Prospect Theory and the Failure to Sell the Oslo Accords

We examine how supporters and opponents of the 1993 Oslo Accords attempted to persuade their constituents to either support or oppose the agreement. It is our argument that a “sales” message that is based on tenets of prospect theory—framing the preferred choice as less risky than the alternative—will garner more initial support for an agreement and, more importantly, will insulate a peace process to some extent from failures in implementation. For this paper, we ask a series of three questions designed to determine how leaders from both sides frame the peace agreement reached, how they describe the implementation of that agreement and its costs and benefits. Our analysis used 170 documents detailing statements by political party leaders and spokespeople, finding that supporters attempted to frame the agreement largely in aspirational terms toward a better future but failed to frame the agreement as a better alternative to continued or renewed conflict.