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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aronson, S. 1978. Conflict and bargaining in the Middle-East: An Israeli perspective. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
2.
Bar-Tal, D. , and N. Geva. 1986. A cognitive basis of international conflicts. In Psychology of intergroup relations, edited by S. Worchel and W. G. Austin, 118-133. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
3.
Brown, J. , and B. Weiner. 1984. Affective consequences of ability versus effort ascriptions: Controversies, resolutions, and quandaries. Journal of Educational Psychology76:146-158.
4.
Bueno de Mesquita , B. B. 1980. Theories of international conflict: An analysis and an appraisal. In Handbook of political conflict, edited by T. R. Gurr, 361-398. New York: Free Press.
5.
Cohen, J. , and P. Cohen. 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral science. 2d ed.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Cohen, R. 1979. Threat perception in international conflict. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
7.
Covington, M. V. , and C. L. Omelich. 1984. An empirical examination of Weiner's critique of attribution research. Journal of Educational Psychology76:1199-1213.
8.
Doise, W. 1986. Levels of explanations in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Eldridge, A. F. 1979. Images of conflict. New York: St. Martin.
10.
Folkes, V. S.1984. Consumer reactions to product failure: An attributional approach. Journal of Consumer Research11:398-409.
11.
Forsterling, F.1986. Attributional concepts in clinical psychology. American Psychologist41:275-285.
12.
Heradstveit, D. 1981. The Arab-Israeli conflict. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
13.
Hoffman, M. L. 1982. Development of prosocial motivation: Empathy and guilt. In Development of prosocial behavior, edited by N. Eisenberg-Borg, 281-313. New York: Academic Press.
14.
Holsti, O. R.1962. The belief system and national images: A case study. Journal of Conflict Resolution6:244-252.
15.
Horney, K. 1945. Our inner conflicts. New York: Norton.
16.
Jervis, R. 1976. Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
Kaplowitz, N.1976. Psychopolitical dimensions of the Middle-East conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution20:279-317.
18.
Kelley, H. H. , and J. L. Michela. 1980. Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology31:457-501.
19.
Kelman, H. C. , ed. 1965. International behavior: A social-psychological analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
20.
Kelman, H. C.1982. Creating the conditions for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Journal of Conflict Resolution26:39-75.
21.
Khouri, F. J. 1985. The Arab-Israeli dilemma. 3d ed.Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
22.
Kimche, J. , and D. Kimche. 1960. A clash of destinies. New York: Praeger.
23.
McClosky, H. , and D. Chong. 1985. Similarities and differences between left wing and right wing radicals. British Journal of Political Psychology15:329-363.
24.
Ronis, D. L. , R. D. Hansen, and V. B. O'Leary. 1983. Understanding the meaning of achievement attributions: A test of derived locus and stability scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology44:702-711.
25.
Rosenberg, S. , and G. Wolfsfeld. 1977. International conflict and the problem of attribution. Journal of Conflict Resolution21:75-103.
26.
Rubin, J. Z. , ed. 1980. Dynamics of third party intervention: Kissinger in the Middle-East. New York: Praeger.
27.
Russel, D. , and E. McAuley. 1986. Causal attributions, causal dimensions, and affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology50:1174-1185.
28.
Sillars, A. L. 1981. Attributions and interpersonal conflict resolution. In New directions in attribution research Vol. 3, edited by J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, and R. F. Kidd, 279-305. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
Smith, C. D. 1988. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict. New York: St. Martin.
30.
Snyder, G. H. , and P. Diesing. 1977. Conflict among nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
Streufert, S. , and S. C. Streufert. 1986. The development of international conflict. In Psychology of intergroup relations, edited by S. Worchel, and W. G. Austin, 134-152. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
32.
Weiner, B. 1972. Theories of motivation: From mechanism to cognition. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
33.
Weiner, B.1979. A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology71:3-25.
