Advertisement

Addressing Israelis’ and Palestinians’ Basic Needs for Agency and Positive Moral Identity Facilitates Mutual Prosociality

  • Ilanit SimanTov-NachlieliEmail author
  • Nurit Shnabel
Chapter
Part of the Peace Psychology Book Series book series (PPBS)

Abstract

According to Bar-Tal’s theorizing (Bar-Tal, Am Behav Sci 50:1430–1453, 2007; Bar-Tal, Intractable conflicts: Psychological foundations and dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) societies involved in intractable conflicts develop a collective fear orientation which becomes embedded in these societies’ ethos. Due to this basic orientation, acute security threats are chronically salient and security turns into a central societal value. Based on Bar-Tal’s theorizing, we argue that even though, in general, groups are strongly motivated to maintain their positive moral identity (Leach et al., J Pers Soc Psychol 93:234–249, 2007) in contexts of intractable conflicts, this need becomes subjected to the conflicting groups’ need to feel agentic, secure, and protected. Put differently, groups’ need for strength, agency, and security is experienced as highly pressing and hence receives primacy over the need for positive moral identity.

Focusing on the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we review empirical evidence that supports our argument, revealing that Jews’ need for strength overrode their need for positive moral identity in determining prosocial behavioral tendencies toward Palestinians (SimanTov-Nachlieli and Shnabel, Pers Soc Psychol Bull 40:301–314, 2014). Optimistically, however, an “agency affirmation” intervention that reminded Jews and Palestinians of their in-group’s strength, competence, and resiliency addressed their need to feel strong and protected and made them more attentive to moral considerations. This attentiveness, in turn, increased their prosocial behavioral tendencies toward each other. These findings suggest that the satisfaction of Israelis’ and Palestinians’ pressing need for agency can “defreeze” their rigid clinging to aggressive defensiveness and self-righteousness (Bar-Tal and Halperin, Socio-psychological barriers to conflict resolution. In: D. Bar-Tal (Ed.), Intergroup conflicts and their resolution: A social psychological perspective (pp. 217–240). New York, NY: Psychology Press, 2011). Such “defreezing” can contribute to ending the cycle of destructive violence while promoting, instead, constructive behaviors and reconciliation.

Keywords

Moral Identity Suicide Bomber Israeli Defense Force Prosocial Tendency Intractable Conflict 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2013). The Big Two in social judgment and behavior. Social Psychology, 44, 61–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bar-Tal, D. (1998). Societal beliefs in times of intractable conflict: The Israeli case. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9, 22–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar-Tal, D. (2001). Why does fear override hope in societies engulfed by intractable conflict, as it does in the Israeli society? Political Psychology, 22, 601–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bar-Tal, D. (2007). Societal-psychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1430–1453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bar-Tal, D. (2013). Intractable conflicts: Psychological foundations and dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2011). Socio-psychological barriers to conflict resolution. In D. Bar-Tal (Ed.), Intergroup conflicts and their resolution: A social psychological perspective (pp. 217–240). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bar-Tal, D., Halperin, E., & Oren, N. (2010). Socio-psychological barriers to peace making: The case of the Israeli Jewish Society. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4, 63–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlsmith, J. M., & Gross, A. (1969). Some effects of guilt on compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 232–239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Christie, D. J. (1997). Reducing direct and structural violence: The human needs theory. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 3, 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. (2006). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Frijda, N. H. (1994). The lextalionis: On vengeance. In S. H. M. Van Goozen, N. E. Van de Poll, & J. A. Sergeant (Eds.), Emotions: Essays on emotion theory (pp. 263–289). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Halperin, E., Porat, R., Tamir, M., & Gross, J. J. (2013). Can emotion regulation change political attitudes in intractable conflicts? From the laboratory to the field. Psychological Science, 24, 106–111.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Halperin, E., Russell, A. G., Trzesniewski, K. H., Gross, J. J., & Dweck, C. S. (2011). Promoting the Middle East peace process by changing beliefs about group malleability. Science, 333, 1767–1769.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hopkins, N., Reicher, S., Harrison, K., Cassidy, C., Bull, R., & Levine, M. (2007). Helping to improve the group stereotype: On the strategic dimension of prosocial behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 776–788.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kraut, R. E. (1973). Effects of social labeling on giving to charity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 551–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kriesberg, L. (1993). Intractable conflict. Peace Review, 5, 417–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 234–249.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Maoz, I., & Bar-On, D. (2002). From working through the Holocaust to current ethnic conflicts: Evaluating the TRT group workshop in Hamburg. Group, 26, 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  20. Mazziotta, A., Feuchte, F., Gausel, N., & Nadler, A. (2013). Does remembering past ingroup harmdoing promote postwar cross-group contact? Insights from a field-experiment in Liberia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nadler, A., & Shnabel, N. (2008). Intergroup reconciliation: The instrumental and socio emotional paths and the need-based model of socio-emotional reconciliation. In A. Nadler, T. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), Social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 37–56). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Netanyahu: Boycott campaign is anti-Semitic. (2014, February 18). Middle East monitor Retrieved from https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/9817-netanyahu-boycott-campaign-is-anti-semetic.
  23. Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 116–132.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., Ullrich, J., Dovidio, J. F., & Carmi, D. (2009). Promoting reconciliation through the satisfaction of the emotional needs of victimized and perpetrating group members: The needs-based model of reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1021–1030.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Shnabel, N., & Noor, M. (2012). Competitive victimhood among Jewish and Palestinian Israelis reflects differential threats to their identities: The perspective of the needs-based model. In K. J. Jonas & T. Morton (Eds.), Restoring civil societies: the psychology of intervention and engagement following crisis (pp. 192–207). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shnabel, N., Halabi, S., & Noor, M. (2013). Overcoming competitive victimhood and facilitating forgiveness through re-categorization into a common victim or perpetrator identity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 867–877.Google Scholar
  27. Shnabel, N., & SimanTov-Nachlieli, I. (2015). The power to be moral: Affirming Israelis’ and Palestinians’ agency promotes mutual prosocial tendencies. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  28. SimanTov-Nachlieli, I., & Shnabel, N. (2014). Feeling both victim and perpetrator: Investigating duality within the needs-based model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 301–314.Google Scholar
  29. SimanTov-Nachlieli, I., & Shnabel, N. (2015). Agents of morality: Affirming conflicting groups’ agency promotes pro-sociality towards the conflicting outgroup. ​Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  30. SimanTov-Nachlieli, I., Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2013). Individuals’ and groups’ motivation to restore their impaired identity dimensions following conflicts: Evidence and implications. Social Psychology, 44, 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sonnenschein, N. (2008). An identity challanging dialoge. Haifa: Pardes Publishing House.Google Scholar
  32. Strenta, A., & Dejong, W. (1981). The effect of a prosocial label on helping behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 142–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Psychological SciencesTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations