Abstract
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been an ongoing source of violence in the Middle East, claiming the lives of tens of thousands of people. As of late violence has escalated, with this year being one of the deadliest years in the conflict in decades. Therefore, now more than ever finding ways to bridge divides is essential to reduce the human suffering associated with the conflict. In this study we evaluated the impact of an important element of communication: accent. We demonstrate that the accent through which trust-building initiatives are communicated can inadvertently sway public opinion regarding their benefits. Jewish-Israelis listened to the same trust-building proposal communicated by a Palestinian delegate with varying degrees of Palestinian Arabic-accented Hebrew. When the same proposal came from a Palestinian delegate with a heavier accent, Jewish-Israelis thought this proposal was significantly worse for Israel than when it was offered by a Palestinian delegate who spoke Hebrew with no detectable, non-native accent. This effect was explained by differences in how the Palestinian delegate was judged depending on his accent. When the delegate spoke with heavier, Arabic-accented Hebrew, he was judged more harshly than when he spoke Hebrew with no such accent, which in turn reduced how favorably Jewish-Israelis evaluated the proposed measures. Our findings show that the way in which trust-building measures are communicated can shape how they are received and thus has direct implications for diplomatic efforts.