Original title: Who Wants More War? Conflict Exposure, Perceptions of Public Opinion, and Preferences for Conflict Escalation in Israel
Nicholas Sambanis, Itamar Yakir · September 2026
During a war, people often disagree on whether to fight more or seek peace. Researchers wanted to know what actually shapes these foreign policy choices. Following a June 2025 clash between Israel and Iran, they studied how Israelis reacted to an Iranian missile attack and to information about what other citizens believed. They tested whether learning about majority opinion changes a person's view, and how personal danger plays a role. The team found that people conform to the crowd. If they think the public wants peace, they become more peaceful. If they believe the majority wants war, they turn more aggressive. Finally, people who faced the missile attacks favored belligerence more, and individuals followed cues that matched their political party's views.
Imagine you and your friends are deciding whether to stand up to a bully at school. You already have your own gut feeling. Then you glance around and get a sense of what most others think—some seem ready to fight, others want to talk it out. Without anyone saying a word, you find yourself leaning toward whatever you think the majority wants. In this paper, Israelis did exactly that after a real missile attack: their own foreign policy preferences shifted to match what they believed was the majority opinion, even though no one formally voted or debated.
After a real missile attack, this study shows that Israelis changed their foreign policy preferences—becoming more hawkish or more dovish—based on what they believed the majority wanted. This means public opinion is not just an outcome of war; it is shaped moment by moment by perceived social pressure, which can push entire nations toward escalation or restraint.
The abstract does not specify the sample size, demographics, or whether the findings generalize beyond this single conflict or country. It does not describe the mechanism behind the conformity or provide quantitative evidence for any causal claim beyond the correlation. Causal interpretation relies on natural variation in attack exposure, but other confounding factors may exist.
Ask anything about this paper. Answers come from its abstract, and say so when the abstract doesn't cover your question.
Who Wants More War? Conflict Exposure, Perceptions of Public Opinion, and Preferences for Conflict Escalation in Israel — Nicholas Sambanis, Itamar Yakir — SocArXiv — doi:10.31235/osf.io/5upfb_v2
Abstract licence: CC BY
Explanation generated by Synthesis from the abstract — it is not the original paper. This is a preprint, so it hasn't necessarily been peer reviewed.