudes. Additional analyses indicate the mediating role of increased trust and reduced emotional needs in these relationships.

Moderating attitudes in times of violence through paradoxical thinking intervention

Significance Societies involved in intractable conflicts are typically polarized in their views on how to resolve the conflict. Hawkish members of society adhere to an uncompromising and nonconciliatory ideology. Therefore, interventions that may change their attitudes are particularly important but simultaneously are very difficult to apply because hawks tend to reject messages that propagate peaceful resolution of the conflict. In the current investigation, we tested whether a large-scale campaign based on the paradoxical thinking framework can moderate attitudes during a widespread outbreak of violence. We found that rightwing (i.e., hawkish) participants exposed to the campaign decreased their adherence to conflict-supporting attitudes over time, were more supportive of conciliatory policies, and less supportive of aggressive policies. In the current paper, we report a large-scale randomized field experiment, conducted among Jewish Israelis during widespread violence. The study examines the effectiveness of a “real world,” multichanneled paradoxical thinking intervention, with messages disseminated through various means of communication (i.e., online, billboards, flyers). Over the course of 6 wk, we targeted a small city in the center of Israel whose population is largely rightwing and religious. Based on the paradoxical thinking principles, the intervention involved transmission of messages that are extreme but congruent with the shared Israeli ethos of conflict. To examine the intervention’s effectiveness, we conducted a large-scale field experiment (prepost design) in which we sampled participants from the city population (n = 215) and compared them to a control condition (from different places of residence) with similar demographic and political characteristics (n = 320). Importantly, participants were not aware that the intervention was related to the questionnaires they answered. Results showed that even in the midst of a cycle of ongoing violence within the context of one of the most intractable conflicts in the world, the intervention led hawkish participants to decrease their adherence to conflict-supporting attitudes across time. Furthermore, compared with the control condition, hawkish participants that were exposed to the paradoxical thinking intervention expressed less support for aggressive policies that the government should consider as a result of the escalation in violence and more support for conciliatory policies to end the violence and promote a long-lasting agreement.

Exploring ourselves within intergroup conflict: The role of intragroup dialogue in promoting acceptance of collective narratives and willingness toward reconciliation.

The current article presents a new intervention model for intragroup dialogue. Twenty-four Jewish-Israeli undergraduate students underwent a yearlong process to learn about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, encountered Palestinian narratives, and reflected on the impact of the Palestinian other on their own identity as Jewish-Israelis. In this research we propose that such a process ameliorates identity threats posed by an intergroup conflict on collective identities, encouraging participants to adopt a more complex view of themselves, which validates both narratives of self and “other.” Research was conducted using both qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate the intervention. Results showed that participants developed an increased capacity for acceptance of both Israeli and Palestinian collective narratives, and demonstrated a greater willingness toward reconciliation, manifested in more readiness to acknowledge responsibility and apologize for past transgressions. Discussion is dedicated to the added value of this model, specifically in relation to intergroup contact approaches to dialogue.

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

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.

Self-Censorship as a Socio-Psychological Barrier to Peacemaking

Self-censorship is of great importance in societies involved in intractable conflict. In this context, it blocks information that may contradict the dominant conflict-supporting narratives. Thus, self-censorship often serves as an effective societal mechanism that prevents free flow and transparency of information regarding the conflict and therefore can be seen as a barrier for a peacemaking process. We begin the chapter by describing the distinguishing characteristics of intractable conflicts, most notably the socio-psychological barriers that fuel this type of conflict, focusing on self-censorship. Then we turn to review research conducted with the Jewish-Israeli population, which provides empirical evidence of the operation of self-censorship as a barrier, its antecedents, and consequences. Finally, we discuss a number of conclusions that stem from the reviewed literature.

A Rose by Any Other Name? A Subtle Linguistic Cue Impacts Anger and Corresponding Policy Support in Intractable Conflict:

Given the central role of anger in shaping adversarial policy preferences in the context of intergroup conflict, its reduction may promote conflict resolution. In the current work, we drew on psycholinguistic research on the role of language in generating emotions to explore a novel, extremely subtle means of intervention. Specifically, we hypothesized that phrasing conflict-relevant policies in noun form (vs. verb form) would reduce anger and impact policy support correspondingly. Results across three experimental studies in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict supported these expectations for both support for concessions (Studies 1–3) and retaliatory policies (Study 3), with reduction in anger mediating the salutary impact of noun form (vs. verb form) on policy support. These results expand our understanding of the influence of language on emotions and policies in the context of conflict and have applied relevance for conflict-resolution efforts.

Sociopsychological Barriers to Peacemaking and Overcoming Them: A Review of New Psychological Interventions

For most of his career, Daniel Bar-Tal has been one of the more prolific contributors to the understanding of the psychological foundations of intergroup conflicts, with extensive writings on intractable conflicts. In recent years, Bar-Tal, along with his students, has taken upon himself the mission of finding new ways—using new approaches, different from the ones usually used by social psychologists—to intervene and overcome the psychological barriers in order to promote peace. Based on Bar-Tal’s writings, we begin this chapter by elaborating on the sociopsychological barriers and their detrimental effect on societies immersed in intractable conflicts. We then review and discuss the virtues and limitations of new interventions, derived mainly, but not exclusively, from the work of Bar-Tal and his students, that have been designed to overcome these barriers and promote intergroup peace. Finally, following the limitations that stem from the interventions reviewed, we suggest a new line of interventions based on what is termed paradoxical thinking.