In an illuminating new study published in the American Psychologist, researchers from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have uncovered profound insights into the psychological forces that shape public opinion during extreme crises. Led by Professor Ariel Knafo-Noam, this research delves into how deeply entrenched personal values act as steadfast psychological anchors amidst the shifting and often chaotic landscape of high-stakes dilemmas, specifically focusing on Israeli public opinion regarding hostage negotiation deals during the Hamas-Israel conflict spanning from late 2023 into early 2025.
The investigation, notable for its unprecedented scope and longitudinal design, followed over 7,000 Israeli participants through multiple waves of data collection as the war evolved and negotiations fluctuated. Instead of focusing solely on traditional demographic and political predictors such as age, gender, political orientation, and educational attainment, the study employed the Schwartz theory of basic human values to decode the underlying motivational structures influencing how individuals formed and maintained complex opinions on these sensitive and evolving hostage negotiations.
Central to the study’s findings is the dominant role of universalism, a value orientation centered on the welfare of all humanity and the preference for peaceful, inclusive resolutions. Across all sampled groups and phases of data collection, universalism emerged as the most potent predictor of support for the hostage deals. This suggests that individuals who prioritize empathy, equity, and global harmony hold enduring optimism toward negotiated settlements, viewing such compromises as expressions of moral responsibility beyond national boundaries.
In stark contrast, the value placed on tradition—which emphasizes the preservation of cultural, religious, and social customs—served as a robust indicator of opposition to these deals. Individuals highly committed to traditional values appear to resist concessions perceived as compromising collective identity or cultural continuity. Their steadfast opposition implies that customary norms and a sense of historical continuity become particularly salient during periods of rapid upheaval, anchoring their rejection of negotiation policies regarded as threats to in-group cohesion.
Power values, characterized by desires for social dominance, status, and control, also correlated with opposition, albeit less strongly than tradition. This nuanced finding suggests that while power-driven motives contribute to skepticism toward compromise, they do so within a broader framework of protecting group interests and social hierarchies. Importantly, these relationships between values and opinions persisted independently of demographic factors and political partisanship, underscoring the primary psychological role of internal value systems in shaping public attitudes.
Perhaps most compellingly, the study reveals how alignment between an individual’s value priorities and their stance fosters not only opinion formation but also increases the subjective certainty of that opinion. For instance, proponents of negotiation high in universalism displayed markedly greater confidence in their support, while traditionalists opposing the deals similarly exhibited stronger conviction. This psychological consonance appears to fortify the stability of opinions, rendering individuals more resistant to persuasion or attitude shifts despite ongoing changes in the sociopolitical environment.
From a methodological perspective, the researchers employed sophisticated data and statistical analyses across successive samples, enabling them to trace opinion trajectories over time. By adopting a longitudinal framework, the study captured the dynamic interplay between changing external circumstances and internal motivational structures. This approach allows for a deeper understanding of why certain opinions endure fiercely even as objective realities evolve, particularly when those opinions are rooted in core personal values.
Professor Knafo-Noam interprets these findings as indicative of a broader human tendency during crises to turn inward, seeking guidance from the most stable aspects of identity—the intrinsic moral compasses forged by lifelong value commitments. With social norms in flux and information environments rife with uncertainty, individuals rely less on external political cues and more on their fundamental value orientations to navigate moral ambiguities and make sense of life-or-death policy decisions.
The implications of this research extend well beyond the specific context of the Hamas-Israel hostage crisis. By illuminating the psychological mechanics that underlie opinion formation and persistence, the study offers critical insights for policymakers and communicators aiming to bridge societal divides in contentious, rapidly evolving scenarios. Tailoring public messaging to resonate with distinct value profiles—such as emphasizing mutual responsibility and resilience for traditionalists—could enhance dialogue efficacy and foster social cohesion.
Moreover, this pioneering work challenges simplified models of public opinion grounded only in demographic or ideological binaries, advocating instead for a nuanced, values-based lens. Recognizing and respecting the diversity of motivational drivers that shape public cognition may improve understanding of social fragmentation and be instrumental in designing more empathetic conflict resolution frameworks.
As Professor Knafo-Noam remarks, the diversity of personal values means that even when individuals encounter identical factual information about moral dilemmas, their interpretations and ensuing opinions diverge markedly. This internal heterogeneity underscores the complexity of democratic deliberation, particularly in crises where emotional stakes are high and normative consensus is elusive.
Ultimately, the study posits that values constitute a universal psychological substrate by which individuals process high-stakes moral issues, transcending cultural and geopolitical contexts. Whether in ongoing national conflicts or global emergencies, this foundational role of personal values likely shapes public attitudes with profound consequences for social stability and policymaking in tumultuous times.
By advancing empirical knowledge at the intersection of psychology, political science, and conflict studies, this research sets a new standard for how scholars and practitioners alike can approach the dynamic and emotionally charged domain of opinion formation. It underscores the imperative to integrate psychological value theory into both academic inquiry and practical efforts to manage crises involving collective security and human lives.
Understanding how deeply seated values interact with external realities to produce durable opinions sheds vital light on the persistent polarization observed in many societies. As such, this study not only enriches theoretical perspectives on motivation and cognition under uncertainty but also offers actionable frameworks to foster dialogue and empathy amid division.
In a world increasingly confronted by volatile political landscapes and multifaceted moral dilemmas, embracing the complexity of values-driven opinion processes may prove essential for crafting effective, humane responses. This research poignantly demonstrates the psychological resilience inherent in value congruence, illuminating a path toward greater societal understanding in the face of adversity.
Subject of Research:
People
Article Title:
The Role of Personal Values in Opinion Formation Regarding a High-Stakes Continually Evolving Topic: The Hamas–Israel Hostage Deal Negotiations
News Publication Date:
26-Feb-2026
Web References:
10.1037/amp0001656
Keywords:
Psychological science, Psychological theory, Social psychology, Personal values, Opinion formation, Crisis psychology, Hamas-Israel conflict, Hostage negotiation, Universalism, Tradition, Power values, Longitudinal study
