Willingness to Engage in Persuasive Dialogue During Conflict: Exploring Political Discussion Dynamics in the Context of the Israel–Hamas War

Citizens actively choose whom to engage in political discussions, influencing their political preferences and attitudes (Mutz, 2002; Huckfeldt et al., 2004). A primary reason to engage in such discussions often is to persuade others and affect their political attitudes (Argyle, 2016). Studies show individuals often form homogenous discussion networks (Nir, 2017). Limited interaction with those holding opposing views can decrease tolerance (Minson et al., 2020) and increase stereotypical beliefs about those from different social and political groups (Karasawa et al., 2007), potentially leading to increased polarization and challenging democratic pluralism (Hrbková et al., 2023). During conflicts, homogeneous networks often lead individuals to reinforce their beliefs (Klar, 2014). Deepening ideological entrenchment can obstruct dialogue with political opponents. This rigidity hinders seeking mutual understanding or solutions (Vered & Bar-Tal, 2017). While existing research has examined who engages in political discussions, less attention has been given to how conflict affects these discussions and the role of persuasion, particularly with opponents, during conflict (Cohrs, 2012; Wolak & Sokhey, 2022). This oversight is crucial since conflicts often necessitate new approaches and the capacity to persuade and be open to persuasion from opposing viewpoints for effective resolution. This study addresses these gaps, exploring political discussion and persuasion dynamics during conflicts. There are contrasting expectations about how people will shape their discussion networks during times of conflict (Orian Harel et al., 2020). On the one hand, conflicts can intensify divisions and emotional polarization between political opponents (Coleman, 2003). This polarization, rooted in heightened group identity between political opponents (Pacilli et al., 2016), reduces the willingness to engage with opposing views (Wolak & Sokhey, 2022), making persuasive attempts across ideological divides more challenging and likely to be met with resistance. On the other hand, the "rally around the flag" effect suggests that citizens often unify in response to external conflicts due to a collective response and social solidarity driven by a perceived common threat (Porat et al., 2019). In this context, a sense of unity against an external threat can foster openness among individuals from different ideological groups (Orian Harel et al., 2020). This increased openness can lead to greater receptiveness to persuasion from those with differing ideologies, potentially bridging ideological gaps. The study investigates individuals' willingness to engage in persuasive interactions with others differing in political ideology, nationality, political interest, party affiliation, education, and gender. A conjoint experiment will assess how these factors affect the willingness to persuade others in political discussions, focusing on the impact of various personal characteristics on individuals' willingness or reluctance to engage in discussions. The study aims to understand how individuals form discussion networks in real-world contexts during active conflict, shedding light on the role of persuasive communication between political opponents. Therefore, we are using the ongoing war in Israel as a case study. Since October 2023, there has been a notable escalation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leading to the outbreak of what is now known as the Israel–Hamas War. This conflict has further intensified the enduring struggle between Israelis and Palestinians, attracting significant attention worldwide.