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

This study, authored by Ronit Kampf and colleagues, examines whether the educational simulation Global Conflicts (2010) can shift attitudes toward impartiality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and whether the framing of a game scenario matters. Grounded in persuasive game theory and Smith and Just's framework of autonomy, integration, and overlap, the research compares two scenarios from the game: a Checkpoint scenario with personal, human-interest episodic framing and a Military Raid scenario framed in group terms, alongside a no-scenario control. The core hypothesis is that episodic framing will promote greater impartiality than group framing, and that Israeli-Jewish participants will show more attitude change than Palestinian participants.

The study enrolled 210 Israeli-Jewish and Palestinian undergraduates, randomly divided among the scenarios and control, with baseline political attitudes shown to be statistically equivalent across groups. Validation work confirmed that the Checkpoint scenario was rated far more personal and human-interest focused than the Military Raid scenario, while the two did not differ in violent-action or security-concern content, isolating framing as the principal variable. Attitudes on six historical issues were measured before and after play and analyzed with a repeated-measures ANCOVA.

The principal finding is that playing the Checkpoint scenario produced significant shifts toward impartiality for both nationalities, with Israeli-Jewish participants moving more than Palestinians. The Military Raid scenario and the control condition produced no comparable change. The authors conclude that episodic framing may be central to game-based interventions aimed at reducing ethnocentrism. They caution, however, that effects were measured only immediately after play and that the design cannot separate the influence of the game format from the informational content it delivers.