Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Learning about outgroup individuals who risked their lives to save members of one’s ingroup can improve intergroup relations. However, previous studies have primarily focused on historical conflicts with clear intergroup boundaries, relied solely on self-report measures, and lacked assessments of durable effects. A preregistered preliminary experiment and a preregistered main experiment tested whether exposure to moral exemplars would improve the attitudes of Jewish citizens of Israel toward Arab citizens of Israel (their outgroup) following the October 7 attacks. Jewish Israeli participants who read true stories of outgroup (vs. ingroup) heroic acts showed more positive outgroup evaluation and reduced ingroup favoritism. In the main experiment, these effects persisted 1 week later and were accompanied by an effect on an indirect measure (Single-Target IAT) of outgroup morality immediately following the intervention. The results support the effectiveness and durability of the moral exemplar approach in improving outgroup evaluations.

Keywords

moral exemplars moral judgment ingroup favoritism conflict

A growing body of research has shown that learning about outgroup moral exemplars can shift beliefs and emotions, thereby improving intergroup relations, primarily in post-war conflict contexts (e.g., Beneda et al., 2018; Čehajić-Clancy & Bilewicz, 2017; Janković & Čehajić-Clancy, 2021; Witkowska et al., 2019, 2023) For example, in the context of the Nazi occupation of Poland during World War II, exposure to true stories of Germans who saved Polish citizens (vs. Germans participating in Nazi crimes) led Polish participants to report greater trust and more positive feelings toward Germans (Witkowska et al., 2019). The moral exemplar approach also effectively improves attitudes toward immigrants in non-conflict contexts (Alonso-Arbiol et al., 2024; Bojerud et al., 2023) and has recently shown effectiveness in an ongoing conflict (Sunni and Shia Muslims in Pakistan; Čehajić-Clancy et al., 2026, Experiment 3). The present research tested the moral exemplar approach in the context of active tension between subgroups in Israel.

Our research advances the moral exemplar approach in several ways. First, to our knowledge, the effectiveness of a moral exemplar intervention has not yet been tested within the context of the active intergroup tension among groups within Israel. This context allows us to extend prior work by examining an intergroup conflict in which the group that is exposed to the intervention is not entirely alienated from the outgroup but instead shares a common (Israeli) identity with it. Second, this research is the first to explore whether the effects of exposure to moral exemplars persist beyond immediate measurement. Third, to address the limitations of self-report measures (e.g., social desirability and motivational reasoning), we incorporated an indirect measure (the Single-Target IAT; Bluemke & Friese, 2008) that is less susceptible to these limitations (e.g., De Houwer, 2018).

To apply the moral exemplar approach, we drew upon documented events surrounding the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, which resulted in substantial loss of life and the taking of hostages. This event intensified existing tensions between two key groups within Israel’s citizenry: Jews and Arabs (the largest non-Jewish minority group; Peleg & Waxman, 2011). In particular, the attack led to a marked decline in tolerance among many Jewish Israelis toward Arab Israelis (e.g., Bazak-Hilger & Face, 2024). Within this context, the present research examined changes in perceptions and judgments among Jewish citizens of Israel (JCI) following exposure to moral actions of Arab citizens of Israel (ACI) during the October 7 attack.

Groups Within Israel

The largest fraction of non-Jewish residents of Israel (21.1% of Israel’s population; Khalaily et al., 2023) identify ethnically as Arab and religiously as Muslim, Christian, or Druze (Cooperman et al., 2016). By and large, they are the descendants of those who remained within the borders declared by Israel after the 1948 Arab–Israeli war and hold Israeli citizenship¹ with the same legal rights as Jewish citizens (Robinson, 2023). However, indicators of integration into Israeli society present a mixed picture (Knesset Research and Information Center [KRIC], 2020): ACI are increasingly visible in key sectors (e.g., comprising 30% of nurses and 25% of doctors nationwide), yet striking disparities persist (e.g., only 9% of members of the Israeli parliament are Arab, and there are currently no Arabs in ministerial positions).

Importantly, in addition to their diverse religious identities, ACI hold multiple potential civil-national identities—including Arab, Palestinian, and Israeli (Cooperman et al., 2016). Accordingly, several terms are used to describe this population. The term “Palestinian citizens of Israel (PCI)” (e.g., Witte & Taha, 2021) is increasingly used by Muslims and Christians who wish to emphasize their Palestinian national identity (Peleg & Waxman, 2011), but is not used by other groups (e.g., Druze serving in the Israeli Defense Force; Amara & Schnell, 2004; Halabi, 2024). The term PCI has also been adopted by academics studying this population’s identity. In contrast, the Israeli government and mainstream media typically use “Israeli Arabs” to highlight the shared Arab ethno-cultural identity of Muslims, Christians, and Druze, and to distinguish these citizens from Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza (e.g., Amara, 2016).

The choice of terminology is therefore sensitive and politically charged and should be made carefully depending on the question investigated. Here, we investigate judgments made by JCI toward the population known to them as “Israeli Arabs.” For JCI, this overarching term encompasses various segments of Arabic-speaking citizens, some of whom identify as Palestinian and some of whom do not. We therefore adopt the term “Arab citizens of Israel”. Studies focusing on the self-definition of this population should consider using different labels, depending on the segment of the population under investigation.

For many years, JCI attitudes toward ACI have been marked by deep mistrust, rooted in security concerns and conflicting identities—particularly the perception that many ACI primarily identify with the Palestinian cause and the broader Arab world rather than with the Israeli state (Smooha, 2001; Waxman, 2011). JCI often view ACI as potential traitors (Waxman, 2019), and surveys consistently show that JCI consider ACI to be a threat to the country’s national security (Hermann et al., 2025). Although relations have remained largely nonviolent (Smooha, 2022), these tensions manifest strongly in attitudes and perceptions. Accordingly, researchers have investigated ways to effectively reduce negative evaluation and stereotyping by JCI (mainly children and adolescents) toward ACI through various interventions (e.g., Berger et al., 2018; Ditlmann & Samii, 2016; Influs et al., 2019; Masri et al., 2024; Shani & Boehnke, 2017; Weiss et al., 2023). Notable examples include a 24-week mindfulness- and compassion-based program (Berger et al., 2018), a month-long diversity-education program delivered through a children’s television show (Weiss et al., 2023), an 8-week dialogue-group intervention (Influs et al., 2019), and intergroup-contact-based courses (Gilad et al., 2021).

Heightened Tension Following the October 7 Attack

The October 7 attack heightened the tension felt by JCI toward ACI. A survey conducted shortly after the attack revealed that 63% of JCI reported not trusting their Arab compatriots, and 39% were unwilling to maintain friendly relationships with ACI (Givat Haviva, 2024). In a separate survey of JCI high school students, 40% indicated hatred toward ACI to a great or very great extent, and 19% indicated moderate hatred (Bazak-Hilger & Face, 2024).

The widespread mistrust among JCI stands in contrast to attitudes expressed by ACI. A survey conducted several weeks after the attack showed that 66% of ACI reported feeling part of the Israeli state—an unprecedented figure (Hermann et al., 2025). Media coverage around the same time further underscored this complexity by highlighting the assistance provided by ACI during and after the attack, including police officers and volunteers who rescued JCI from attacked areas, provided emergency medical care, donated blood, and supported JCI evacuees through initiatives in Jewish-Arab mixed cities (e.g., Pacchiani, 2023; Sudilovsky, 2024). We used true stories of these acts to test whether exposure to moral exemplars could reduce the negative attitudes that JCI hold toward ACI.

The Current Research

We conducted two experiments to test whether exposure to true stories of ACI moral exemplars during the October 7 attack could improve the attitudes of JCI toward ACI. In the outgroup exemplar condition, the heroic acts were performed by ACI; in the ingroup exemplar condition, similar heroic acts were performed by JCI. We used the ingroup exemplar condition as a comparison because narratives of ingroup heroism dominated Israeli media coverage following the attack and thus reflected participants’ natural exposure to heroic acts.² We predicted that participants who were exposed to outgroup moral exemplars would show more positive attitudes toward the outgroup—across both direct and indirect measures—and less ingroup favoritism than participants exposed to ingroup moral exemplars. In a preliminary experiment (N = 197), presenting JCI with heroic acts by either ACI or JCI and assessing immediate outgroup attitudes using self-report measures and the IAT (Greenwald et al., 1998), we found the predicted effect on self-reports but not on the IAT (see full report in the supplemental online material; SOM). Here, we present the more powered main experiment, which assessed the durability of the effect, replaced the IAT with a more nuanced indirect measure, and explored the potential effect of highlighting shared victimhood (see below).

Method

Transparency and Openness

We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures used in the study. We preregistered our materials, sampling plans, exclusion criteria, and analysis plan (https://osf.io/4h95e/). We made several deviations from the preregistered analysis plan.³ First, we report the results of three self-report measures of outgroup evaluation (outgroup morality, outgroup trust, and behavioral intentions) as a single measure of outgroup evaluation, rather than reporting them separately as planned. These measures lack theoretically meaningful differentiation (they all reflect outgroup evaluation), and their internal consistency was very high (α = .96 at both sessions). The results for the combined measure were identical to those for each measure separately (see the SOM for the full report). Second, our preregistered plan was to report the results separately for each measurement time point, including all participants who completed each specific session. Instead, we included the measurement time as a factor in an analysis including only participants who completed both sessions (the preregistered analysis produced similar results and is reported in full in the SOM). Full experimental procedures are available in the SOM. Data and materials (original and translations) for all experiments are available online (https://osf.io/ufp5v/). This research was approved by the ethics committee of the Open University of Israel (no. 3580).

Participants and Procedure

Based on the results of power analyses conducted using G*Power (Faul et al., 2009; see preregistration for details), we recruited 406 JCI participants through the online Midgam Panel (www.midgampanel.com). Data collection took place between November 12 and 13, 2024. Participants completed a 10-min experiment for a payment of 10 NIS (approximately US$3). As preregistered, we excluded five participants who had more than 10% of trials with response times under 300 ms (Greenwald et al., 2003) on the Single-Target IAT (ST-IAT), as well as one participant who made two or more mistakes identifying the social group of the heroes, resulting in 400 valid participants. Of these valid participants, 326 (82%) participated in a follow-up session—a 4-min experiment conducted 1 week later, for a payment of 6.5 NIS (approximately US$2). Data collection for this follow-up was conducted between November 19 and 20, 2024. After excluding an additional four participants who had more than 10% fast trials on the ST-IAT, the final sample included 322 participants (M_age = 41.95, SD = 12.98, 50% women; see Tables S1–S2 in the SOM for additional demographic information). This final sample size provided 88% power to detect a small-to-medium effect (η²_p = .03) in a mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) with two measurement times (immediate post-intervention vs. 1-week follow-up; within-participants), in which participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions resulting from a 2 × 2 experimental design (see details below).

Participants first answered two demographic questions (gender and religiosity). Additional demographic questions were collected at the end of the experiment (see Table S1 in the SOM for the full set). They were then presented with an introductory text describing the events of October 7, 2023, and informed that they would read short descriptions of actions performed by Israeli citizens on that day. Participants were randomly assigned to read four genuine stories—previously published in Israeli media—depicting either outgroup members or ingroup members who performed heroic actions on October 7. To explore whether adding stories about victims might enhance the effect by highlighting a shared victim identity (assuming that such a framing could encourage recategorization of the ingroup and outgroup as members of the same broader group; e.g., Sharvit & Kremer-Sharon, 2023), half of the participants in both the outgroup and ingroup exemplar conditions read two additional stories about group members who were victims of the October 7 attack.

We selected ingroup-member stories that closely matched the available outgroup-member stories in both content and tone (see Table 1 for an example of one heroic act from each condition; full descriptions are available in Table S4 in the SOM). Each story included a photograph of the real-life hero (or victim), obtained from Google Images. After each description, participants answered two comprehension questions designed to ensure engagement with the story and understanding of the protagonist’s identity and actions. The first question was uniform across stories and concerned the name and ethnicity of the protagonist. The second question varied depending on the specific story and focused on the actions described (see Table S4 for the full set of comprehension questions). In total, 80% of participants answered all comprehension questions about the four main stories correctly.

Table 1

Example Stories From Each of the Two Exemplar Group Conditions

Outgroup (ACI) moral exemplars	Ingroup (JCI) moral exemplars
On the morning of the surprise attack, Suleiman Shalibi, a Bedouin resident of Bir HaDaj, decided to travel under fire along with hundreds of volunteers from the Arab community toward Nir Yitzhak to rescue besieged families. They did not stop even when they saw abandoned vehicles and realized the magnitude of the attack. When they arrived at Kibbutz Nir Yitzhak, they had to flee from the terrorists’ gunfire, but they were determined to continue rescuing the wounded and getting them to the hospital. “Today, we are in a state of war,” says Suleiman. “Put all disagreements aside; this is our country, this is our shared life, and we have no other country.”	On the morning of the surprise attack, Noam Tivon, a Jewish resident of Tel Aviv, decided to drive with his wife and another volunteer toward Nahal Oz to rescue his son, his son’s wife, and their children who were besieged under fire in their home. They did not stop even when they saw abandoned vehicles and realized the magnitude of the attack. On the way to Nahal Oz, they had to flee from the terrorists’ gunfire, but they were determined to arrive and rescue their family members. “My heart was not at peace,” says Tivon, “If I do not get there, I do not know what will happen. There was no rational consideration here; the children had to be saved.”

Outgroup (ACI) moral exemplars

Ingroup (JCI) moral exemplars

On the morning of the surprise attack, Suleiman Shalibi, a Bedouin resident of Bir HaDaj, decided to travel under fire along with hundreds of volunteers from the Arab community toward Nir Yitzhak to rescue besieged families. They did not stop even when they saw abandoned vehicles and realized the magnitude of the attack. When they arrived at Kibbutz Nir Yitzhak, they had to flee from the terrorists’ gunfire, but they were determined to continue rescuing the wounded and getting them to the hospital. “Today, we are in a state of war,” says Suleiman. “Put all disagreements aside; this is our country, this is our shared life, and we have no other country.”

On the morning of the surprise attack, Noam Tivon, a Jewish resident of Tel Aviv, decided to drive with his wife and another volunteer toward Nahal Oz to rescue his son, his son’s wife, and their children who were besieged under fire in their home. They did not stop even when they saw abandoned vehicles and realized the magnitude of the attack. On the way to Nahal Oz, they had to flee from the terrorists’ gunfire, but they were determined to arrive and rescue their family members. “My heart was not at peace,” says Tivon, “If I do not get there, I do not know what will happen. There was no rational consideration here; the children had to be saved.”

Note. This is an English translation of materials originally presented in Hebrew. The full set of stories used, along with the corresponding comprehension questions, is provided in Table S4 in the SOM.

After reading the stories and answering the comprehension questions, participants completed the dependent measures. Specifically, they completed a set of self-report measures assessing outgroup morality, outgroup trust, behavioral intentions, and ingroup favoritism (measured using a feeling thermometer), presented in random order. In addition to these self-report measures, we included an indirect measure of outgroup morality: the Single-Target IAT (ST-IAT; Bluemke & Friese, 2008). The completion order of the self-report measures and the ST-IAT was randomized.

Materials

Direct (Self-Report) Measures

Table 2 provides details on the self-report measures of outgroup morality, outgroup trust, and behavioral intentions (which were combined into a single measure of outgroup evaluation), as well as the measure of ingroup favoritism.

Table 2

Self-Report Measures

Measure	Source	Items	Scale	Scoring	Internal consistency (α)
Measure	Source	Items	Scale	Scoring	Session 1	Session 2
Outgroup morality	Janković and Čehajić-Clancy (2021)	“I think that Israeli Arabs are moral human beings” “In general, I think that Israeli Arabs are good people”	1 = completely disagree 5 = completely agree	Mean of two items; higher scores indicate greater perceived morality of the outgroup	.93	.92
Outgroup trust	Witkowska et al. (2019)	“Most members of the Arab community in Israel can be trusted” “Despite everything, I trust Israeli Arabs” “Israeli Jews can trust Israeli Arabs”	1 = completely disagree 5 = completely agree	Mean of three items; higher scores indicate greater trust toward the outgroup	.94	.96
Behavioral intentions	Janković and Čehajić-Clancy (2021)	“I am trying to avoid any kind of interaction with Israeli Arabs” “I am willing to initiate interaction with Israeli Arabs” “I am willing to work in an organization where Israeli Arabs are also employed” “I am willing to have Israeli Arabs as friends” “I am willing to have Israeli Arabs as neighbors”	1 = completely disagree 5 = completely agree	Mean of five items (first item reverse-scored); higher scores indicate greater willingness to interact with the outgroup	.92	.92
Ingroup favoritism	Druckman and Levendusky (2019)	“How would you rate your feeling toward Israeli Jews?” “How would you rate your feeling toward Israeli Arabs?”	0 = most unfavorable/coldest 100 = most favorable/warmest	Difference score (ingroup rating minus outgroup rating); higher scores indicate stronger ingroup favoritism	–	–

Note. Full instructions for each measure are available in the SOM. Internal consistency is not reported for the ingroup favoritism measure because it is a two-item difference score.

Indirect Measure of Outgroup Morality: The Single-Target IAT (ST-IAT)

In the ST-IAT, participants categorized stimuli into their corresponding categories using two computer keys. The ST-IAT includes three categories: “Israeli Arabs,”“Moral,” and “Immoral” (see Table 3 for the category items). In one critical block, participants responded with the left key to stimuli from two categories (“Israeli Arabs” and “Moral”) and with the right key to stimuli from the remaining category (“Immoral”). In the other critical block, participants responded with the right key to stimuli from two categories (“Israeli Arabs” and “Immoral”) and with the left key to stimuli from the remaining category (“Moral”). The order of these blocks was random. We computed ST-IAT scores (Cronbach’s α = .69 in the first session and .55 in the follow-up session), with more positive scores reflecting a stronger link between the outgroup and morality and more negative scores reflecting a stronger link between the outgroup and immorality.⁴

Table 3

Items Used in the ST-IAT

Category	Items
Israeli Arabs	Muhamad, Ahmed, Abdalla, Hassan, Abed, Haled
Moral	Good, positive, honest, decent, and righteous
Immoral	Bad, negative, shameful, despicable, and vile

Note. Items were presented in Hebrew. The names used to represent the “Israeli Arabs” category were selected based on published reports from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics listing the most common Jewish and Muslim male first names given to Israelis between 1948 and 2021 (Navon et al., 2025).

Results

For each of the three dependent measures—outgroup evaluation (combined), ingroup favoritism, and the ST-IAT—we report the results of 2 × 2 × 2 mixed ANOVAs (one per dependent measure), with exemplar group (outgroup vs. ingroup; between-participants), inclusion of victims (yes vs. no; between-participants), and measurement time (immediate post-intervention vs. 1-week follow-up; within-participants) as factors. These analyses include the 322 valid participants who completed both sessions. Full results are shown in Table 4. Because the effects of victim inclusion were mainly non-significant (except for one main effect on the ST-IAT), and the main effect of exemplar group and its interaction with measurement time were consistently significant, Figure 1 presents the means by exemplar group and measurement time collapsed across the victim inclusion factor. The full means table is reported in the SOM (Table S11).⁵ The most relevant preregistered hypothesis was a more positive evaluation of the outgroup, which should be visible in a main effect of the exemplar group (i.e., heroic outgroup vs. ingroup members). Participants in the outgroup exemplar condition should show a more positive outgroup evaluation, a more positive ST-IAT score, and reduced ingroup favoritism. The exemplar group-by-measurement-time interaction tests the stability of the effect over time.

Table 4

Results of 2 (Exemplar Group) × 2 (Victim Inclusion) × 2 (Measurement Time) Mixed ANOVAs

Effect	Outcome
Effect	Outgroup evaluation	Ingroup favoritism	ST-IAT
Exemplar group (outgroup vs. ingroup; between-participants)	F(1, 318) = 12.24, p = .001, η_p² = .04, BF₁₀ = 42.32	F(1, 318) = 13.70, p < .001, η_p² = .04, BF₁₀ = 284.33	F(1, 318) = 9.19, p = .003, η_p² = .03, BF₁₀ = 9.51
Victim inclusion (yes vs. no; between-participants)	F(1, 318) = 1.34, p = .248, η_p² < .01, BF₁₀ = 0.60	F(1, 318) = 1.35, p = .246, η_p² < .01, BF₁₀ = 0.17	F(1, 318) = 5.13, p = .024, η_p² = .02, BF₁₀ = 1.55
Measurement time (immediate vs. follow-up; within-participants)	F(1, 318) = 6.32, p = .012, η_p² = .02, BF₁₀ = 1.45	F(1, 318) = 2.78, p = .096, η_p² = .01, BF₁₀ = 0.13	F(1, 318) = 0.02, p = .894, η_p² < .01, BF₁₀ = 0.09
Exemplar group × victim inclusion	F(1, 318) = 0.81, p = .370, η_p² < .01, BF₁₀ = 0.63	F(1, 318) = 0.12, p = .730, η_p² < .01, BF₁₀ = 0.35	F(1, 318) = 0.65, p = .422, η_p² < .01, BF₁₀ = 0.25
Exemplar group × measurement time	F(1, 318) = 4.16, p = .042, η_p² = .01, BF₁₀ = 0.98	F(1, 318) = 5.84, p = .016, η_p² = .02, BF₁₀ = 2.05	F(1, 318) = 18.13, p < .001, η_p² = .05, BF₁₀ = 685.04
Victim inclusion × measurement time	F(1, 318) = 0.01, p = .927, η_p² < .01, BF₁₀ = 0.23	F(1, 318) = 1.16, p = .282, η_p² < .01, BF₁₀ = 0.22	F(1, 318) = 0.05, p = .827, η_p² < .01, BF₁₀ = 0.13
Exemplar group × victim inclusion × measurement time	F(1, 318) = 0.81, p = .370, η_p² < .01, BF₁₀ = 0.28	F(1, 318) = 0.13, p = .717, η_p² < .01, BF₁₀ = 0.16	F(1, 318) = 0.05, p = .816, η_p² < .01, BF₁₀ = 0.18

Figure 1

Outcome Measures as a Function of Exemplar Group and Measurement Time

Outgroup Evaluation

The mixed ANOVA revealed the hypothesized main effect of exemplar group, F(1, 318) = 12.24, p = .001, η_p² = .04, 90% confidence interval (CI) (.01, .08), BF₁₀ = 42.32, indicating more positive outgroup evaluation in the outgroup exemplar condition (M = 3.16, SD = 1.12) than in the ingroup exemplar condition (M = 2.72, SD = 1.11). In addition, a main effect of measurement time (with anecdotal evidence for an effect) emerged, F(1, 318) = 6.32, p = .012, η_p² = .02, 90% CI (.002, .05), BF₁₀ = 1.45, indicating somewhat lower positivity in the 1-week follow-up (M = 2.90, SD = 1.15) relative to the immediate measurement (M = 2.96, SD = 1.15). The interaction between exemplar group and measurement time was also significant (with anecdotal evidence for a lack of effect), F(1, 318) = 4.16, p = .042, η_p² = .01, 90% CI (.0002, .04), BF₁₀ = 0.98, indicating a somewhat larger effect of exemplar group in the immediate measurement, t(316.19) = 3.86, p < .001, d = 0.43, 90% CI (.24, .62), BF₁₀ = 137.51, compared with the 1-week follow-up, t(316.57) = 3.07, p = .002, d = 0.34, 90% CI (.16, .53), BF₁₀ = 10.78. All other effects were not significant (ps > .248, η_p²s < .01; see Table 4).

Ingroup Favoritism

The mixed ANOVA showed the expected main effect of exemplar group, F(1, 318) = 13.70, p < .001, η_p² = .04, 90% CI (.01, .08), BF₁₀ = 284.33, indicating less ingroup favoritism in the outgroup exemplar condition (M = 36.37, SD = 31.88) than in the ingroup exemplar condition (M = 49.82, SD = 32.79). The interaction between exemplar group and measurement time was also significant (with anecdotal evidence for an effect), F(1, 318) = 5.84, p = .016, η_p² = .02, 90% CI (.002, .05), BF₁₀ = 2.05, indicating a somewhat larger effect of exemplar group in the immediate measurement, t(317.75) = 4.34, p < .001, d = 0.48, 90% CI (.30, .67), BF₁₀ = 818.04, compared with the 1-week follow-up, t(319.9) = 2.79, p = .006, d = 0.31, 90% CI (.13, .50), BF₁₀ = 4.76.⁶ All other effects were not significant (ps > .096, η_p²s < .011; see Table 4).

Single-Target IAT

The mixed ANOVA revealed the expected main effect of exemplar group, F(1, 318) = 9.19, p < .003, η_p² = .03, 90% CI (.006, .06), BF₁₀ = 9.51, indicating a weaker link between the outgroup and immorality in the outgroup exemplar condition (M = –0.13, SD = 0.21) than in the ingroup exemplar condition (M = –0.21, SD = 0.25). The main effect of inclusion of victims was also significant (with anecdotal evidence), F(1, 318) = 5.13, p = .024, η_p² = .02, 90% CI (.001, .05), BF₁₀ = 1.55, indicating a weaker link between the outgroup and immorality when no stories of victims were presented (M = –0.15, SD = 0.25) than when participants were also exposed to stories of victims (M = –0.21, SD = 0.22). The interaction between exemplar group and measurement time was significant, F(1, 318) = 18.13, p < .001, η_p² = .05, 90% CI (.02, .10), BF₁₀ = 685.04, indicating a significant effect of exemplar group in the immediate measurement only, t(318.92) = 4.91, p < .001, d = 0.54, 90% CI (.36, .73), BF₁₀ > 1,000, but not in the 1-week follow-up, t(319.96) = –0.05, p = .959, d = –0.005, 90% CI (–.19, .18), BF₁₀ = 0.12. All other effects were not significant (ps > .422, η_p²s < .01; Table 4).

Discussion

The present research extends the moral exemplar approach (Čehajić-Clancy & Bilewicz, 2021) to the ongoing, acute tension within groups in Israel. The results provide evidence for the effectiveness of this approach in shaping JCI attitudes toward ACI—demonstrating not only immediate effects on both direct and indirect attitude measures but also durable improvements on direct measures, albeit with weaker effects over time. Interestingly, the inclusion of victim stories did not moderate the intervention’s effects, suggesting that the initial expectation that highlighting shared victimhood would enhance the intervention’s impact was not supported.⁷ Importantly, this research provides the first evidence that exposure to moral exemplars can yield changes that persist beyond the immediate moment. Whereas most studies on prejudice reduction have been limited to immediate outcomes (e.g., Paluck et al., 2021), our research contributes to the growing emphasis on understanding the durability of intervention effects (Čehajić-Clancy & Halperin, 2024). Future studies could explore whether these effects endure over longer periods, as has been observed with other types of interventions (e.g., Berger et al., 2018).

We focused on a particularly complex intergroup context in which the target group—the group toward which we sought to improve attitudes—is perceived by the attitude holders as having multiple social identities: some that are perceived as contradictory to theirs (e.g., Arab/Palestinian) and others that are shared (e.g., Israeli). Research on moral exemplars has traditionally examined conflicts where group boundaries are more clearly defined and a shared identity is either absent—as in the case of Poles and Germans (Witkowska et al., 2019)—or actively rejected, as among Bosnians and Serbs in the former Yugoslavia (Čehajić-Clancy & Bilewicz, 2017). In contrast, at the time of data collection, substantial proportions of both JCI (86%) and ACI (66%) reported feeling part of the state and its challenges (Hermann et al., 2025), highlighting the relevance of a shared superordinate identity for both groups. Presenting ACI exemplars may therefore have activated not only the outgroup identity but also the shared superordinate identity—potentially encouraging JCI participants to consider ACI as part of their broader national group and increasing positivity toward them. This would suggest that the moral exemplar approach may be especially effective in contexts where a shared superordinate identity exists. Future research could examine this possibility directly and join concurrent work on the role of a perceived shared superordinate identity in other domains, such as political partisanship in the United States (e.g., Amit et al., 2024).

Our research is the first to demonstrate effects of a moral exemplar intervention on an indirect attitude measure—a type of measure that is less controllable and therefore less susceptible to social desirability and motivated reasoning (e.g., De Houwer, 2018). The results thus suggest that the intervention impacted not only participants’ reflective attitudes but also their less controllable responses. However, unlike the effects observed on the self-report measures, the impact on the ST-IAT did not persist 1 week after the intervention. One interpretation is that the durable effects on self-report measures partly reflect social desirability or demand characteristics (Corneille & Lush, 2023). Alternatively, these findings may indicate that while a single exposure to moral exemplars is sufficient to produce stable changes in more deliberate, controllable judgments, repeated or more prolonged exposure may be necessary to achieve lasting changes in less controllable responses (e.g., Forscher et al., 2017). Finally, the measure’s low reliability, combined with a decline over time, may result in a null effect.

Prior research offers several mechanisms that may explain why moral exemplar interventions, such as ours are effective. Scholars have argued that morality plays a central role in outgroup evaluation and overall impression formation (Amit & Venzhik, 2025; Brambilla et al., 2013; Goodwin et al., 2014; Leach et al., 2007; Venzhik et al., 2025), and that moral behavior can signal shared values between groups (e.g., Haidt et al., 1993; Moran & Walther, 2026). Thus, exposure to outgroup (vs. ingroup) moral exemplars in our study may have led JCI to perceive more shared values with ACI, thereby improving outgroup evaluations. A second mechanism, proposed by Čehajić-Clancy et al. (2026), is that exposure to moral actions elicits feelings of moral elevation—such as inspiration and awe—which can, in turn, foster more positive attitudes toward the outgroup. However, previous studies examining moral elevation have compared exposure with moral exemplars with neutral stories (Čehajić-Clancy et al., 2026), whereas in our study, both conditions featured moral actions. Thus, a moral elevation explanation would require the additional assumption that moral elevation is stronger, or more strongly associated with improved attitudes, when the outgroup performs moral acts than when the ingroup performs them. Finally, as noted earlier, the intervention may have also activated a shared superordinate identity, leading participants to perceive ACI as part of a broader national ingroup. Future research could directly test which of these mechanisms best explains the observed changes in the current context, particularly with regard to the durability of the effects, and explore whether different mechanisms operate in different intergroup contexts.

Building on prior work with migrant moral exemplars (Alonso-Arbiol et al., 2024; Čehajić-Clancy et al., 2026, Experiment 4) and ethnic minority exemplars (e.g., Shia Muslims in Pakistan and Albanians in Serbia; Čehajić-Clancy et al., 2026, Experiments 2–3), our research examined changes in attitudes held by members of a dominant group (JCI) toward a minority group (ACI). Accordingly, our theoretical framing and materials were constructed from the perspective of the dominant group. To our knowledge, no studies have investigated the reverse pattern—presenting moral exemplars from the majority group to foster trust among minority group members. Future studies could explore whether group status serves as a boundary condition in moral exemplar interventions. It may also be valuable to investigate whether priming ACI with their Israeli identity (shared with JCI) enhances the effect of exposure to JCI moral exemplars relative to priming their Palestinian identity, which stands in greater tension with JCI identity.

In our research, we relied on real-life media stories to present moral exemplars from either the ingroup or outgroup. Building on work showing the impact of media content on moral intuitions (e.g., Prabhu et al., 2020), our results suggest that media initiatives or campaigns could highlight the moral dimensions of heroic acts by ACI to challenge prevailing negative attitudes and stereotypes. More broadly, the very act of reporting moral exemplar stories underscores the role of media not only in documenting events but also in shaping public perceptions, social norms, and intergroup relations (Eden et al., 2021; Prabhu et al., 2020). The reliance on real-life media stories made it plausible that some participants were already familiar with these materials before the experiment. However, because we did not measure familiarity, we cannot assess how it influenced the intervention’s effect. Future studies could directly examine the role of previous exposure in the success of the moral exemplar approach.

Given that our materials were adapted from stories already circulating in the media, scaling such interventions for real-world implementation may be relatively simple. Still, consistent with the call by IJzerman et al. (2020) to exercise caution when translating scientific findings into real-world applications, we note that additional research is needed to enhance the evidence readiness level (ERL)—the quality of evidence before translation to application—of moral exemplar interventions. Future work could include large-scale experiments that measure behavioral outcomes during periods of active crisis. Although the effects observed on self-report measures were small, they are comparable with effect sizes reported in meta-analyses of interventions targeting existing evaluations and behaviors (e.g., Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014; Moran et al., 2025). This is promising given the simplicity of the intervention and accumulating evidence that even small effects can meaningfully shape real-world outcomes (Götz et al., 2022).

In conclusion, the current findings offer cautious optimism amid an ongoing and emotionally charged conflict. Even within this tense and unresolved context, brief exposure to a small number of moral exemplars produced consistent and, in some cases, lasting improvements in attitudes. The effectiveness of such a minimal intervention, akin to reading a few news headlines, highlights the potential power of the moral exemplar approach in reducing intergroup bias and fostering trust.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506261428949 – Supplemental material for The Enduring Effect of Exposure to Moral Exemplars During Active Intergroup Tensions: Evidence From Groups Within Israel

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506261428949 for The Enduring Effect of Exposure to Moral Exemplars During Active Intergroup Tensions: Evidence From Groups Within Israel by Tal Moran, Adi Amit and Dror Butbul in Social Psychological and Personality Science

Footnotes

Handling Editor: Christian Unkelbach

ORCID iDs

Tal Moran

Adi Amit

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by an Israel Science Foundation grant #870-23 and the Open University of Israel’s research grant #41454 to Tal Moran and by a grant by an Israel Science Foundation grant #604-20 to Adi Amit.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material is available in the online version of the article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Tal Moran is an Associate Professor of Social Psychology at the Open University of Israel, where she specializes in automatic social behavior, cognition, affective polarization and emotion regulation. Her research focuses on automatic (implicit) attitudes, evaluative conditioning, and the role of psychological distance in emotional processes.

Adi Amit is an Associate Professor of Social Psychology at the Open University of Israel. Her research examines decision-making and group processes, with a particular focus on morality and values in the context of social groups and identities.

Dror Butbul holds a BA in Psychology from the Open University of Israel and has been a research assistant in Prof. Tal Moran s laboratory since 2024. She is motivated to pursue training in psychological treatment and is committed to helping individuals through future clinical work.

References

Alonso-Arbiol

Bobowik

Pascual

Conejero

Padoan

(2024). Moral exemplars promote positive attitudes, beliefs, intentions, and behaviors toward outgroups during the COVID-19 pandemic: The explanatory role of self-transcendent emotions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 27(1), 118–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302231165730

Amara

(2016). Language, identity and conflict: Examining collective identity through the labels of the Palestinians in Israel. Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies, 15(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.3366/hlps.2016.0141

Amara

Schnell

(2004). Identity repertoires among Arabs in Israel. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30, 175–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183032000170222

Amit

Liviatan

Mentser

Venzhik

Karmel

Moran

(2024). Exemplar-based ingroup projection: The superordinate national category is associated more strongly with ingroup than outgroup political leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 115, 104669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104669

Amit

Venzhik

(2025). Morality, social inclusion, and in-group superiority: The differential role of individualizing and binding foundations in perceptions of the social identity of in-group and out-group members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51(12), 2571–2585. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241262367

Bazak-Hilger

Face

(2024, October 8). Education for a joint Jewish-Arab society in a crisis reality. Abraham Initiatives. https://abrahaminitiatives.org/education-for-a-shared-society-in-the-midst-of-a-crisis/

Beelmann

Heinemann

K. S.

(2014). Preventing prejudice and improving intergroup attitudes: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent training programs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2013.11.002

Beneda

Witkowska

Khachatryan

Grigoryan

Bilewicz

(2018). Change in perceived outgroup morality increases forgiveness in post-genocide settings—Study of the moral exemplars. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 25(2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM25.2.3

Berger

Brenick

Tarrasch

(2018). Reducing Israeli-Jewish pupils’ outgroup prejudice with a mindfulness and compassion-based social-emotional program. Mindfulness, 9(6), 1768–1779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-0919-y

10.

Bluemke

Friese

(2008). Reliability and validity of the Single-Target IAT (ST-IAT): Assessing automatic affect towards multiple attitude objects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 977–997. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.487

11.

Bojerud

Younadam

Čehajić-Clancy

(2023). Testing a moral exemplar intervention in a non-conflict context: The effects of moral exemplars on key dimensions of outgroup evaluations. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 41(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21403

12.

Brambilla

Sacchi

Pagliaro

Ellemers

(2013). Morality and intergroup relations: Threats to safety and group image predict the desire to interact with outgroup and ingroup members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 811–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.005

13.

Čehajić-Clancy

Bilewicz

(2017). Fostering reconciliation through historical moral exemplars in a postconflict society. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23(3), 288–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000210

14.

Čehajić-Clancy

Bilewicz

(2021). Moral-exemplar intervention: A new paradigm for conflict resolution and intergroup reconciliation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(4), 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211013001

15.

Čehajić-Clancy

Halperin

(2024). Advancing research and practice of psychological intergroup interventions. Nature Reviews Psychology, 3(9), 574–588. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00330-z

16.

Čehajić-Clancy

Jamshed

Olsson

Momčilović

(2026). From inspiration to restoration: Moral elevation as a catalyst for improving intergroup relations in contexts of conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 130(1), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000469

17.

Cooperman

Sahgal

Schiller

(2016, March 8). Israel’s religiously divided society. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/03/08/israels-religiously-divided-society/

18.

Corneille

Lush

(2023). Sixty years after Orne’s American psychologist article: A conceptual framework for subjective experiences elicited by demand characteristics. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221104368

19.

De Houwer

(2018). Propositional models of evaluative conditioning. Social Psychological Bulletin, 13(3), Article e28046. https://doi.org/10.5964/spb.v13i3.28046

20.

Ditlmann

R. K.

Samii

(2016). Can intergroup contact affect ingroup dynamics? Insights from a field study with Jewish and Arab-Palestinian youth in Israel. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 22(4), 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000217

21.

Druckman

J. N.

Levendusky

M. S.

(2019). What do we measure when we measure affective polarization? Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(1), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz003

22.

Eden

Tamborini

Aley

Goble

(2021). Advances in research on the model of intuitive morality and exemplars (MIME). In Vorderer

Klimmt

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of entertainment theory (pp. 231–249). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190072216.013.13

23.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

24.

Forscher

P. S.

Mitamura

Dix

E. L.

Cox

W. T. L.

Devine

P. G.

(2017). Breaking the prejudice habit: Mechanisms, timecourse, and longevity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.009

25.

Gilad

Halabi

Hewstone

(2021). Effects of power asymmetry on the sustained impact of a contact-based intervention on perceptions of relations between Arabs and Jews in Israel. Peace and Conflict:. Journal of Peace Psychology, 27(3), 339–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000535

26.

Givat Haviva. (2024). Annual shared society conference survey. https://gisha-academy.com/2024/01/16/%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%A8-%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%90-%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%99-%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%A1/

27.

Goodwin

G. P.

Piazza

Rozin

(2014). Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(1), 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034726

28.

Götz

F. M.

Gosling

S. D.

Rentfrow

P. J.

(2022). Small effects: The indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620984483

29.

Greenwald

A. G.

McGhee

D. E.

Schwartz

J. L. K.

(1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464

30.

Greenwald

A. G.

Nosek

B. A.

Banaji

M. R.

(2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197

31.

Haidt

Koller

S. H.

Dias

M. G.

(1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 613–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.613

32.

Halabi

(2024). The Druze in the army: A (very) limited entrance ticket to Israeli (Jewish) society. Kulturní Studia, 23(2), 66–89. https://doi.org/10.7160/KS.2024.230204

33.

Hermann

Yohanani

Kaplan

Sapozhnikova

I. O.

(2025). The Israeli Democracy Index 2024: Selected findings. Viterbi Family Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research, Israel Democracy Institute. https://en.idi.org.il/media/27509/israel-democracy-index-2024-e_for_web_17-2-2025.pdf

34.

IJzerman

Lewis

N. A.

Jr Przybylski

A. K.

Weinstein

DeBruine

Ritchie

S. J.

Vazire

Forscher

P. S.

Morey

R. D.

Ivory

J. D.

Anvari

(2020). Use caution when applying behavioural science to policy. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(11), 1092–1094.

35.

Influs

Pratt

Masalha

Zagoory-Sharon

Feldman

(2019). A social neuroscience approach to conflict resolution: Dialogue intervention to Israeli and Palestinian youth impacts oxytocin and empathy. Social Neuroscience, 14(4), 378–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2018.1479983

36.

Janković

Čehajić-Clancy

(2021). The power of the media on peace and reconciliation processes: Representing former enemy groups as moral versus immoral matters. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 15, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/18344909211002561

37.

Khalaily

Badran

Rudnitzky

(2023). Statistical report on Arab society in Israel 2023. Israel Democracy Institute & Ministry for Social Equality and the Advancement of the Status of Women. https://www.idi.org.il/media/24621/arab-society-in-israel-yearbook-2023-hebrew.pdf

38.

Knesset Research and Information Center. (2020). Arab representation in government, the Knesset, and public service. https://fs.knesset.gov.il/25/Committees/25_ci_mmm_1781873.pdf

39.

Leach

C. W.

Ellemers

Barreto

(2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(2), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234

40.

Masri

Kupermintz

Zubeidat

Dallasheh

(2024). Fostering emotional intelligence and intergroup empathy: An intervention program for Jewish and Arab adolescents. Learning: Research and Practice, 10(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2023.2234367

41.

Moran

Krava

Shilat

(2025). Evaluative conditioning interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis focused on attitudinal and behavioral change outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 151(8), 1061–1088. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000489

42.

Moran

Walther

(2026). Learning to like the enemy: Moral learning reduces affective polarization. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 17(3), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506251343667

43.

Navon

Reggev

Moran

(2025). Top-down racial biases in size perception: A registered replication and extension of Wilson et al. (2017). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 116, 104690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104690

44.

Pacchiani

(2023, October 9). We’re in this together.’ To Hamas, all citizens are targets, say Arab Israelis. The Times of Israel. https://www.timesofisrael.com/were-in-this-together-to-hamas-all-citizens-are-targets-say-arab-israelis/

45.

Paluck

E. L.

Porat

Clark

C. S.

Green

D. P.

(2021). Prejudice reduction: Progress and challenges. Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1), 533–560. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-071620-030619

46.

Peleg

Waxman

(2011). Israel’s Palestinians: The conflict within. Cambridge University Press.

47.

Prabhu

Hahn

Tamborini

Grizzard

(2020). Do morals featured in media content correspond with moral intuitions in media users?: A test of the MIME in two cultures. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 64(2), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1757364

48.

Robinson

(2023, December 13). What to know about the Arab citizens of Israel. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-know-about-arab-citizens-israel

49.

Shani

Boehnke

(2017). The effect of Jewish–Palestinian mixed-model encounters on readiness for contact and policy support. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23(3), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000220

50.

Sharvit

Kremer-Sharon

(2023). Everybody hurts (sometimes): The role of victim category accessibility in prosocial responses towards victimized outgroups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 62(1), 322–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12552

51.

Smooha

(2001). The model of ethnic democracy: Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Nations and Nationalism, 8(4), 475–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8219.00028

52.

Smooha

(2022). The Arab-Jewish divide and Arab politics in Israel. In Kumaraswamy

P. R.

(ed.), The Palgrave international handbook of Israel (pp. 1–25). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2717-0_49-1

53.

Sudilovsky

(2024, April 15). Israel pays tribute to the Bedouin heroes of October 7—interview. The Jerusalem Post. https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-789981

54.

Szabó

Z. P.

Witkowska

Szekeres

(2023). When and why moral exemplars fail to motivate intergroup reconciliation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 41(1), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21391

55.

Venzhik

Ruisch

B. C.

Amit

(2025). Own or other integrity in expected moral judgments? Moral pluralism and political partisanship. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506251375514

56.

Waxman

(2011). Living with terror, not living in terror: The impact of chronic terrorism on Israeli society. Perspectives on Terrorism, 5(5/6), 4–26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26298536

57.

Waxman

(2019). The Israeli-Palestinian conflict: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/wentk/9780190625320.001.0001

58.

Weiss

C. M.

Ran

Halperin

(2023). Educating for inclusion: Diversity education programs can reduce prejudice toward outgroups in Israel. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 120(16), Article e2218621120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2218621120

59.

Witkowska

Beneda

Čehajić-Clancy

Bilewicz

(2019). Fostering contact after historical atrocities: The potential of moral exemplars. Political Psychology, 40(3), 565–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12529

60.

Witkowska

Bilewicz

Čehajić-Clancy

(2023). Interventions based on moral exemplars. In Halperin

Hameiri

Littman

(Eds.), Psychological intergroup interventions: Evidence-based approaches to improve intergroup relations (pp. 126–135). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003288251-11

61.

Witte

Taha

(2021, June 11). Long overlooked, Israel’s Arab citizens are increasingly asserting their Palestinian identity. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/palestinian-arab-israeli-citizens-identity/2021/06/10/2591ef56-c861-11eb-8708-64991f2acf28_story.html

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.12 MB