DOI: 10.1111/spc3.

12534

ARTICLE

Interventions to change well-anchored attitudes in

the context of intergroup conflict

Daniel Bar-Tal1 | Boaz Hameiri2,3

1
School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Tel
Aviv, Israel
Abstract
2
Annenberg School for Communication, Changing attitudes is one of the most challenging and
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, important endeavors social psychologists have undertaken
Pennsylvania
in order to promote better quality of life for individuals and
3
The Evens Program in Conflict Resolution
collectives. However, when addressing pressing issues, such
and Mediation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv,
Israel as intergroup conflict, racism, and inequality, changing atti-
tudes is particularly difficult as individuals are often frozen
Correspondence
Daniel Bar-Tal, The School of Education, Tel in their attitudes. Based on the important work of conflict-
Aviv University, 6997801, Israel. resolution scholars and practitioners, we report several
Email: [email protected]
well-known and new socio-psychological interventions that
have been developed to unfreeze attitudes, especially in the
context of intergroup conflict. These include providing con-
tradictory information, paradoxical thinking, enlightening
individual shortcomings, teaching skills, and the informative
process model. We conclude by assessing the lessons
learned from the research and practice of psychological
interventions, focusing on their application in the field, and
the value of increased cooperation between researchers
and practitioners.

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N

There is no doubt that changing entrenched attitudes is one of the most challenging tasks for human beings, and
indeed, an abundance of research has been devoted to the development and validation of techniques for attitude
change and persuasion (for a recent review, see Albarracín & Shavitt, 2018). In the current paper, we focus on inter-
ventions aiming to change attitudes in order to deal with pressing issues that plague the world in the realm of inter-
group conflict. We do not intend to review all interventions. Rather, we aim to highlight and evaluate the advantages
and limitations of five different approaches that we consider important and relevant to the work of scholars and

Daniel Bar-Tal and Boaz Hameiri contributed equally to this work and are listed in alphabetical order.

Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2020;14:e12534. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/spc3 © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1 of 16
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12534
2 of 16 BAR-TAL AND HAMEIRI

practitioners that promote conflict resolution. We then discuss the challenges they face when applying interventions
in the real world. We conclude by making several suggestions on how to potentially overcome these challenges
through collaborations between researchers and practitioners.
We argue that in cases in which the beliefs and attitudes at stake are central, ego-involving, held with confi-
dence, and have moral (e.g., Skitka, 2010), ideological (e.g., Jost, Federico, & Napier, 2009), or identity-related foun-
dations (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993), people tend to resist changing their beliefs and attitudes, and corresponding
behaviors (Hornsey & Fielding, 2017). Furthermore, specific contexts, such as violent and prolonged intergroup con-
flicts, are particularly conducive to the development of such entrenched beliefs and attitudes. In such contexts, soci-
ety members are socialized to hold these views from an early age, and they are continuously reinforced by leaders
and societal institutions and validated through the years by personal and collective experiences (Bar-Tal, Diamond, &
Nasie, 2017).
These types of attitudes are considered to be frozen and are subject to top-down processing. Put simply, infor-
mation that confirms the held beliefs and attitudes is accepted as valid. Alternative information that is inconsistent
with the held beliefs and attitudes, however, is likely to be ignored, rejected, and/or misinterpreted
(Kruglanski, 2004; Kunda, 1990). Thus, one major challenge for scholars and practitioners is to develop methods that
motivate individuals to reevaluate long-held frozen beliefs and attitudes, which can then lead to their unfreezing
(Bar-Tal & Halperin, 2009).
The present paper focuses exactly on this challenge and examines bottom-up socio-psychological interventions
(Ditlmann, Samii, & Zeitzoff, 2017). We realize that behavioral and attitude changes on the societal level can also be
the result of top-down approaches, initiated by leaders. These may include institutional changes, such as court deci-
sions or enacting laws, which consequently change perceived norms (Tankard & Paluck, 2016, 2017); or nudge inter-
ventions, that is, interventions that propel individuals to make the “right” decisions by changing “any aspects of the
choice architecture… without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives” (Thaler &
Sunstein, 2008, p. 6; see also Hummel & Maedche, 2019). However, given that these approaches require a collabora-
tion with governments and authorities, they are less accessible to most social psychologists and practitioners, and
thus beyond the scope of the present review. Finally, while extensive research has been devoted to interventions
that change implicit attitudes with the (recently challenged) assumption that this will lead to explicit attitude change
and/or behavioral change (Forscher et al., 2019), we have also excluded these interventions from the current review
because they are more controversial and require a special theoretical background.

2 | S O C I O - P S Y C H O L O G I C A L I N T E R V E N T I O NS A S A M E A NS F O R
A TT I T U D E C H A N GE

In reviewing socio-psychological attitude change interventions, we draw from the seminal contribution of the Yale
group, led by Hovland, Janis, and Kelley (1953), to analyze the approaches we present. This group directed research
attention to at least four factors that should be considered in attempts to elicit attitude change: communicator
(i.e., message source), message, target audience (i.e., message recipients), and context. While all factors are important
in the process of attitude change, for the purposes of the current review, we will focus mostly on the messages, as
they contain the arguments and their scope, the relevant and irrelevant stimuli, the basis of the arousal of specific
discrete emotions and the general affective state, and behavioral guidance. In this vein, Crano and Prislin (2006)
noted that “[t]he standard models of change, which continue to garner considerable attention, take a number of dif-
ferent forms, but their basic understandings of the cause-effect patterns of attitude change are limited. In the classi-
cal models, messages are presented, processed, and if successful, move recipients' attitudes toward the advocated
position” (p. 348).
Furthermore, based on Paluck and Green's (2009) call for studies that rigorously examine the causal effect of
theoretically driven interventions in the field, we will devote additional attention to interventions that have been
BAR-TAL AND HAMEIRI 3 of 16

examined in field research, and assess them through that prism. Finally, we will examine how the reviewed
approaches interact with characteristics of the message recipients and the context to derive new insights and poten-
tial future avenues for research. First, we will review five different psychological interventions that reflect different
approaches to attitude change using messages, and provide examples to illustrate each approach (for a summary, see
Table 1). As mentioned above, we focused on approaches that we consider important in contexts of intergroup con-
flict. Some of these approaches are often used in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, as a prototypic exam-
ple of a harsh and prolonged, or intractable, conflict (Bar-Tal, 2013).

2.1 | Providing contradictory information

The first category consists of providing information that is more accurate and truthful than the held beliefs and atti-
tudes, and sheds new light on them. A number of theories have explained the basis for this approach. The most nota-
ble are theories of inconsistency that focus on what happens following exposure to information that contradicts a
held attitude(s) (e.g., Cooper & Fazio, 1984; Festinger, 1957). These theories propose that such exposure, when
viewed as relevant and credible, arouses an unpleasant psychological state, leading to behaviors to regain consis-
tency, which also include the possibility of changing the held belief or attitude to align with the received message.
Interventions that are based on providing contradictory information may occur either directly or indirectly. The
direct approach includes an identified source that provides information about the given subject either mediated
(e.g., as a report in the newspaper), or unmediated (e.g., a lecture). Examples of the direct approach include interven-
tions that aim to change meta-perceptions—a set of beliefs individuals have about the beliefs of others (Frey &
Tropp, 2006)—using information that is inconsistent with the perceived meta-perceptions. Given that meta-
perceptions tend to be negatively biased (Frey & Tropp, 2006), correcting them has been found to be a fruitful ave-
nue for intervention (Lees & Cikara, 2020).
This was examined recently in a field study in Colombia (Casas et al., 2020). As a first step, Casas and colleagues
surveyed Colombians to determine their held beliefs about demobilized Revolutionary Armed forces of Colombia
(FARC) members,1 and their opposition to FARC reintegration and the peace process. This survey indicated that Col-
ombians have erroneous meta-perceptions, such that they think that FARC members are unwilling to integrate into
Colombian society. Thus, Casas et al. created a media intervention using interviews with FARC members targeting
this meta-perception, highlighting evidence of the successful coexistence between these demobilized FARC mem-
bers and the local residents. They found that the video reduced anti-FARC beliefs and attitudes, and increased sup-
port for pro-FARC policies and for the peace process. These effects persisted when the participants were reassessed
3 months following the original intervention.
Alternatively, indirect messages come through an explicit or implicit experience without a direct reference to the
new information. In other words, whereas in the direct approach there is an overt attempt to persuade an individual,
in the indirect approach the change is the result of the individuals themselves reaching a conclusion that is poten-
tially inconsistent with their held beliefs and attitudes, on the basis of their experience (cf. Aronson, 1999; Pet-
tigrew & Tropp, 2008). Intergroup contact is a salient example of an indirect, experience-based, approach to
intervention (Allport, 1954; Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). A major assumption behind this
intervention is that through contact, whether face-to-face, virtual, or extended (i.e., knowledge of intergroup friend-
ships; Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997), individuals learn counter-stereotypical information about the
other, rather than being directly provided with this information, and then they legitimize, differentiate, personalize,
and humanize the other group members (see Bar-Tal & Teichman, 2005). Eventually, the counter-stereotypical infor-
mation may lead to cognitive unfreezing and change the view of the entire group (Dovidio, Love, Schellhaas, &
Hewstone, 2017; Hodson, Crisp, Meleady, & Earle, 2018).
Contact interventions were found to reduce animosity in several conflictual contexts (Al Ramiah &
Hewstone, 2013; Paluck et al., 2019). One face-to-face contact intervention, for example, is a longitudinal field
4 of 16 BAR-TAL AND HAMEIRI

TABLE 1 Summary of psychological interventions

Intervention Key parameters Theoretical source Example

Providing Providing contradictory Theories of inconsistency Direct approach: Interventions
contradictory information, directly or that focus on the that aim to change negatively
information indirectly, that is more unpleasant biased meta-perceptions (e.g.,
accurate, and truthful than psychological state that Casas, Hameiri, Kteily, &
the previously held beliefs follows an exposure to Bruneau, 2020; Lees & Cikara,
and attitudes, and sheds inconsistent 2020).
new light over them. information (e.g., Indirect approach: Intergroup
Cooper & Fazio, 1984; contact (e.g., Paluck, Green, &
Festinger, 1957). Green, 2019; Paolini,
Harwood, Hewstone, &
Neumann, 2018;
Yablon, 2012).
Paradoxical Providing messages that are The classic debating “The Conflict” intervention,
thinking consistent with the held technique, reductio ad based on the paradoxical
beliefs and attitudes, but absurdum, as well as thinking principles that was
that are formulated in an paradoxical clinical found to moderate rightist
amplified, exaggerated, or psychological Jewish-Israelis' views
even absurd manner. treatments (e.g., regarding the
Riebel, 1984). Israeli–Palestinian conflict
(e.g., Hameiri, Nabet, Bar-Tal,
& Halperin, 2018; Hameiri,
Porat, Bar-Tal, &
Halperin, 2016).
Enlightening Raising awareness of Classic social Raising awareness to the
individual individuals that their psychological research psychological bias of naïve
shortcomings well-anchored attitudes are on basic human realism was found to lead to
based on unconscious, cognitive biases (e.g., more openness to alternative
erroneous, biased, selective Nisbett & Ross, 1980; information, including the
and distortive, cognitive and Ross & Ward, 1995; adversary's narrative among
motivational thinking. Tversky & Jewish-Israeli and Palestinian
Kahneman, 1974) rightists (Nasie, Bar-Tal,
Pliskin, Nahhas, &
Halperin, 2014).
Teaching skills Training new skills that help Clinical psychological Teaching cognitive reappraisal
individuals decrease or cognitive behavioral was found to lower responses
enhance psychological therapy (CBT; e.g., of anger of Jewish-Israelis and
processes that they are Hofmann, Asmundson, support conciliatory policies
mostly aware of and have & Beck, 2013), and up to 5 months after the initial
some motivation to change, emotion regulation training (Halperin, Porat,
but are held back due to (e.g., Gross, 2008). Tamir, & Gross, 2013).
emotional and cognitive
processes.
Informative Informing individuals about Clinical psychological Videos that emphasize elements
process the socio-psychological techniques that involve of conflict-supporting
model processes through which an acceptance-change narratives and their
they form and maintain dialectic (e.g., Brodsky functionality, drawing parallels
their beliefs and attitudes in & Stanley, 2013). with intractable conflicts that
a particular context. It have ended peacefully, were
focuses on the found to lead to more support
psychological needs these for conflict resolution policies
processes serve, and then it mostly among Jewish-Israeli
challenges the message moderates (Rosler
recipient to let go of them. et al., 2020).
BAR-TAL AND HAMEIRI 5 of 16

study, conducted in Israel between Jewish and Arab high school students (Yablon, 2012). Participants were randomly
assigned to either a condition in which they participated in a six monthly face-to-face intergroup encounter, which
included structured (e.g., lectures given by experts followed by discussions) and unstructured (e.g., informal coffee
breaks) activities, or to a control condition, in which they participated in regular school activities. The results showed
that compared to the control condition, the intergroup encounter condition had a positive effect on participants' atti-
tudes and feelings. However, this effect was only for those who were extrinsically motivated to participate in the
intervention (who, e.g., wanted to take part in the program's fun activities, rather than in intergroup encounters), pre-
sumably because they were less intimidated by the outgroup members, and therefore were more open to change.
Unexpectedly, both unmotivated and intrinsically motivated (who wanted to engage in intergroup encounters and
promote conflict resolution) participants were not (positively or negatively) affected by the intervention.
Although the results of studies based on this approach showed that providing (direct or indirect) contradictory
information was an effective means of intervention, it also has several limitations. First, when the beliefs and atti-
tudes in question are held with high confidence, individuals not only often refuse to be exposed to the alternative
information, but even when exposed to it, they tend to reject it, using various psychological defenses
(e.g., Vorauer & Sasaki, 2009). Additionally, some interventions require specific conditions, such as opportunities to
make contact with a typical member of the adversarial outgroup (e.g., Wilder, 1984), which are determined by the
context. In fact, conflictual contexts can also lead to the participation of mostly atypical members of each group
(e.g., people who are willing to go against their group's norms; Ron, Solomon, Halperin, & Saguy, 2017), rendering
the counter-stereotypical information to be perceived as representing a special case of members of the outgroup,
which cannot be generalized to the entire group (e.g., Brown & Hewstone, 2005). Ultimately, contexts that are char-
acterized by intense competition, mistrust, and hostility can reduce the effectiveness of interventions, and in some
cases, for some participants, might even backfire (e.g., Bekerman & Maoz, 2005; Nadler & Liviatan, 2006; Vorauer &
Sasaki, 2009). These tendencies intensify in contexts where this mistrust and hostility are imparted at an early age
(see Bar-Tal et al., 2017).

2.2 | Paradoxical thinking paradigm

We have developed the second approach to attitude change and have termed it paradoxical thinking (e.g., Hameiri,
Bar-Tal, & Halperin, 2019). It is based on the debating technique, reductio ad absurdum and paradoxical clinical psy-
chological treatments (Riebel, 1984), and suggests that presentation of messages that are consistent with an individ-
ual's attitude, but formulated in an amplified, exaggerated, or even absurd manner, may change the attitude even
when it is well-anchored and central. In essence, instead of eliciting an unpleasant feeling of inconsistency using
counter-attitudinal information, the paradoxical message extrapolates extreme and absurd conclusions from the held
beliefs and attitudes, that are meant to induce their deliberate examination. Compared to approaches that aim to
induce inconsistency, these messages lead to lower levels of disagreement, especially among individuals who are
more extreme in their beliefs and attitudes. When combined with a sense of surprise due to the message extremity,
paradoxical thinking messages lead to psychological threat to the person's individual or social identity, which in turn
motivate unfreezing, and ultimately openness to alternative and more moderate attitudes that may then be adopted
(Hameiri et al., 2018).
We examined the paradoxical thinking intervention in a longitudinal field study (Hameiri et al., 2016). We
designed a multichanneled campaign, “The Conflict,” that included online videoclips and banners, billboard posters,
and fieldwork in which t-shirts, balloons, and brochures were handed out. The campaign consisted of several
themes—each presenting one core conflict-supporting belief shared by the majority of Jewish-Israelis (e.g., beliefs in
self-glorification, unity or victimhood; see Bar-Tal, 2013)—suggesting that Israeli–Jews cannot afford to end the
Israeli–Palestinian conflict as its continuation helps to maintain these cherished societal beliefs (Hameiri, Porat
et al. 2014). The campaign was administered in a mostly right-wing and religious small city in the center of Israel for
6 of 16 BAR-TAL AND HAMEIRI

6 weeks. We found that the paradoxical thinking intervention decreased hawkish (or rightist)2 participants' adher-
ence to conflict-supporting beliefs across time. Furthermore, compared to the control condition, which included par-
ticipants from the area surrounding the targeted city, participants in the paradoxical thinking condition showed less
support for aggressive policies and more support for conciliatory policies.
The paradoxical thinking approach can overcome some of the limitations of the contradictory information
approach, because the provided messages do not contradict the held beliefs and attitudes and thus do not evoke
immediate rejection (Hameiri et al., 2018). However, recent research (Hameiri, Idan, Nabet, Bar-Tal, &
Halperin, 2020) has found that this approach is delicate and based on hitting a “sweet spot” in order to be effective.
This means that the message must be an extreme version of the individual's held beliefs and attitudes, but not too
extreme, which yields an automatic rejection. The message also has to be extreme enough; otherwise, it can have
deleterious effects, and in fact, bolster the original beliefs and attitudes held by the target audience, potentially mak-
ing these beliefs and attitudes more normalized, extreme, and entrenched. In addition, anecdotal evidence suggests
that awareness of the message's goal of exposing the absurdity of the message recipients' beliefs and attitudes, may
diminish its credibility and thus render the intervention ineffective. Finally, while paradoxical thinking has generally
been found to be an effective approach with more extreme individuals; among moderate individuals the effects var-
ied, and in some cases the intervention even backfired (see Hameiri et al., 2016).

2.3 | Enlightening individual shortcomings

The third approach is based on the tendencies of human beings, outside of our awareness, to make unconscious
selective choices, errors, and distortions as a result of universal cognitive and motivational biases. These biases
include cognitive heuristics, automatic cognitive processing, and various motivations such as ego-enhancement,
naïve realism, or the fundamental attribution error (e.g., Kunda, 1990; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Tversky &
Kahneman, 1974). Furthermore, certain contexts, such as intergroup conflicts, provide an ultimate platform for the
development of these biases (Ross & Ward, 1995). These biases reinforce the rigidity and the stability of held atti-
tudes, because of people's motivation to embrace information that reinforces their held attitudes, and to ignore and
reject inconsistent information (e.g., Kruglanski, 2004; Kunda, 1990). As a result, people misrepresent subjects, mis-
judge and misevaluate events and behaviors (Ross & Ward, 1995). One prominent example of how cognitive and
motivational biases affect adversaries' construals of conflict-related events is naïve realism—that is, the tendency to
think that their own views are objective and unbiased, while others' views are biased by ideology, self-interest, and
irrationality (Robinson, Keltner, Ward, & Ross, 1995).
There is evidence suggesting that raising individuals' awareness that their well-anchored attitudes are based on
unconscious biased, selective, and distortive cognitive and motivational thinking, leads to unfreezing. In one example
of this approach (Nasie et al., 2014), in three studies, conducted both in the lab and in the field, Israeli and Palestinian
participants were trained to be aware of their psychological bias based on naïve realism. Participants read a short
text explaining the phenomenon and describing its negative consequences, including closemindedness and missed
opportunities for change in general, and in conflictual contexts. The results showed that raising awareness of this
psychological bias can lead to greater openness to alternative information, including increased perceived legitimacy
and understanding of the adversary's conflict-related narrative. These effects were more pronounced among the
more rightist participants, presumably because they showed more bias at the baseline, and were more able to iden-
tify that it influences their judgment.
While not much work has been devoted to examining this approach as an intervention to change well-anchored
beliefs and attitudes, we believe that it holds considerable potential. However, bias correction requires both identifi-
cation of the bias and the ability and motivation to correct it (Wegener & Petty, 1997), which may lead to two possi-
ble limitations. First, the research conducted by Nasie et al. (2014) showed that taking the characteristics of the
BAR-TAL AND HAMEIRI 7 of 16

message recipients into account is crucial, as only the more rightist participants correctly identified that this bias was
influencing their views. Second, it is equally important to make sure that there is a motivation and ability to correct
the bias. In Nasie et al.'s intervention, the researchers cleverly included the negative consequences of naïve realism
as part of the intervention, which probably increased participants' motivation to attempt to debias. They did so with-
out directly linking these negative consequences to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Making an explicit link would
have triggered a conflict-related ideology, which provides clear guidelines for the appropriate reaction to the out-
group's narrative, resulting in reduced bias identification and motivation for correction (cf. Pliskin, Sheppes, &
Halperin, 2015). Without being motivated to change their views, recipients of such interventions are left with the
notion that their bias is normal, which can then lead to complacency (Cooley, Lei, & Ellerkamp, 2018; Daumeyer,
Onyeador, Brown, & Richeson, 2019).

2.4 | Teaching skills relevant to attitude change

The proposed fourth category is based on training new skills that help individuals overcome different emotional or
cognitive processes, which facilitate freezing and hinder attitude change (e.g., Eisenberg, Eggum, & Di Giunta, 2010;
Stephan & Stephan, 2001). While the previous approach is based on making people aware of their unconscious psy-
chological biases, the present approach focuses on teaching skills that help people decrease or enhance psychological
processes that they are generally aware of and have some motivation to change. As such, it shares similarities with
cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT; Hofmann et al., 2013). These processes can, for example, be an intense psycho-
logical reaction, such as guilt and shame that might follow the acknowledgment of a negative behavior; the fear of
uncertainty when embarking on a new and unknown road following a major change in life; or lack of perspective tak-
ing ability, and complex thinking.
One line of the research that examines skill-based interventions is based on the use of cognitive reappraisal,
which is a skill that can be learned in a short session, and involves changing the meaning, or appraisal, of a stimulus
or situation, and correspondently, the individual's emotional response to it (Gross, 2008). The basic assumption
underlying the use of this skill is that after learning it, individuals may later use it in order to either decrease the mag-
nitude of negative emotions (e.g., anger), or increase the magnitude of positive ones (e.g., hope; Halperin, Cohen-
Chen, & Goldenberg, 2014). For example, in a longitudinal field experiment, Halperin et al. (2013) trained Israeli-
Jewish participants 1 week before a real and dramatic event in the history of the conflict (i.e., the Palestinian bid in
the United Nations) to reappraise anger-inducing pictures (e.g., pictures depicting what is perceived to be an unjust
response by the Palestinians, such as launching rockets, following Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip), by
asking them to respond to them like scientists, in an objective and analytical manner. The results showed that those
who had learnt the reappraisal skill (vs. control condition) expressed less anger, and in turn more support for concilia-
tory policies toward Palestinians both 1 week and 5 months after the training had taken place.
Skill training interventions have yielded promising results in various conflictual contexts both in the lab and in
the field in changing beliefs and attitudes (e.g., Halperin et al., 2013; Hurtado-Parrado et al., 2019). Nevertheless,
these approaches, much like CBT, are based on people's motivation and ability to change and alleviate symptoms
that bother them (e.g., Miller & Rollnick, 2012). In cases of well-anchored beliefs and attitudes, which individuals hold
deeply as part of their identities, and have been socialized to hold them from a young age, they might be less moti-
vated to change them. In contexts of intergroup conflicts, individuals can feel secure in the situation of conflict
(Mitzen, 2006) and its routinization, and get desensitized to threats and dangers and habituated to the conflict con-
text (Bar-Tal, Abutbul-Selinger, & Raviv, 2014). Thus, they may not be motivated to regulate their emotions when
considering cognitive reappraisal (Tamir, 2009), or use any related such skills, as this may lead to psychological dis-
tress, due to the uncertainty and risk taking.
8 of 16 BAR-TAL AND HAMEIRI

2.5 | Informative process model

The last approach, which we have developed and introduce here for the first time, is termed the informative process
model (IPM). We argue that attitude change can also occur by informing individuals about the socio-psychological
processes through which they form and maintain their beliefs and attitudes in a particular context. The information
provided is based on the following elements, derived from the work of Bar-Tal (2013) on the evolvement of the cul-
ture of conflict: (a) presenting the reasons for evolvement of the beliefs and attitudes that fulfill primary needs of
individuals and collectives; (b) educating about the prevalence and normality of these beliefs and attitudes, and how
they evolve in all other situations of bloody and protracted intergroup conflicts; (c) explaining that these beliefs and
attitudes fuel the conflict with its immense costs, and serve as barriers to attitude change; and (d) suggesting on the
basis of accumulated knowledge from similar contexts, past and present, that alternative beliefs and attitudes can
fulfill the individual's and the collective's needs and may enable conflict resolution.
Thus, this approach, which shares similarities with several clinical psychological treatments, such as the
acceptance-change dialectic approach (Brodsky & Stanley, 2013), focuses on societal processes that underlie the
development of the held beliefs and attitudes. Similar to the enlightening of individual shortcomings approach, the
information provided normalizes and humanizes the processes that lead to the evolvement of the need-fulfilling
beliefs and attitudes. Differently from the enlightening of individual shortcomings approach, the IPM focuses on the
psychological needs these processes serve, challenges the destructive beliefs and attitudes, and encourages the
development of new adaptive ones that will fulfill the same needs and give way to change. Furthermore, differently
from the teaching skills approach, the IPM does not provide tools for individuals to help them better cope with a sit-
uation or stimulus. Rather, it challenges them to make the change themselves after describing and explaining the
aforementioned elements.
As a first test of this approach, we conducted a study among Israeli–Jews in the context of the Israeli–
Palestinian conflict (Rosler et al., 2020). We developed a set of short 40-s videos that present elements of conflict-
supporting narratives and their functionality (e.g., outgroup dehumanization; Bar-Tal & Hammack, 2012); as well as
drawing parallels between the processes taking place in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and other
intractable conflicts, such as the conflict in Northern Ireland, while showing that those other conflicts have ended
peacefully. The videos do not explicitly mention the Israeli–Palestinian conflict; rather, they lead viewers to think
about it by presenting different cues and statements. Toward the end of the video, viewers eventually become aware
that while they were led to think that the video refers to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, it is in fact about a different
conflict that ended peacefully. Participants who were exposed to the IPM videos (vs. control condition) showed more
understanding of the socio-psychological processes that lead to the development of conflict-supporting narratives in
contexts of prolonged and violent conflicts, and more support for conflict resolution policies. These effects were
more pronounced among the more centrist participants who tend to hold more moderate views with regard to the
conflict (Rosler et al., 2020).
While all previous approaches were tested in the lab and in the field to various degrees, the IPM has just
recently been conceptualized and has yet to be rigorously tested. We believe this approach holds considerable
potential, relying on dozens of talks and courses with different audiences, which have used this method to suc-
cessfully change their beliefs and attitudes regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. However, based on the pre-
liminary findings outlined above, one limitation that this approach might suffer from is similar to the
contradictory information approach, in that it is more useful with moderates, who are more open to be exposed
to this information. While the IPM does not provide inconsistent information per se, it does suggest that negative
events people have experienced, whether these entailed costs and suffering they endured, or distress and anxiety
they felt, was mostly because of the conflict-supporting narrative they had acquired and held. Those with
extreme views may reject such information because it challenges everything they have been socialized to believe
in since they were born (Bar-Tal et al., 2017).
BAR-TAL AND HAMEIRI 9 of 16

3 | DISCUSSION

In the current review, we report five different types of interventions to attitude change. We have selected those that
have been used in contexts of intergroup conflict, and specifically in the context of the intractable Israeli–Palestinian
conflict. In addition, they focus on messages, are based on different approaches, vary in their novelty and two of
them were developed by our group in Israel. We acknowledge that the list of presented interventions is not exhaus-
tive, but they deserve the attention of conflict-resolution researchers and practitioners because of their applicability.
These approaches differ considerably with regard to their standing in the research community. While for some of
them, such as providing information through contact interventions, there is abundant research, conducted both in
the lab and in the field (e.g., Paluck et al., 2019), in other cases, the proposed approaches are novel and still need rig-
orous research, particularly in the field. Some of them have even just begun their journey toward validation. Our dis-
cussion has three parts: The first part discusses present research challenges regarding the development of
interventions, which are very difficult to overcome. The second discusses two major limitations of the developed
interventions and proposes directions for future research, and the third focuses on the specific issue of the partner-
ship between academics and practitioners.

3.1 | The challenges of developing interventions

First, almost all of the described research approaches to interventions have been found to be effective under con-
trolled situations in the lab or in online studies. However, we argue that real-life contexts differ considerably from
laboratory conditions, such that additional influencing variables appear simultaneously, and/or the messages pro-
vided compete with prevalent messages that try to uphold the held attitude. The challenges in real-life contexts are
to combine and integrate messages into a holistic persuasive communication that can be successfully disseminated
among society members in complex situations, and influence them. An extreme example of this challenge takes place
during elections when campaigns (or interventions) compete and their results determine the direction a society will
take on intergroup relations. This real-life situation is very difficult and very rarely resolved in interventions by social
scientists.
Another challenge when developing interventions for improving intergroup relations is rooted in the need to
motivate society members to change their beliefs and attitudes. As noted, many individuals may want to retain their
beliefs and attitudes for various reasons (e.g., they serve various needs, are ego-involving, are part of a well-anchored
ideology, etc.). All of the presented interventions are dependent, at least to some degree, on participants' openness
to new information. Nevertheless, the open-mindedness is largely based on the assumption that human beings are
rational, logical, and strive to have valid knowledge. In this view, individuals should be open to new information,
because of the epistemic fear of invalidity, which leads individuals to be motivated to avoid inaccuracies in their
knowledge (Freund, Kruglanski, & Shpitzajzen, 1985). However, this general assumption is erroneous as some indi-
viduals, in some situations, are also driven by the motivation to be exposed to specific content that confirms their
held beliefs and attitudes and to avoid information that challenges their views (Kruglanski, 2004). They avoid contra-
dictory information and even when are exposed, they reject it, using defense mechanisms. Motivating these individ-
uals is a very difficult task.
A third challenge lies in the context in which the interventions are applied. Specifically, in most cases, the pro-
posed interventions provide a method that can be used with a captive audience, in small groups or with those who
are interested in attitude change; or in institutions, which have the authority to carry out interventions, such as
diversity training employed by workplaces for their employees. In these cases, it is possible to implement interven-
tions based on providing inconsistent information or teaching skills relevant to attitude change. In reality, however,
the reach of such interventions is limited, and for a substantial societal change, it is necessary to change the beliefs
and attitudes of the masses, which is challenging.
10 of 16 BAR-TAL AND HAMEIRI

Finally, we would like to note that interventions are carried out in a specific macro context that has particular
characteristics. Each society has specific features related to culture, economic situation, political climate, and others.
As a result, it is sometimes impossible to generalize findings of a performed intervention and easily apply them to a
different setting, as for example to a different society involved in a conflict. We are well aware of this problem and
therefore, we are unsure about the generalizability of the findings obtained in the studies that were only conducted
in the specific context of the intractable Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

3.2 | Directions for the future development of interventions

On the basis of the delineated challenges, we would now like to comment on the requirements for building success-
ful interventions. We suggest that successful interventions should take into account (a) the specific context, and
(b) the characteristics of the targeted audience of the intervention. We now elaborate on each of these two points.

3.2.1 | Taking the context into account

The context plays a crucial role the effectiveness of the interventions, and thus it is vital for researchers and practi-
tioners to consider the characteristics of the context in which they wish to apply their interventions (Ditlmann
et al., 2017; Hameiri, Bar-Tal, & Halperin, 2014). The significance of the context lies in its relevance to society mem-
bers' needs and goals, and the opportunities and limitations it provides for human behavior (Lewin, 1943;
Pettigrew, 1997). Contexts may differ in their levels of polarization, availability of resources, levels of information
openness, levels of societal resilience, levels of gap between the groups, dominance of the countering messages and
more. In fact, the context, to a large extent, determines the effectiveness of the interventions (Ditlmann et al., 2017;
Hameiri, Bar-Tal, & Halperin, 2014). This is exacerbated by what Pettigrew and Hewstone (2017) termed as the single
factor fallacy, that is, the tendency of researchers to rely on their own work—based on their specific theoretical
framework and the variables they focus on—to develop their applied interventions. This fallacy means that important
factors, including contextual ones, are overlooked.
While many interventions have been found to be effective in particular contexts, when used in other contexts
that include competitive settings, high levels of mistrust and hostility between groups (e.g., Bekerman & Maoz, 2005;
Nadler & Liviatan, 2006; Vorauer & Sasaki, 2009), or when the targeted attitudes are strongly held because they
have been maintained and reinforced for many years (e.g., Eagly & Chaiken, 1993), they suffer from serious limita-
tions. One prominent example is the effects of segregation and diversity on the effectiveness of contact interven-
tions. In early studies on intergroup contact, among white Americans, increased diversity and intergroup contact was
found to lead to greater perceived threat from African Americans. However, these studies were conducted in com-
munities with strict segregation, and when the same questions were examined in different contexts, a more compli-
cated picture emerged (see discussion in Pettigrew & Hewstone, 2017). Thus, before selecting an intervention,
researchers and practitioners must analyze in great detail the context in which the change in beliefs and attitudes is
needed, and on this basis select a suitable intervention.

3.2.2 | Characteristics of the targeted audience

Interventions should also take into consideration the characteristics of those who are exposed to them. The vast
majority of studies that have examined socio-psychological interventions, both in the lab and in the field, have been
conducted among members of high-power groups, and in many cases, among students, mostly from WEIRD coun-
tries (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic; Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010; Paluck
BAR-TAL AND HAMEIRI 11 of 16

et al., 2019). However, research has established that individual characteristics play a pivotal role in the effectiveness
of well-known and thoroughly researched interventions. For example, contact interventions were found to have
some ironic, negative effects on members of low-power groups, such that it made them more complacent with their
relative disadvantage (e.g., Saguy, Tausch, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2009). Other individual characteristics, such as social domi-
nance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism, were found to play a role in the effectiveness of contact intervention,
or more specifically, on the willingness to engage in contact (Paolini et al., 2018). Moreover, the interventions we
reviewed above showed that some of them were more effective with particular populations than with others. For exam-
ple, paradoxical thinking interventions work better with individuals who hold extreme views (e.g., Hameiri
et al., 2016, 2018), while IPM is more effective with moderates (Rosler et al., 2020). Finally, when considering low-power
groups in conflict, or victims of a mass atrocity, there are additional ethical and moral considerations that should be con-
sidered. Trying to change attitudes of such groups to promote conflict resolution and reconciliation might in fact harm
the group, as it may contribute to the high-power or perpetrator group's feeling of being absolved of their responsibility
to acknowledge and make amends of their misdeeds (cf. Vollhardt & Twali, 2016).
Consideration of the audience also poses the challenge of appeal to masses, instead of small groups or particular
sectors. In these cases, much information must be collected about the public and an appealing medium and contents
for the planned intervention must be prepared. Some approaches that have garnered considerable academic atten-
tion through the years seem promising in effectively influencing large groups of society members, such as the use of
entertainment-education, that is, embedding educational messages within popular radio and television programs
(Blair, Littman, & Paluck, 2019; Singhal & Rogers, 1999). This is only a beginning and great creativity must be used in
finding ways to reach an entire society.

3.3 | Future research: A call for partnerships between academics and practitioners

A final lesson that we would like to propose in view of these challenges is to form collaborations between
researchers and practitioners (see Paluck, 2012). We argue that these collaborations can materialize in at least two
different forms: first, by conducting rigorous field experiments to validate an intervention that was designed by, or in
collaboration with, experienced practitioners, without grounding it in a specific theory. Then, if successful, the inter-
vention can be further examined in controlled lab experiments to ascertain its psychological mechanisms and bound-
ary conditions. This approach considers context as an inherent part of the development of the interventions,
mitigating the single factor fallacy (Pettigrew & Hewstone, 2017), as well as the practical challenge of successfully
implementing the interventions in the field. The work on paradoxical thinking (Hameiri et al., 2019), and research by
Staub (2019) and colleagues (e.g., Bilali & Vollhardt, 2013; Bilali, Vollhardt, & Rarick, 2016) in assessing media-based
interventions in the Great Lakes Region of Africa, serve as prime examples of this approach.
Second, researchers and practitioners can develop multidimensional interventions, that is, interventions that com-
bine multiple approaches to create one, holistic, and effective intervention that attempts to affect multiple aspects of a
targeted issue simultaneously (see Paluck & Green, 2009), and then test these in the field. These interventions can be
developed based on findings that clearly indicate what is effective in the lab and in the field. Combining the cumulative
evidence and designing new multidimensional interventions may compensate for the known limitations of previously
tested interventions. For example, as discussed above, contact interventions suffer from several limitations when applied
in the context of violent conflicts (Tropp, 2015). One clever field study tried to overcome these limitations and promote
more fruitful intergroup encounters between Palestinian and Israeli-Jewish high-schoolers (Goldenberg et al., 2017).
Before the encounter, the researchers taught participants that groups are malleable, and change over time. This psycho-
logical intervention, consisting of contradictory information, was found to be effective in numerous studies across differ-
ent contexts in reducing intergroup negative emotions and increasing positive ones (Halperin et al., 2014). Indeed,
participants that were taught that groups are malleable (vs. control condition), showed enhanced intergroup cooperation
in several behavioral measures as part of the encounter.
12 of 16 BAR-TAL AND HAMEIRI

This approach opens up a new realm of possibilities for different multidimensional interventions. Although there
are numerous possibilities, we would like to suggest three that seem particularly promising. First, researchers and
practitioners can make individuals aware of their cognitive and motivational biases, such as naïve realism (Nasie
et al., 2014) prior to exposure to interventions that provide contradictory information, such as an intervention that
exposes individuals to the narratives of the adversary (Ben David et al., 2017). This approach can facilitate more
openness to this challenging, contradictory information. Second, researchers and practitioners can teach participants
about what are likely their erroneous meta-perceptions (e.g., Frey & Tropp, 2006) in order to heighten willingness to
engage in intergroup contact (Bruneau, Hameiri, Moore-Berg, & Kteily, 2020) and to increase its fruitfulness. Finally,
taking into consideration how some approaches are more or less effective with different individuals, researchers, and
practitioners can tailor-specific messages based on different approaches, to message recipients based on their char-
acteristics (Bruneau, 2015; Halperin & Schori-Eyal, 2020), for example, providing either inconsistent information or
paradoxical thinking messages to recipients who hold more dovish or hawkish worldviews, respectively (Hameiri
et al., 2018). We believe that these and other potential new multidimensional interventions are fruitful avenues for
future work, as they can address the challenges specific contexts pose, such as participants' lack of motivation to
take part in the interventions and change their attitudes, as well as the characteristics of the targeted audience.
In conclusion, we argue that it is pivotal for researchers and practitioners who wish to promote intergroup con-
flict resolution to address the above challenges. The reported approaches of interventions provide the initial tools,
but more rigorous research is needed to extend the knowledge about them and to further adapt them to real-world
contexts. This is particularly important with the new approaches we have introduced that, in addition to the Israeli–
Palestinian conflict from which most our examples were derived, should be examined in other conflictual contexts.
Indeed, our assessment of the literature on psychological interventions is that more fieldwork is needed to under-
stand how interventions interact with the complicated real world, taking into account the context and the message
recipients' characteristics. We suggest that one way to achieve this is by collaboration among researchers and practi-
tioners and information sharing, while testing integrative, multidimensional, field interventions. We realize that the
challenges are great but the well-being of individuals, collectives, and the entire international community is at stake.
It is our responsibility and duty to make the effort to promote a better world.

ORCID
Boaz Hameiri https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0241-9839

ENDNOTES
1
The FARC is a leftist insurgent movement that took up arms in 1964 to protect indigenous and poor communities from
exploitation by governmental and business interests in Colombia.
2
Hawks, also referred to as rightists in Israel, tend to hold uncompromising positions toward the Israeli–Palestinian conflict,
and to view Palestinians negatively (Bar-Tal, Raviv, & Freund, 1994).

FURTHER R EAD ING

Hameiri, B., Porat, R., Bar-Tal, D., Bieler, A., & Halperin, E. (2014). Paradoxical thinking as a new avenue of intervention to
promote peace. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 10996–11001.
Moss, S. M., Ulug, Ö. M., & Acar, Y. G. (2019). Doing research in conflict contexts: Practical and ethical challenges for
researchers when conducting fieldwork. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 25, 86–99.

RE FE R ENC E S
Aronson, E. (1999). The power of self-persuasion. American Psychologist, 54, 875–884.
Al Ramiah, A., & Hewstone, M. (2013). Intergroup contact as a tool for reducing, resolving, and preventing intergroup con-
flict: Evidence, limitations, and potential. American Psychologist, 68, 527–542.
Albarracín, D., & Shavitt, S. (2018). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 299–327.
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
BAR-TAL AND HAMEIRI 13 of 16

Bar-Tal, D. (2013). Intractable conflicts: Socio-psychological foundations and dynamics. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Bar-Tal, D., Abutbul-Selinger, G., & Raviv, A. (2014). The culture of conflict and its routinisation. In P. Nesbitt-Larking,
C. Kinnvall, T. Capelos, & H. Dekker (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of global political psychology (pp. 369–387). London,
England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bar-Tal, D., Diamond, A. H., & Nasie, M. (2017). Political socialization of young children in intractable conflicts: Conception
and evidence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41, 415–425.
Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2009). Overcoming psychological barriers to peace making: The influence of mediating beliefs
about losses. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our
nature (pp. 431–448). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Bar-Tal, D., & Hammack, P. L. (2012). Conflict, delegitimization, and violence. In L. R. Tropp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
intergroup conflict (pp. 29–52). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., & Freund, T. (1994). An anatomy of political beliefs: A study of their centrality confidence, contents,
and epistemic authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 849–872.
Bar-Tal, D., & Teichman, Y. (2005). Stereotypes and prejudice in conflict: Representations of Arabs in Israeli Jewish society. Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bekerman, Z., & Maoz, I. (2005). Troubles with identity: Obstacles to coexistence education in conflict ridden societies. Iden-
tity, 5, 341–357.
Ben David, Y., Hameiri, B., Benheim, S., Leshem, B., Sarid, A., Sternberg, M., … Sagy, S. (2017). Exploring ourselves within
inter-group conflict: The role of intra-group dialogue in promoting acceptance of collective narratives and willingness
towards reconciliation. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23, 269–277.
Bilali, R., & Vollhardt, J. R. (2013). Priming effects of a reconciliation radio drama on historical perspective-taking in the after-
math of mass violence in Rwanda. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 144–151.
Bilali, R., Vollhardt, J. R., & Rarick, J. R. D. (2016). Assessing the impact of a media-based intervention to prevent intergroup
violence and promote positive intergroup relations in Burundi. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 26,
221–235.
Blair, G., Littman, R., & Paluck, E. L. (2019). Motivating the adoption of new community-minded behaviors: An empirical test
in Nigeria. Science Advances, 5, eaau5175. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau5175
Brodsky, B. S., & Stanley, B. (2013). The dialectic behavior therapy primer: How DBT can inform clinical practice. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Brown, R., & Hewstone, H. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Bruneau, E. (2015). Putting neuroscience to work for peace. In E. Halperin & K. Sharvit (Eds.), The social psychology of intrac-
table conflict: Celebrating the legacy of Daniel Bar-Tal (Vol. 1, pp. 143–155). New York, NY: Springer.
Bruneau, E., Hameiri, B., Moore-Berg, S., & Kteily, N. (2020). Intergroup contact reduces dehumanization and meta-dehu-
manization: Cross-sectional, longitudinal and experimental evidence from 16 samples in 5 countries. Manuscript submit-
ted for publication.
Casas, A., Hameiri, B., Kteily, N., & Bruneau, E. (2020). Single exposure to a media intervention helps promote peace in
Colombia. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Cooley, E., Lei, R. F., & Ellerkamp, T. (2018). The mixed outcomes of taking ownership for implicit racial biases. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 1424–1434.
Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 229–266.
Crano, W. D., & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 345–374.
Daumeyer, N. D., Onyeador, I. N., Brown, X., & Richeson, J. A. (2019). Consequences of attributing discrimination to implicit
vs. explicit bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84, 103812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.04.010
Ditlmann, R., Samii, C., & Zeitzoff, T. (2017). Addressing violent intergroup conflict from the bottom up? Social Issues and Pol-
icy Review, 11, 38–77.
Dovidio, J. F., Love, A., Schellhaas, F. M., & Hewstone, M. (2017). Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact:
Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 606–620.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Eisenberg, N., Eggum, D. D., & Di Giunta, L. (2010). Empathy-related responding: Association with prosocial behavior,
aggression and intergroup relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4, 143–180.
Festinger, L. A. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.
Forscher, P. S., Lai, C. K., Axt, J. R., Ebersole, C. R., Herman, M., Devine, P. G., & Nosek, B. A. (2019). A meta-analysis of pro-
cedures to change implicit measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117, 522–559.
Freund, T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Shpitzajzen, A. (1985). The freezing and unfreezing of impressional primacy: Effects of the
need for structure and the fear of invalidity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 479–487.
14 of 16 BAR-TAL AND HAMEIRI

Frey, F. E., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). Being seen as individuals versus as group members: Extending research on metaperception
to intergroup contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 265–280.
Goldenberg, A., Endevelt, K., Ran, S., Dweck, C. S., Gross, J. J., & Halperin, E. (2017). Making intergroup contact more fruitful:
Enhancing cooperation between Palestinian and Jewish-Israeli adolescents by fostering beliefs about group malleability.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 3–10.
Gross, J. J. (2008). Emotion regulation. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd
ed., pp. 497–512). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Halperin, E., Cohen-Chen, S., & Goldenberg, A. (2014). Indirect emotion regulation in intractable conflicts: A new approach
to conflict resolution. European Review of Social Psychology, 25, 1–31.
Halperin, E., Porat, R., Tamir, M., & Gross, J. J. (2013). Can emotion regulation change political attitudes in intractable con-
flict? From the laboratory to the field. Psychological Science, 24, 106–111.
Halperin, E., & Schori-Eyal, N. (2020). Towards a new framework of personalized psychological interventions to improve
intergroup relations and promote peace. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, e12527. https://doi.org/10.1111/
spc3.12527
Hameiri, B., Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2014). Challenges for peacemakers: How to overcome socio-psychological barriers.
Policy Insights from Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 164–171.
Hameiri, B., Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2019). Paradoxical thinking interventions: A paradigm for societal change. Social
Issues and Policy Review, 13, 36–62.
Hameiri, B., Idan, O., Nabet, E., Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2020). The paradoxical thinking ‘sweet spot’: The role of recipi-
ents' latitude of rejection in the effectiveness of paradoxical thinking messages targeting anti-refugee attitudes in Israel.
Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 8, 266–283.
Hameiri, B., Nabet, E., Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2018). Paradoxical thinking as a conflict resolution intervention: Compari-
son to alternative interventions and examination of psychological mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
44, 122–139.
Hameiri, B., Porat, R., Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2016). Moderating attitudes in times of violence through paradoxical think-
ing intervention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 12105–12110.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33,
61–83.
Hodson, G., Crisp, R. J., Meleady, R., & Earle, M. (2018). Intergroup contact as an agent of cognitive liberalization. Perspec-
tives on Psychological Science, 13, 523–548.
Hofmann, S. G., Asmundson, G. J. G., & Beck, A. T. (2013). The science of cognitive therapy. Behavior Therapy, 44, 199–212.
Hornsey, M. J., & Fielding, K. S. (2017). Attitude roots and Jiu Jitsu persuasion: Understanding and overcoming the moti-
vated rejection of science. American Psychologist, 72, 459–473.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hummel, D., & Maedche, A. (2019). How effective is nudging? A quantitative review on the effect sizes and limits of empiri-
cal nudging studies. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 80, 47–58.
Hurtado-Parrado, C., Sierra-Puentes, M., El Hazzouri, M., Morales, A., Gutiérrez-Villamarín, D., Velásquez, L., … López-
López, W. (2019). Emotion regulation and attitudes toward conflict in Colombia: Effects of reappraisal training on nega-
tive emotions and support for conciliatory and aggressive statement. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–9.
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual
Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.
Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). The psychology of closed mindedness. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
Lees, J., & Cikara, M. (2020). Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive con-
texts. Nature Human Behavior, 4, 279–286.
Lewin, K. (1943). Psychological ecology. In J. J. Gieseking, W. Mangold, C. Katz, S. Low, & S. Saegert (Eds.) (2014), The peo-
ple, place, and space reader (pp. 17-21). New York: Routledge.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2012). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mitzen, J. (2006). Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of Interna-
tional Relations, 12, 341–370.
Nadler, A., & Liviatan, I. (2006). Intergroup reconciliation: Effects of adversary's expressions of empathy, responsibility, and
recipients' trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 459–470.
Nasie, M., Bar-Tal, D., Pliskin, R., Nahhas, E., & Halperin, E. (2014). Overcoming the barrier of narrative adherence in con-
flicts through awareness of the psychological bias of naïve realism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40,
1543–1556.
BAR-TAL AND HAMEIRI 15 of 16

Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-
tice-Hall.
Paluck, E. L. (2012). Interventions aimed at the reduction of prejudice and conflict. In L. R. Tropp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook
of intergroup conflict (pp. 179–192). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice.
Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367.
Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A., & Green, D. P. (2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3,
129–158.
Paolini, S., Harwood, J., Hewstone, M., & Neumann, D. L. (2018). Seeking and avoiding intergroup contact: Future frontiers
of research on building social integration. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12, e12422. https://doi.org/10.
1111/spc3.12422
Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Personality and social structure: Social psychological contributions. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, &
S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 417–438). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Hewstone, M. (2017). The single factor fallacy: Implications of missing critical variables from an analysis
of intergroup contact theory. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11, 8–37.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three media-
tors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934.
Pliskin, R., Sheppes, G., & Halperin, E. (2015). Running for your life, in context: Are rightists always less likely to consider
fleeing their country when fearing future events? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 59, 90–95.
Riebel, L. (1984). Paradoxical intention strategies: A review of rationales. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training,
21, 260–272.
Robinson, R. J., Keltner, D., Ward, A., & Ross, L. (1995). Actual versus assumed differences in construal: "Naïve realism" in
intergroup perception and conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 404–417.
Ron, Y., Solomon, J., Halperin, E., & Saguy, T. (2017). Willingness to engage in intergroup contact: A multilevel approach.
Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23, 210–218.
Rosler, N., Hameiri, B., Sharvit, K., Wiener-Blotner, O., Idan, O., & Bar-Tal, D. (2020). The informative process model: A new
intervention for attitude change in intractable conflicts. Manuscript in preparation.
Ross, L. D., & Ward, A. (1995). Psychological barriers to dispute resolution. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 27, pp. 255–304). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expecta-
tions for equality. Psychological Science, 20, 114–121.
Singhal, A., & Rogers, E. M. (1999). Entertainment-education: A communication strategy for social change. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Skitka, L. J. (2010). The psychology of moral conviction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 267–281.
Staub, E. (2019). Promoting healing and reconciliation in Rwanda, and generating active bystandership by police to stop
unnecessary harm by fellow officers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 60–64.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2001). Improving intergroup relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tamir, M. (2009). What do people want to feel and why? Pleasure and utility in emotion regulation. Current Directions in Psy-
chological Science, 18, 101–105.
Tankard, M., & Paluck, E. L. (2016). Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Social Issues and Policy Review, 10,
181–211.
Tankard, M. E., & Paluck, E. L. (2017). The effect of a supreme court decision regarding gay marriage on social norms and
personal attitudes. Psychological Science, 28, 1334–1344.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Tropp, L. R. (2015). Dismantling an ethos of conflict: Strategies for improving intergroup relations. In E. Halperin & K. Sharvit
(Eds.), The social psychology of intractable conflict: Celebrating the legacy of Daniel Bar-Tal (Vol. 1, pp. 159–171).
New York, NY: Springer.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
Vollhardt, J. R., & Twali, M. S. (2016). Emotion-based reconciliation required attention to power differences, critical con-
sciousness, and structural change. Psychological Inquiry, 27, 136–143.
Vorauer, J. D., & Sasaki, S. J. (2009). Helpful only in the abstract? Ironic effects of empathy in intergroup interaction. Psycho-
logical Science, 20, 191–197.
Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naive theories of bias in bias correction. In
M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 141–208). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wilder, D. (1984). Intergroup contact: The typical member and the exception rule. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
20, 177–194.
16 of 16 BAR-TAL AND HAMEIRI

Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group
friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73–90.
Yablon, Y. B. (2012). Are we preaching to the converted? The role of motivation in understanding the contribution of inter-
group encounters. Journal of Peace Education, 9, 249–263.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHI ES

Daniel Bar-Tal is Professor Emeritus at the School of Education, Tel Aviv University. His research interest is in
political and social psychology studying socio-psychological foundations of intractable conflicts and peace build-
ing, as well as development of political understanding among children and peace education. He has published
over 25 books and over 250 articles and chapters in major social and political psychological journals, books, and
encyclopedias. He served as a President of the International Society of Political Psychology and received various
awards for his academic achievements.

Boaz Hameiri is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Penn-
sylvania; and will be joining the Evens Program in Conflict Resolution and Mediation, Tel Aviv University, as a
Senior Lecturer in October 2020. His research focuses on intergroup processes, intergroup conflicts, developing
psychological interventions that aim to promote better intergroup relations and conflict resolution, and testing
these interventions in the lab and in the field on a large scale.

How to cite this article: Bar-Tal D, Hameiri B. Interventions to change well-anchored attitudes in the context
of intergroup conflict. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2020;14:e12534. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12534