Engaging in Persuasive Dialogue: The Case of the Israel–Hamas War

• In Event: Media, Protest and Violence

Abstract

Citizens actively choose whom to engage in political discussions with and whom to avoid (Mutz, 2002; Wolak & Sokhey, 2022). Political discussions serve as a vital source of information and can considerably influence individuals’ political preferences, beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes (Huckfeldt et al., 2004; Levendusky et al., 2016; Settle & Carlson, 2019). A primary reason individuals participate in political discussions is to exert political influence: by engaging in direct conversations with others, people aim to persuade others to change their attitudes on various political issues (Argyle, 2016; Bello & Rolfe, 2014).

Studies have consistently found that individuals form discussion networks that are relatively homogeneous (Carlson et al., 2020; Nir, 2017). The absence of interpersonal interaction between individuals who hold opposing views reduces people’s tolerance for opposing views (Minson et al., 2020) and increases their propensity to hold stereotypical beliefs about those from different social and political groups (Karasawa et al., 2007). It may also increase polarization and challenge the democratic values of pluralism and open discourse (Hrbková et al., 2023).

During times of conflict, the significance of these dynamics becomes even more pronounced. In the absence of these elements, individuals entrenched in homogeneous networks are more likely to deepen their pre-existing beliefs (Klar, 2014). Deepening ideological entrenchment can obstruct dialogue with political opponents. This rigidity hinders the search for mutual understanding or solutions, emphasizing the importance of open and flexible political discourse in resolving internal differences (Vered & Bar-Tal, 2017).

While previous studies have explored who people are willing to discuss politics with, there is less focus on understanding how conflict influences the formation and adaptation of these political discussion networks. Additionally, the criticality of changing political attitudes (i.e., persuasion) in times of conflict (Cohrs, 2012), specifically in engaging with political opponents (Wolak & Sokhey, 2022), has been largely unexplored. This is a significant oversight, as conflict often demands new approaches and solutions, making the ability to persuade and be persuaded by opposing views crucial for effective resolution. This study aims to fill these gaps by investigating the dynamics of political discussions and persuasive interactions during conflict.

There are contrasting expectations about how people will shape their discussion networks during times of conflict. On the one hand, conflicts can intensify divisions and emotional polarization between political opponents (Bar-Tal, 2007; Coleman, 2003). This polarization, rooted in heightened group identity between political opponents (Pacilli et al., 2016), reduces the willingness to engage with opposing views (Wolak & Sokhey, 2022), making persuasive attempts across ideological divides more challenging and likely to be met with resistance.

On the other hand, the “rally around the flag” effect suggests that citizens often unify in response to external conflicts due to a collective response and social solidarity driven by a perceived common threat (Porat et al., 2019; Baker & Oneal, 2001). In this context, a sense of unity against an external threat can foster openness among individuals from different ideological groups (Orian Harel et al., 2020). This increased openness can lead to greater receptiveness to persuasion from those with differing ideologies, potentially bridging ideological gaps.

The study investigates how individuals' willingness to engage in persuasive interactions s when interacting with others who differ from them, not only in political ideology but also in terms of nationality, political interest, party affiliation, education, and gender. We will employ a conjoint experiment to explore how these variables impact the willingness to persuade others in political discussions. This method allows us to assess the influence of multiple individual characteristics of potential discussion partners on individuals' willingness or reluctance to engage in discussions and their affective evaluations of potential discussion partners. The study aims to understand how individuals form discussion networks in real-world contexts during active conflict, shedding light on the role of persuasive communication between political opponents. Therefore, we are using the ongoing war in Israel as a case study. Since October 2023, there has been a notable escalation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leading to the outbreak of what is now known as the Israel–Hamas War. This conflict has further intensified the enduring struggle between Israelis and Palestinians, attracting significant attention worldwide.

Authors

• Omer Ben Simhon, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

• Eran Amsalem, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem