Value Differentiation Between Enemies and Allies: Value Projection in National Images Véronique Eicher University of Fribourg, University of Lausanne Felicia Pratto University of Connecticut Peter Wilhelm University of Fribourg The current study aimed to investigate value projection between Palestinians, Israelis, Americans, and Swiss as a function of their group’s stance toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Drawing on image theory, we assumed that images—operationalized by value projection—would be a function not just of features of the target group, but of the rater group’s relationship with the target group. Value projection can be seen as an indicator of (de)humanization as values represent goals and desirable behaviors of a person. We therefore expected higher projection to ally than to enemy groups, whereas we expected no difference in projection to out-groups with neutral relations. Results show that allies did indeed project Security and Power to a higher degree to each other than to enemies, and enemies showed no, or even negative, projection onto each other. The ally of the enemy (Americans) was projected less negatively by Palestinians than vice versa, pointing to the higher complexity of third-party images as opposed to the more classical ally and enemy images. As expected, Swiss students showed almost no difference in projection to the different out-groups. These results confirm that the relationship between groups (e.g., alliance, enmity) rather than a consensual view of particular nations determines images. KEY WORDS: value projection, intergroup relations, image theory, ally, enemy, third parties “War is inconceivable without a clearly defined image of the enemy.” —Carl von Clausewitz (cited in Rieber & Kelly, 1991, p. 4) This statement by Clausewitz 1 bespeaks the importance of images that actors in conflict relations create of each other. Mutual images have been investigated between Americans and Soviets during the Cold War (Bronfenbrenner, 1961), between Americans and Vietnamese during the Vietnam War (White, 1966), and between Arabs and Israelis (White, 1977). The most common mutual (mis-)perceptions in these conflicts were a diabolical enemy image (e.g., they are aggressive and cruel), which contrasts with self-images that are overly positive (e.g., we are courageous and determined to persevere; we are peaceful and only defend our people). Such images and assumptions contribute to and prolong conflicts (White, 1998, 2004). 1 Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831) was a Prussian general and military theorist. Political Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2013 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00930.x 127 0162-895X © 2012 International Society of Political Psychology Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, and PO Box 378 Carlton South, 3053 Victoria, Australia