IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/huj/dispap/dp423.html

Decision Framing and Support for Concessions in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Author

Listed:
  • Ifat Maoz

  • Ilan Yaniv

  • Naama Ivri

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to explore, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the influence of framing a decision task as inclusion or exclusion on Israeli-Jewish respondents' support for the concession of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Respondents received a list of 40 Jewish settlements. Details such as the number of residents and geographical location were provided for each settlement. The respondents were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the inclusion condition 55 respondents were asked to mark the settlements for which they recommended that Israeli sovereignty be conceded. In the exclusion condition 53 respondents were asked to mark the settlements for which they recommended that Israeli sovereignty not be conceded. The findings confirm the predictions tested and indicate that: (1) Framing the task in terms of inclusion or exclusion affects respondents' support for territorial compromise, so that respondents in the exclusion condition support the concession of more settlements than respondents in the inclusion condition. (2) Framing the task in terms of inclusion or exclusion has a greater effect on support for conceding options (settlements) that are perceived as ambiguous (less consensual in the climate of opinion) in comparison to options (settlements) that are perceived as more clear-cut (more consensual). The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Ifat Maoz & Ilan Yaniv & Naama Ivri, 2006. "Decision Framing and Support for Concessions in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," Discussion Paper Series dp423, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    • Handle: RePEc:huj:dispap:dp423
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ratio.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/publications/dp423.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carol Gordon & Asher Arian, 2001. "Threat and Decision Making," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(2), pages 196-215, April.
    2. Huber, Vandra L. & Neale, Margaret A. & Northcraft, Gregory B., 1987. "Decision bias and personnel selection strategies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 136-147, August.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    4. Levin, Irwin P. & Huneke, Mary E. & Jasper, J. D., 2000. "Information Processing at Successive Stages of Decision Making: Need for Cognition and Inclusion-Exclusion Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 171-193, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carly Beckerman, 2022. "Political Fragility and the Timing of Conflict Mediation," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ifat Maoz & Ilan Yaniv & Naama Ivri, 2006. "Decision Framing and Support for Concessions in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000000065, UCLA Department of Economics.
    2. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    3. Mourali, Mehdi & Nagpal, Anish, 2013. "The powerful select, the powerless reject: Power's influence in decision strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(7), pages 874-880.
    4. John D. Jasper & Daniel Ansted, 2008. "Liberal-conservative differences in inclusion-exclusion strategy choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 417-424, June.
    5. Hüttel, Alexandra & Balderjahn, Ingo & Hoffmann, Stefan, 2020. "Welfare Beyond Consumption: The Benefits of Having Less," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    6. Yaniv, Ilan & Schul, Yaacov, 2000. "Acceptance and Elimination Procedures in Choice: Noncomplementarity and the Role of Implied Status quo," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 293-313, July.
    7. Kogut, Tehila, 2011. "Choosing what I want or keeping what I should: The effect of decision strategy on choice consistency," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 129-139, September.
    8. Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward, 2004. "Binary choice under instructions to select versus reject," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 114-128, March.
    9. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Sarah F. Small & Steven Pressman, 2024. "Introduction to the Symposium Celebrating Fifty Years of the Eastern Economic Association," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 50(4), pages 436-440, October.
    11. Wiebke Roß & Jens Weghake, 2018. "Wa(h)re Liebe: Was Online-Dating-Plattformen über zweiseitige Märkte lehren," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0017, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    12. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    13. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    14. Heavey, Emily & Baxter, Kate & Birks, Yvonne, 2019. "Financial advice for funding later life care: a scoping review of evidence from England," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 91497, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2018. "Nudging in education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-342.
    16. Silva,Joana C. G. & Morgandi,Matteo & Levin,Victoria, 2016. "Trust in government and support for redistribution," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7675, The World Bank.
    17. Chorvat, Terrence, 2006. "Taxing utility," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-16, February.
    18. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    19. Besedes, Tibor & Deck, Cary & Sarangi, Sudipta & Shor, Mikhael, 2012. "Designing a sequential choice architecture to reduce choice overload," MPRA Paper 38173, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Lippens, Louis & Baert, Stijn & Derous, Eva, 2021. "Loss aversion in taste-based employee discrimination: Evidence from a choice experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:huj:dispap:dp423. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Michael Simkin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crihuil.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.