Frames for Ingroup Policing: Evidence from Group-based Experiments in Israel

• In Event: Intergroup Relations in the Shadow of Conflict: Evidence from the Middle East

Abstract

In situations of conflict, ingroup policing, i.e. when members condemn or punish unauthorized aggression by members of their own group towards an outgroup, has the potential to prevent additional violence. But, to be effective, the justification for policing behavior must be framed in a manner that is convincing to other ingroup members. What frames are commonly used to justify ingroup policing, and which are most persuasive? I argue that two types of frames, “moral” and “pragmatic,” dominate ingroup policing efforts. I then test the persuasive power of these frames in two group-based experiments with Israeli Jews in Haifa, Israel. In each experiment, several groups of 3-8 participants discussed a controversial and highly publicized incident from 2016 involving an Israeli soldier and a Palestinian attacker. A confederate participant took either a neutral stance on the incident or, in the two treatment conditions, a critical stance using a moral or pragmatic frame. Outcomes consisted of participants' survey responses and text from transcriptions of the discussions. The results of these experiments indicate that both moral and pragmatic frames can increase support for ingroup policing. However, when asked to rate the contributions and convincingness of participants, those in the moral condition under-rate the confederate, indicating that this frame elicits a backlash against an ingroup critic. These results demonstrate a need to explore the factors that determine the effectiveness of ingroup policing.

Author

• David Alexander Romney, Harvard University