A new study shows that highlighting shared values and common goals can significantly increase the acceptance of civic organizations that are often seen as controversial and delegitimized for challenging the status quo. The research tested different messaging strategies on more than 1,600 Jewish Israeli participants, using real-world examples from a delegitimized prominent NGO. Messages that focused on widely supported activities—like providing services to marginalized communities—or that framed the organization as part of a shared value-based identity led to greater perceived legitimacy. The findings offer a practical and research-backed approach for protecting democratic discourse in polarized societies.

In a time when civil society voices are increasingly dismissed as radical or disloyal, new research led by PhD student Lee Aldar and Professor Eran Halperin at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, found that a discourse emphasizing shared values and common goals – like fairness, solidarity, and support for vulnerable communities – can significantly boost the legitimacy of controversial civil groups, even among skeptical or even hostile public.

Published in Communications Psychology, the study tested the effects of different psychological interventions on over 1,600 Jewish Israeli participants, representing the political right, center, and left. The researchers focused on attitudes toward a widely delegitimized Israeli civil society organization known for its work on democratic values, minority rights, and government accountability. Over time, this NGO has been the target of smear campaigns that frame its actions as disloyal, extreme, or threatening. The team tested how carefully framed messages could shift perceptions without watering down the group’s mission. Two strategies stood out: highlighting widely supported public service efforts and redefining what it means to be “one of us.”

Using a method known as an “intervention tournament,” the researchers presented participants with simulated social media posts styled as if written by the NGO itself. Some emphasized shared values such as human dignity and fairness; others highlighted common interests, such as improving healthcare access or supporting vulnerable communities. The goal was to test which types of messages might shift public attitudes.

One intervention emphasized mainstream activities—like providing services to marginalized communities and advocating for public housing—while another used value-based recategorization, presenting a new definition of what it means to be part of one group or another based on values rather than labels. Both approaches led to a significant increase in perceived legitimacy of the NGO.

"Even in deeply polarized societies, highlighting what people have in common can change how they view others—especially those they may disagree with," said Prof. Eran Halperin, an expert on intergroup relations and political psychology. "This isn't just about changing minds; it’s about making space for internal criticism and protecting the democratic principle of free expression."

Importantly, the effective interventions didn’t attempt to address the NGO’s more controversial positions or confront misinformation head-on. Instead, they offered a reframing: showing that organizations labelled as being “illegitimate” or “anti-Israel” in fact often promote activities based on values that many would agree with, given the chance to reconsider them.

The study’s results carry global relevance. In countries as diverse as Brazil, Poland, Russia, and the United States, human rights groups and civil society watchdogs have faced rising hostility for opposing government actions. The researchers argue that re-legitimizing these actors is essential to safeguarding democratic institutions—and that the path forward lies in reclaiming narratives based on identity, values, and interests that are shared with different groups in their societies.
“This is not about asking civil society actors to dilute their missions; politicians, journalists and ordinary citizens still bear the primary responsibility for making space for debate – even when its uncomfortable – about policies.” said Lee Aldar, the study’s lead author. “It’s about finding enough common language and shared truths that remind the public these voices belong to the society they’re trying to improve.”

The study adds a powerful tool to the psychological and political toolkit of organizations fighting for democracy—and suggests that even amid division, common ground remains a force for change.