This is a report of a pilot study conducted by Zach Schwarzbaum, with the assistance

of Marissa Young and Daniella Greenbaum.

The study is a project of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) and was
conceived and supervised by Irwin J (Yitzchak) Mansdorf, PhD, director of the JCPA
Israel-Arab studies program.
Our study looked at the function of ideology and its relationship to the particular
political positions or stances taken by people. The results of this pilot exploration
have implications for how public diplomacy messaging regarding political issues are
presented. We hope the data obtained will assist us in formulating guidelines for
future studies on the relevance and effectiveness of public diplomacy.
Since the function of public diplomacy is to persuade people to believe or accept a
particular position or interpretation of a political stance, understanding how attitudes
towards forming political opinions are created would be of interest.
In Israeli public diplomacy, many organizations, including many non-governmental
advocacy groups, present material whose goal it is to change or affect public
opinion. Our results speak to these efforts.

Our general findings and results are noted above. While further research and data is
needed, our results suggest that public diplomacy efforts that are limited to
presenting facts will have little impact on those whose ideology would interpret
those facts in a specific manner, usually different from what the public diplomacy
objective was.

Any political position is actually a result of an attitude which would be consistent

with a worldview.
Attitude formation is a result of many different factors . A political position or stance
would be no different than any other area where an opinion matters. Where people
have an opinion, this reflects the attitude they have on that particular subject.
We are interested in looking at factors which affect these attitudes. If these attitudes
can be modified, we would like to know how.

Our pilot is meant to provide us with insight into this subject area and to provide data
which can guide us in developing procedures and protocols for further research.

Ideology can be thought of as the engine for attitude, the motor that guides how one
will think, how one will look at things and how one will come down on a particular
side of an issue.
Attitudes and opinions, thus, are usually consistent, and predictable, once ones
ideology is known. Moreover, ideology is an important factor in self-identity and as
such is a strong factor in ones personality and self-image.
The link between ideology and political belief is somewhat predictable. Most people
would predict, e.g., that a liberal democrat would be for strict gun control or that a
conservative republican would be pro-life.

There are many examples of how ideology influences and affects an opinion. Even
when certain facts are generally agreed on, the ultimate expression and application
of that fact will depend on the worldview (ideology) one has.
Most Americans would accept the validity of the constitution, but how the specifics
are interpreted is determined by ones ideology. Hence, we have liberal judges and
conservative judges, both of whom accept the constitution, but differ on what it
means in specific circumstances.
How will opposing ideologies influence the perception of other politically related
issues?

The challenge, somewhat unrecognized and/or ignored by advocacy groups, is that

persuading or convincing people to think in a particular way is not simply a matter of
presenting the facts or the truth.
It is important to realize that people will see things according to their personal
worldview and not according to the perspective that any particular advocate or
public diplomacy spokesperson has.
When public diplomacy spokespeople fail to take this axiom into consideration, their
efforts are for naught.

Consequently, when developing approaches to explain particular political or strategic

issues, so long as the explanation is grounded in a framework that is alien or
irrelevant to the observer, it will be largely ineffective.
Vegetarians who oppose the eating of animals, for example, will not be swayed by
any evidence that shows the health benefits of animal-based protein. Similarly, those
that believe that global warming advocates are strictly anti-capitalist activists will
not be convinced by any amount of evidence that climate change is indeed a manmade problem.

Focusing on facts in public diplomacy may thus be less than relevant. Similarly,
focusing on legal and technical arguments that are divorced from what others may
see as moral or ethical concerns will not be effective.

We wanted to see how people generally identified as ideological would view

certain issues.
We also wanted to find out if there was any way to move these people off of their
assumed political positions by presenting information in a particular manner.
We did this by looking at certain politically related beliefs and seeing how people
interpret the message.

When it comes to public diplomacy, messages are often produced by

spokespersons.
In many cases, however, these messages simply repeat the stated positions of the
government the spokesperson represents and presents the information in a manner
that would be appropriate perhaps for domestic consumption or for people that
agree, but not for foreign consumption or people who either do not agree or who do
not have enough information with which to make a reasoned judgment.
By assuming that people being targeted by public diplomacy all have the same values
and attitudes, messages often miss the target and remain ineffective.

We were particularly interested in the academic population, often described as

more left leaning than the general population.
It is this population that will arguably produce future political and business leaders
and opinion elites.
Our goal was to determine if there are specific ideological undercurrents to their
thinking and if it would be possible to modify their political positions based on
ideological presentations.

10

We randomly approached individuals in the area of the campuses of New York

University (NYU) and Columbia University in New York.
These are both prestigious institutions with academic populations that would be
typical of the sample we would like to study.

11

As noted above, the overwhelming majority of our sample was left-liberal in their
self-declared political orientation.
We had 72 subjects as interviewees, 36 male and 36 female.
Most stated they were American (58) and most (45) were Caucasian.

12

Our study consisted of 70+ individuals, all young academics, who comprised a
convenience sample.
This group represents the population type that represents the swing vote group
that provided a Democrat presidential victory in the last 2 USA elections.
It also represents the population that, based on previous data from other studies,
shows weaker pro-Israel attitudes than other populations in the USA.

13

We chose six rather neutral statements that represent a consensus that most
people could agree upon. We wanted to see how our sample would interpret these
statements. Here are the six statements:

The United States is a multi-ethnic democracy where every person has an equal
vote.
Everyone is entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

A "country" consists of a citizenry, a government and recognized boundaries.

Many countries have minority groups living as full citizens.
The international community works through a system of laws, treaties and
obligations.
Disputes between countries are best settled through negotiations.

14

We presented these statements to our population and then presented them with a
choice of two possible responsesone would be considered a more liberal or leftleaning response while the other would be considered a more conservative or
right-leaning response.

15

By adding a follow-up statement, we wanted to see if this would influence how the
individual would view the statement or perhaps affect how the interpretation would
be made.
The follow-up statement reflected a particular interpretation of the original
statement. We sought to see if this would influence how our sample would actually
view the statement.
For example, if the lead statement was:
Apples are fruits that are good for you
We could present 2 follow-up statementseach to a different group of subjects, like
this:
1. Having apples as part of your diet is good
2. You need to be careful to balance your diet with more than apples
Would the follow-up statements color the choice to be made from:
A. You should always have an apple when you get the chance
B. You should eat apples only if you havent eaten similar fruit that day

16

The other reason for presenting follow-up statements was to replicate a real-life
situation where any particular message if often accompanied by a variety of other
messages, all of which can influence the observer in different ways.
Since people hear different political messages on a regular basis, we wished to
present our political messages in a similar fashion, so as to have some of our sample
hear a liberal message, other a conservative message and yet others no particular
interpretation.
We would then combine the data and analyze the results.

17

The other purpose was, as noted earlier, to see if by presenting a priming

statement we could manipulate the subject into looking at the lead statement
differently.
If we bias the presentation this way, would the subject look at things differentlyor
would ones basic ideology still maintain control over the choices to be made?

18

Each individual we surveyed was asked if they would spend a few minutes answering
some questions as part of a political science project.
They were shown the test statement, (some with a follow-up statement) and then
asked to make one of two choices as a response. One could be considered a more
liberal response while the other would be considered a more conservative
response.
Each response included key phrases that used words that are linked to particular
ideas and could be used in an ideological presentation. For example, human rights
would be one such phrase associated with more liberal or left-leaning thinking, while
security would be one associated with more conservative or right-leaning thinking.

19

What follows are the lead statement, followed by the liberal and conservative
versions of the follow-up statements, followed by the choices (liberal or conservative)
we asked the subjects to make in response to the statements presented.

20

Statement # 1:
The above statement is a generally agreed upon and neutral political statement
which both left and right can agree upon.
We now wished to look at the manner in which ideology would affect the
interpretation of this statement.

21

The conservative interpretation:

Conservatives may feel that democracy does allow for divisions along ethnic lines,
divisions which would take into consideration cultural realities as well as majority
rights. Such a view would allow for a majority ethnic democracy while providing
minority rights for any other ethnic groups.

22

On the other hand, a more liberal interpretation would be to allow any citizen or
resident the same rights as any one else.
In Israeli terms, the choices would be between one person, one vote which could
potentially compromise a Jewish majority, or a recognition that alternative
arrangements could be made for minority ethnic groups while maintaining
democratic principles.

23

The choices above reflect either a more liberal or left-leaning response or a more
conservative or right-leaning response.
In Israeli terms, the second choice (B) would affirm the legitimacy of a clearly
Jewish state as opposed to a state of all its citizens that would include members
of other ethnic groups.
Key phrases: multi-ethnic, democracies, ethnic divisions, separate sovereign

24

Statement # 2:
The above statement is a generally agreed upon and neutral political statement

25

The left-liberal interpretation:

Human rights is an important liberal value and buzzword, hence its position here
stressing its importance.

26

Conservatives would argue that the basic human right would be the right to life,
allowing for actions by a government insuring life that may limit what others would
see as human rights of others.

27

The choices above include a more traditional conservative choice that stresses the
use of military force (A) or a more liberal one (B) that holds that human rights
would be the way to insure safety.
Israel often uses the military option to defend itself and is subject to criticism for
actions which have unintended (but predictable) negative consequences for the
Palestinian Arab population.
Key phrases: military, defend, moral, human rights, safety

28

Statement # 3:
The above is a generally accepted notion of a countrythis reflects the stated
position of Israel which stresses the need for secure and defensible borders.

29

Conservative thinking emphasizes the need for understanding and accepting legal
rights, hence the use of the term international law.
This term (international law) also figures prominently in human rights narratives, and,
as such, may have crossover value (as will be seen later on in our discussion and
findings.)

30

The left-liberal perspective:

Again, the importance of human rights as a liberal value is presented as the key
factor in securing ones citizenry.

31

The first choice (A) emphasizes the conservative stress of safety and security, while
choice (B) focuses on the need for peace and respect, notions associated with more
liberal thinking.
Israels emphasis of secure and defensible borders as a prerequisite for peace is
emphasized in choice (A) while the more liberal approach of establishing peace as the
means to insure security is stressed in choice (B).
Key phrases: safety, hostile, peace, good will, security

32

Statement # 4:
While most people can agree with the above statement, there may be differences
between right and left as to how one would interpret application of the systems
described.

33

The UN is seen as a legitimate body in liberal circles, hence it use here in this liberal
argument.

34

The conservative message focuses on the totalitarian and non-democratic nature of

many of the members of the UN, which in liberal circles, is not always perceived in
such terms.

35

Choice (A) emphasizes the integrity of the UN as a representative body and the
liberal approach, especially in more progressive circles, that the UN reflects
international consensus. Choice (B) looks at the right to challenge even a majority
opinion, which in the case of the UN, would be a common conservative message
and one that is especially relevant to Israel and Israels position within the UN.
Key phrases: international, disagree, UN

36

Statement # 5:
This statement is a neutral statement of fact that is open to a variety of
interpretations. Israels significant minority of non-Jews makes this statement
relevant for Israeli public diplomacy.

37

Consistent with more conservative approach, this statement emphasizes more legal
aspects of an argument and the feeling that once legal equality is granted, a
country has fulfilled its obligations.

38

Consistent with more liberal and progressive ideas, the less formal and less legalistic
approach emphasizing social integration, notwithstanding any legal status, is stressed.

39

Choice (A) reflects the conservative and traditional approach of looking at legalistic
arguments, while choice (B) looks at the more social, human and less legal and
formal approach. Israels formal and legal granting of equality to non-Jewish citizens is
often used as a talking point in public diplomacy.
Key phrases: equal rights, minority, person-person, law

40

Statement # 6:
While perhaps less neutral than other statements, the sentiment of the above
statement is often the conventional wisdom that most political perspectives agree
with publicly.

41

Consistent with a liberal perspective, this statement supports a more conciliatory

approach during negotiations, one that minimizes the possibility of upsetting the
party being negotiated with. It also reflects the argument that settlement
construction would be a obstacle to negotiations.

42

Consistent with a legalistic, formal approach, the above sentiment is more toughminded and would be more attractive to individuals whose ideology can be
considered more conservative. It reflects the Israeli argument that settlement
construction is not prohibited under the Oslo agreements and thus can be
undertaken at any time by Israel.

43

Choice (A) reflects a more liberal approach that frowns upon actions which can be
considered morally questionable, notwithstanding their legal status. Choice (B) would
be the more conservative approach which simply reflects legal rights and does not
speak to any possible ethical or moral difficulty.
As noted earlier, these choices would be relevant to the impression that Israel
engages in settlement construction and/or expansion during negotiations or peace
process.

44

Our first step in analysis was to tabulate the number of liberal versus the number of
conservative choices.
We then looked to see if having intervening priming statements that reflected
either liberal or more conservative sentiments affected these choices.

45

Combining all the data (of all versions and all primed statements) we see that there is
a significant gap between liberal and conservative choices to the statements
presented, reflecting an overwhelming liberal-left ideology in the population
sampled.
This difference reaches statistical significance, as measured by a chi-square analysis of
all comparisons (probability <.01, 95% confidence level)
This analysis reflects what would be normal in the population, i.e., messages and
sources of information are likely to be varied and people are likely to be exposed to a
variety of viewpoints.
Further analyses of the data by sub-groups follows.

46

As we can see from the above graph, the data shows that when statements are
presented without any intervening (primed) sentiments, they maintain the significant
difference seen in the previous slide.
While some pairs are closer than others, all can be said to reflect statistically
significant (chi-square values) differences at no less than a p<.05 level.

47

Our data shows one finding of statistical significance, although its meaning is limited.
As seen above, when presenting a liberal argument, the gaps between choosing
responses which reflect left versus right ideology remains intact.
We did, however, find one comparison that failed to show significance, although its
practical or clinical significance is minimal.
Statement # 6 shows a narrow gap between the 2 choicesa gap that does not , as
opposed to all other comparisons, show statistical significance. While, on the surface,
this would appear to be meaningful, the shift from its baseline (see previous slides)
level and the impact of any primed statement is thus NOT significant.
It is unclear, however, if the failure to show an ideological difference between the
choices here is meaningful or simply a statistical anomaly.

48

As with all the other data, presenting a conservative-laden statement as an

intervening prime had no significant effect on the gap between right and left
responses.

49

The bar graph above presents a dramatic image of the left-right gap in the population
we tested. On all statements presented, left choices were chosen overwhelmingly
over right choices.

50

What is important is a measure of the shift in the relative percentage of liberal or

conservative responses following the presentation of a primed statement.
In our study, we found one such shift which showed statistical significance.
In comparisons made, the percentage of liberal responses shifted from 96% in the
baseline (no intervening statements) group to about 68% in the group that received a
conservative prime. While the liberal prime also reduced the percentage of liberal
responses, this difference did not reach statistical significance (see below) .
A "country" consists of a citizenry, a government and recognized boundaries.
Conservative prime
Borders of an established country are always to be respected according to
international law.
Liberal prime
Any country that engages in human rights abuses within its borders forfeits the right
to secure borders and immunity from attack.
A. A country is always entitled to borders that insure safety from attack or threat from
potentially hostile neighbors. (conservative choice)
B. Establishing peace and demonstrating good will and respect to neighboring
countries rights is the best way to insure security on one's borders. (liberal choice)

51

The above is the same graph as in the previous slide, but shows the shift (also
statistically significant (probability <.01, 95% confidence level) in terms of change in
conservative responses.

52

Consistent with other studies, we saw that ones ideology is paramount in

determining political belief.
We also found that academics, consistent with conventional wisdom, hold
predominant left-liberal beliefs.

53

We further found that creating effective arguments that are inconsistent with ones
ideology is difficult. Our sample of academics showed that they are resistant to
changing their attitudinal slant even if suggestions to the contrary are presented in
talking point format.
While modifying ones choices seems not to have been successful on the basis of
priming certain intervening statements, we did see one possible opening by using
an argument which leans conservative but uses a liberal term.
In the one statistically significant finding we had, we saw the dual nature of the term
international law. The term is often associated with a human rights and left
narrative, and in the Israel-Palestinian dynamic is often used to illustrate violations
committed by Israel (e.g., settlement building.) However, the legal aspect of the
term also allows for interpretations which can support more conservative thinking
(e.g., right to self-defense.)
So while ideology may indeed be resistant to attitudinal challenge, it is also possible
that utilizing ideologically compatible terminology to illustrate an alternative to
conventional ideological attitude may be a mechanism that would allow information
to be conveyed more effectively.

54

The failure to understand and accept the predominant ideology of populations being
targeted is a failure of public diplomacy, including Israeli public diplomacy and NGO
advocacy efforts.
The continued use of inappropriate and ineffective arguments is akin to speaking a
foreign language to people whose ideology would reject such arguments.
Research needs to focus on the dynamic of political thinking and ideology and the
mechanisms by which relevant and effective arguments that speak to the target
audience can be developed. Our finding that ideological consistency is needed to
induce any attitudinal shift would call for further research to investigate how to best
develop mechanisms to meet public diplomacy objectives.
We hope to use the results of this pilot to develop future follow-up studies that
would test hypotheses we would develop in this area.

55