Expectations, Emotions, and Preferred Responses Regarding the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Abstract

Adapting Weiner's attribution theory, this study examines Israeli Jews' causal attribution for the Arab-Israeli conflict, their expectations and feelings regarding its course, and their preferred strategies of response. Expectations regarding continuation or escalation of conflict were found to be related to the stability dimension. Increased shame and guilt, as well as reduced pride as Israelis and anger toward Arabs, were associated with assigning the causes of the conflict to Israel. Relative preference for negotiation and concession rather than nonresolution were linked with attributions to uncontrollable, internal causes or to controllable unstable ones. Discussion focused on the role of attributional analysis as a heuristic in understanding and predicting individuals' expectations, emotions, and policy preferences regarding international conflict. Potential differences appear to arise in attributional analyses when moving from the interpersonal to the international frame, involving such factors as the meaning of controllability, the temporal focus of attribution, and the motive forces linking attribution to future action.