Intergroup help may prolong intractable conflicts

What is it about?

At first glance, acts of help to the outgroup in a conflict zone appear to be a step toward peace. But what if they actually push it further away? In our study, we tested this unsettling possibility by examining a real Israeli initiative that promised to "shrink the conflict" by improving Palestinians' daily lives without changing the political reality. Our research question was: "How would exposure to such an initiative affect the political attitudes of members of the helping group?" More than 350 Jewish Israelis took part in our experiment. Some watched the initiative's campaign materials before answering questions about their views on the conflict. The results were striking: right-wing participants who watched the initiative campaign became less willing to support political concessions needed for peace. They also felt less moral responsibility for the conflict and were less hopeful that peace could happen. This reflects a process known as moral licensing: when doing something good makes people feel they’ve already done their part. In other words, small gestures of help can give people a psychological license to avoid tougher, more meaningful action, or even to justify maintaining the occupation.

Featured Image

Photo by Zaur Ibrahimov on Unsplash

Photo by Zaur Ibrahimov on Unsplash

Why is it important?

Helping gestures may look positive, but in protracted conflicts, they can have a dark side. Our findings show that what seems like kindness can strengthen the status quo and make compromise less likely. For policymakers and peacebuilders, this means that humanitarian projects alone are not enough. Without genuine political concessions, “helping” risks becoming a substitute for peace, easing consciences in the short term while making long-term resolution even harder to achieve.

Perspectives