In the complex crucible of geopolitical conflict, human perceptions and biases often shape the narratives that influence public opinion and policy decisions. A recent groundbreaking study published in Communications Psychology has shed light on the intricate ways ambivalent sexism informs Israelis’ gendered preferences during the Gaza hostage crisis. This research not only probes the psychological underpinnings of societal attitudes but also reveals how deep-seated sexist beliefs can skew perceptions of empathy, security, and moral responsibility in moments of national trauma.
The Gaza hostage crisis, an emotionally charged and politically fraught event, offers a striking case study to investigate how gender biases affect collective responses to conflict. Ambivalent sexism, a psychological framework comprising both hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes, provides a nuanced lens through which to examine these dynamics. Hostile sexism encompasses overt antagonism toward women, while benevolent sexism involves seemingly positive but patronizing attitudes that reinforce traditional gender roles. This duality creates a complex terrain where gender stereotypes influence not only interpersonal interactions but also national-level crisis reactions.
Bareket, Reifen-Tagar, and Saguy, the study’s lead researchers, utilized robust psychological methodologies to parse out how ambivalent sexism correlates with Israelis’ gendered preferences during this heightened period of tension. Their analysis uncovers that these sexist attitudes significantly predict public sentiment regarding how male and female hostages, as well as corresponding military and political responses, are perceived and prioritized. The findings illuminate a dangerous intersection where gender biases potentially impede rational and equitable policymaking amidst conflict.
A foundational aspect of this research is its emphasis on the bifurcation of sexism into hostile and benevolent components. Through detailed survey instruments and statistical modeling, the authors capture how these components differentially impact attitudes toward male and female hostages. For instance, benevolent sexism, which often casts women as needing protection, correlates strongly with increased empathetic responses toward female hostages. In contrast, hostile sexism, reflecting resentment or mistrust of women’s societal roles, may dampen such empathies or skew perceptions of their agency within the crisis.
This dichotomy produces a distinct gendered preference pattern, whereby female hostages are often viewed through a lens of victimhood and vulnerability, while male hostages may evoke associations with heroism or culpability depending on prevailing sexist attitudes. Such perceptions are not merely academic observations—they carry tangible consequences for how government and military responses are framed in the public eye, as well as how resources and attention are allocated in hostage recovery efforts.
Importantly, the study integrates a macro-social perspective, linking individual psychological biases to broader cultural narratives prevalent within Israeli society. The authors argue that ambivalent sexism is not an isolated psychological phenomenon but is embedded within societal norms that celebrate traditional gender roles and reinforce patriarchal structures. This socio-cultural embedding magnifies the impact of individual sexist attitudes, rendering them influential on collective behavior during crises.
Advanced statistical techniques, including structural equation modeling, were employed to robustly test the predictive power of ambivalent sexism on gendered preferences. This rigorous methodological approach allows the researchers to rule out confounding variables and firmly establish causative pathways rather than mere correlations. By delineating these causal links, the study advances our scientific understanding of the psychosocial mechanisms that shape collective crisis responses.
Another compelling dimension explored is the intersectionality of gender biases with nationalist fervor and security concerns. The researchers emphasize that ambivalent sexism does not operate in a vacuum but interacts dynamically with political ideologies and risk assessments. For example, benevolent sexism may intensify a protective stance toward female hostages, juxtaposed against perceived threats posed by male captors or infiltrators, further entrenching gendered dichotomies in security narratives.
Beyond immediate conflict dynamics, the implications of this research extend to media framing and public communication strategies. Media outlets often amplify gendered stereotypes in their portrayal of hostages and conflict participants, perpetuating cycles of sexism that shape public opinion and political pressures. Understanding the psychological foundations of these biases offers pathways for designing more balanced and de-gendered narratives that prioritize human dignity and equitable treatment.
The study’s findings also resonate globally, as hostage crises and conflict situations worldwide are rarely immune to gendered perceptions and sexism. The ambivalent sexism framework provides a universally applicable model, encouraging policymakers and conflict negotiators in various geopolitical contexts to critically appraise how ingrained gender biases might inadvertently influence their strategic decisions.
By foregrounding psychological science within the analysis of geopolitical conflicts, Bareket and colleagues break new ground in interdisciplinary research. They convincingly argue that incorporating gender-sensitive perspectives and challenging ambivalent sexism can enhance crisis management frameworks, reduce societal polarization, and foster more ethical and effective responses to hostage situations.
Notably, the authors propose policy recommendations grounded in their findings, advocating for targeted educational campaigns to raise awareness of ambivalent sexism’s pervasive effects. Such interventions could cultivate more nuanced public discourse and promote empathy that transcends gendered stereotypes, ultimately contributing to a more cohesive and just society under the strain of conflict.
The study additionally highlights avenues for future research, including longitudinal analyses to track how ambivalent sexism influences attitudes over time during protracted crises. Investigating how these gendered preferences evolve with shifting political climates and media coverage would deepen insights into the temporal dynamics of psychosocial bias in conflict.
In summary, this landmark research offers a compelling intersection of social psychology, gender studies, and conflict resolution. It reveals how deeply embedded sexist ideologies not only shape individual attitudes but also propagate systemic inequalities in times of societal emergency. As the Gaza hostage crisis continues to unfold in public consciousness, unpacking these psychological dimensions becomes ever more critical to fostering empathy, justice, and coherent policy responses.
This study thus stands as a clarion call for integrating gender-aware psychological analysis into the heart of security and humanitarian frameworks. By addressing the multifaceted impact of ambivalent sexism, societies can move towards more equitable and effective conflict resolution mechanisms that honor all individuals irrespective of gender.
Subject of Research: Psychological impact of ambivalent sexism on gendered preferences during the Gaza hostage crisis
Article Title: Ambivalent sexism predicts Israelis’ gendered preferences in the Gaza hostage crisis
Article References:
Bareket, O., Reifen-Tagar, M. & Saguy, T. Ambivalent sexism predicts Israelis’ gendered preferences in the Gaza hostage crisis. Commun Psychol 3, 113 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-025-00279-6
Image Credits: AI Generated
