In today’s hyper-polarized political climate, civil society organizations that challenge prevailing narratives often emerge as lightning rods for controversy and delegitimization. A groundbreaking study conducted by researchers at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem offers a scientifically robust and practical approach to bolstering the perceived legitimacy of these critical voices, even among audiences predisposed to skepticism or outright hostility. By employing innovative psychological interventions grounded in the principles of social identity and intergroup relations, the research identifies communication strategies that highlight shared values and societal contributions, thereby reshaping public perceptions without compromising organizational missions.
This study, spearheaded by PhD candidate Lee Aldar and Professor Eran Halperin, addresses a crucial dilemma faced worldwide: how can civic organizations that are frequently branded as radical or disloyal reclaim legitimacy in the eyes of a divided public? The research utilizes a large, politically diverse sample of over 1,600 Jewish Israeli participants spanning the political spectrum from right to left, ensuring a comprehensive examination of attitudes in a polarized society. The research’s real-world relevance is exemplified through its focus on a well-known, yet widely delegitimized, Israeli non-governmental organization dedicated to democratic advocacy, minority rights, and government oversight.
What distinguishes this investigation is its methodological innovation—an “intervention tournament.” In this controlled experimental framework, participants were exposed to a variety of simulated social media posts crafted in the NGO’s voice. Each message was strategically designed to test psychological theories related to intergroup perception and legitimacy. Two distinct messaging approaches emerged as particularly effective: one foregrounded the NGO’s mainstream service-oriented activities, such as aid to marginalized communities and support for public housing initiatives; the other employed a cognitive reframing technique called value-based recategorization, encouraging participants to redefine group membership grounded in shared values rather than divisive labels.
These carefully constructed narratives leveraged fundamental human social psychology concepts, especially the power of common identity and shared morality. The mainstream activity messages resonated by underscoring tangible, widely supported efforts, thereby providing a concrete basis for legitimacy that transcended political biases. Meanwhile, the value-based recategorization challenged entrenched identity categories by inviting participants to reconceptualize “us” and “them” along the lines of universally desirable values like fairness, solidarity, and human dignity. Both strategies yielded statistically significant and meaningful increases in the perceived legitimacy of the NGO, demonstrating the potent potential of psychological framing in mitigating polarization.
Importantly, this approach diverges from traditional attempts to combat misinformation or to discredit opponents’ narratives directly. Instead of engaging in confrontational dialogue or attempting to soften controversial political stances, the interventions created “positive reframing” spaces that allowed participants to reevaluate the NGO’s societal role through a value-aligned lens. This subtle yet powerful mechanism shifts attention away from divisive ideology and toward collectively endorsed social goals, reducing defensiveness and opening cognitive pathways for reevaluation.
Professor Eran Halperin, an authority in political psychology and intergroup dynamics, highlights that this research transcends the immediate Israeli context, contributing vital insights into the global struggle to sustain democratic discourse amid escalating societal fracturing. The findings suggest that the political toxicology of delegitimization can be counteracted by communication strategies that stress what various groups share rather than what divides them. Such frameworks do not merely aim to persuade but seek to expand the democratic space by legitimizing critical voices necessary for nuanced debate and democratic vitality.
The implications of this research extend across diverse geopolitical landscapes where civil society organizations face intensified pressure. From Brazil and Poland to Russia and the United States, watchdog groups and advocates for human rights increasingly encounter delegitimization campaigns that paint them as outsiders or threats to national loyalty. The study’s evidence-based strategies provide a replicable model for these groups to strengthen their social acceptance without compromising their missions, reinforcing a collective recognition of their contributions to democratic accountability and social justice.
Additionally, the study makes a significant contribution to the field of social and political psychology by empirically validating the efficacy of value-based recategorization alongside mainstream activity emphasis as viable psychological interventions. These findings deepen our understanding of how deeply entrenched social divisions, often framed in rigid identity terms, can be softened through carefully tailored messaging that invokes universal moral principles and shared community goals.
From a methodological perspective, the use of an “intervention tournament” represents a novel experimental design that allows for the simultaneous testing of multiple messaging strategies within a representative population. This approach is instrumental in isolating the specific psychological mechanisms that underlie shifts in legitimacy perceptions, offering a nuanced analysis beyond simple cause-effect relationships. By simulating realistic social media interactions, the research reflects the contemporary media environment’s complexities and the challenges faced by civil society organizations in digital communication ecosystems.
Beyond theoretical and practical advancements, the study underscores the ethical responsibility of not only civic actors but also media professionals, political figures, and the general public. Creating openness to internal criticism, even when uncomfortable, is framed as a collective duty vital to the preservation of democratic norms. Lee Aldar emphasizes this broader social dimension, emphasizing that reframing messages are not calls for mission dilution but invitations for societal dialogue grounded in shared values, ultimately reinforcing the fabric of democratic engagement.
In summary, this research offers a powerful psychological toolkit for democratic resilience in an era of pronounced political polarization. Its findings illuminate a path forward for civil society organizations seeking legitimacy among diverse and divided publics by harnessing the unifying potential of common values and widely supported social efforts. As democracies worldwide grapple with rising tensions and delegitimization pressures, the study provides both a conceptual framework and empirical evidence supporting strategies that can foster inclusion, respect, and constructive discourse.
The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Communications Psychology on April 16, 2025. Its innovative methodology and impactful conclusions are poised to influence scholarship and practice in social psychology, political science, and civic advocacy worldwide, contributing to ongoing efforts to protect and revitalize democratic dialogue under threat from polarization and social fragmentation.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Intergroup psychological interventions highlighting commonalities can increase the perceived legitimacy of critical voices
News Publication Date: 16-Apr-2025
Web References: 10.1038/s44271-025-00238-1
Keywords: Psychological science, Human social behavior, Human relations, Society, Social psychology, Democracy
