Global Conflicts, Episodic Framing and Attitude Change Towards the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Abstract

This study compared the effects of episodic framing of the Checkpoint scenario and the Military Raid scenario in Global Conflicts (2010), a computerized simulation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on developing impartial attitudes towards this conflict. The former presents a more human, individual and personal framing of the conflict than does the latter. Two hundred and ten Israeli-Jewish and Palestinian undergraduate students participated in the experiment. They filled in questionnaires measuring attitudes towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before and after playing the scenarios. Results suggested that participants playing the Checkpoint scenario became more impartial toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, unlike those playing the Military Raid scenario. The results show that computerized simulations of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be used for attitude change intervention, but the framing of the story in the game may be crucial in determining whether the players become impartial regarding the situation or not.