Guest editors' introduction

Int. J. Inrercultural

Rrl. Vol. 20. No. 3/4, pp. 265 -270, 1996 Copyright @ 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed-in &eat Britain. All rights reserved Ol47-1767/96 $15.00 + 0.00

Pergamon

GUEST EDITORS’

JOSEPH

INTRODUCTION

SCHWARZWALD

and YEHUDA

AMIR

Intergroup tensions are common among heterogeneous populations, and have been a major concern for numerous societies and countries. Over the past half century, tensions between groups have become even more prevalent due to immigration, war, changing labor needs of industrial nations, and major political upheavals, such as the unification of Germany, and the collapse of the Eastern block. Hence, it is not surprising that social scientists continue to invest enormous effort in investigating intergroup tension and seeking remedies for this social ailment. These efforts were reflected at the Second International Congress on Prejudice, Discrimination and Conflict, held in Jerusalem in the summer of 1994 under the auspices of the Winston Institute for Prejudice at BarBan University. Only a few selected papers from the congress feature in this special issue. The decision as to which works to include was a matter of personal preference, and does not reflect in any way the merits of the works excluded. Our aim was to express the vitality of the work in this field, rather than to offer an updated summary of current findings. Indeed, in light of the sample research that is conducted in this field, the issue of intergroup tensions deserves a special journal in its own right, rather than a single special issue. Attempts to reduce intergroup tensions have focused primarily on contact. Yet, mere contact is not enough; frequent contact may even hamper the relations between groups (Brewer, 1986). In order to be effective, contact should provide facilitating conditions, such as equal status, cooperation and interdependence, a supportive climate, and opportunities for personal acquaintance (Amir, 1969; Cook, 198.5; Stephan & Stephan, 1995). The need for better theoretical understanding of the processes underlying contact has already been expressed (Amir, 1976). This call has not gone unnoticed. The first set of articles addresses theories and interventions for structuring effective intergroup contact. Stereotypesbeliefs about the characteristics of people in a group, and prejudice-negative attitudes based on individuals’ group membership ~~ are considered important causes of hostility between groups. 265

266

J. Schwarzwald

and Y. Amir

How are these two concepts formed, perpetuated and related to each other? The second set of articles taps these questions. Attention to methodological issues provides insight into theories, processes and structures. This is exemplified in the third set of articles. Tension between groups is a complex phenomenon which interests social scientists in several fields. The Second International Congress on Prejudice, Discrimination and Conflict Disputes was an interdisciplinary convention in which works from several fields were presented. Our last article offers one interesting approach taken by a political scientist regarding rules for the political resolution of territorial conflict. In the following, we provide an eclectic overview of some of the highlights appearing in the articles in each of these sections.

STRUCTURING

EFFECTIVE

CONTACT

Gaertner, Dovidio and Backman argue, in their Common Ingroup Identity Model, that effective contact occurs when members’ perceptions of two separate groups (“us” and “them”) become one inclusive category (“we”). It directs the attention of participants away from ingroupoutgroup categorization to a superordinate category identification. As such, cognitive and motivational processes that produce positive feelings toward ingroup members generalize to outgroup members. Furthermore, an underlying assumption in the model is that conditions known to be necessary for effective contact (e.g., interdependence, supporting climate) promote the perception of a common ingroup identity among participants. Findings collected from laboratory and field settings indeed indicate that a greater perception of superordinate identity is accompanied by lower levels of bias toward outgroup members. Brewer, in her theory of optimal distinctiveness, argues that social categorization activates two opposing needs: the need for inclusion (belongness), and the need for exclusion (uniqueness). Consequently, effective structuring of intergroup interdependence models requires a balance between these needs to be maintained. Reviewing the dissolution of current political structures in large multiethnic states (e.g., former Soviet Union, former Yugoslavia), Brewer evaluates the effectiveness of three existing models in terms of her theory. She argues that optimal distinctiveness is not achieved in the personalization model (Brewer & Miller, 1984) nor in the common ingroup identity model (Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman & Rust, 1993). The former does not satisfy the need for belongness, and the latter does not satisfy the need for uniqueness. The distinct social identity model (Hewstone & Brown, 1986) fulfills both conditions of belongness and uniqueness, but interdependence is unstable. Brewer suggests a model in which intergroup structure is characterized by cross-cutting roles and social categories, where roles and

Guest Editors’ Introduction

267

social categories are functionally independent. Accordingly, even when subgroup identities are salient, the contribution of each individual is evaluated in relation to the collective goal. Rothbart addresses the issue of effective contact in the changing of stereotypes. Contact hypothesis predicts a change when an encounter with individuals (exemplars) of a group (category) disconfirms the stereotype. However, this is not necessarily the case due to a paradox in categoryexemplar dynamics. The more people refute the stereotype of their group, the more the stereotype of that group changes; yet at the same time, the likelihood for generalization is reduced, as greater refutation weakens the perceived associated between the individual and the group. Structuring effective contact for stereotype change therefore requires an optimal level of refutation that simultaneously maximizes both disconfirmability and group association. Effective contact must be structured such that the link between refuting individuals and their group cannot be ignored. This is achieved by emphasizing aspects of refuting individuals who confirm the stereotype, or by increasing the link between the individual and the category through contextual manipulations. Findings indicate that information associated with moderately refuting individuals is more likely to be generalized to the group, than information associated with highly refuting individuals. Rich, Ben-Ari, Amir and Eliassy have taken a different approach to the search for effective contact in the setting of school integration. In an empirical study, they attempted to delineate variables that differentiate effective from ineffective integration of Russian immigrants into schools with a student body of Israeli natives. Effective and ineffective schools were compared on a series of indicators (e.g., teachers’ attitudes and beliefs, school commitment to success of immigrants). Only three of these indicators were significant. Integration was more effective at earlier ages (elementary vs. junior high schools), it was more effective when integration in classes was immediate rather than delayed, and it was more effective when schools assigned a special person, responsible for the welfare of immigrant students. This study, as well as the existing literature, indicates the need for further research and theory in order to understand the complexity of effective integration within schools.

STEREOTYPES

AND PREJUDICE

Bar-Tal addresses the issue of the development of stereotypes in early childhood. He offers an empirical description of the evolution of the “Arab” stereotype among young Jewish Israeli children. These studies indicate that the “Arab” concept is one of the first social group concepts that these children acquire at a very early age. Even at the age when knowledge associated with the concept is limited, it already carries

268

J. Schwarzwald

and Y. Amir

negative connotations associated with violence and aggression. Bar-Tal argues that the information provided by parents is crucial in establishing the stereotype. As such, the concept of “Arab” is deeply rooted in early socialization of Jewish Israelis, and is established even before the cognitive abilities, required to critically evaluate its validity, are developed. Aboud and Doyle address the question of how children acquire racial attitudes. They tested the assumption that socialization, through agents, such as parents and peers, is one of the mechanisms responsible for the acquisition of racial attitudes. The first of two studies assesses the relationship between racial attitudes of Canadian children and their mothers; the second assesses the relationship between children’s attitudes and their friends. Little evidence was found to support the idea that children acquire their racial attitudes from their parents or peers. There are, of course, other possible socialization agents, such as siblings, teachers or the media, which may contribute to children’s racial attitudes; yet, the study findings suggest that salient similarities and dissimilarities themselves may be sufficient in establishing children’s racial attitudes. Sidanius, Levin and Pratt0 introduce a study motivated by social dominance theory. The theory deals with social psychological forces that contribute to the formation and maintenance of social hierarchies. It maintains that intergroup discrimination is driven by a universal desire to form and preserve intergroup status differences. This desire is facilitated by social ideologies and policies that justify inequalities (legitimizing myths). The theory further maintains that individuals vary in their support for group-based inequality (Social Dominance Orientation). Their data indicate that support for group inequality is more positively related to support for social ideologies and hierarchical group relations within high status, rather than within low status groups. This tendency holds true even for ideologies and policies that are shared by members of all status groups within the social system. Stephan and Stephan deal with correlates of prejudice toward outgroup members of specific groups, and propose an integrated threat model of prejudice. In their model, prejudice is conceptualized as resulting from negative stereotypes and three facets of threat: realistic, symbolic, and interpersonal (interaction anxiety). These components are all loaded with negative affect, and are manifested in prejudicial attitudes. Although each of these components has been the subject of speculation in the literature, they have not been dealt with or tested in a composite framework. The integrated model of threat has more than theoretical implications. Data gathered in line with the model may provide important information for constructing effective intervention, aimed at mitigating prejudicial attitudes toward outgroups. Schwarzwald, Kedem and Fisher investigated the relations between native Israelis and Russian students, who recently immigrated to Israel. A

Guest Editors’ Introduction

269

symmetrical pattern of intergroup relations was obtained, in which both Israeli and Russian students expressed an ingroup preference, and were more reserved toward the outgroup. This pattern was compared with research on past waves of immigration from Middle Eastern and Western countries during an early period of absorption, for which an asymmetrical pattern of relations was obtained. Westerners indicated an ingroup preference, whereas Middle Easterners revealed an outgroup preference. These differences were interpreted in terms of Taylor and McKirnan’s (1984) five stage model of intergroup relations, which predicts specific stages as low status group progress toward attaining a status equal with other social groups. It was argued that, compared to Middle Easterners, the relative high educational level of the Russians places them in a more advanced stage of the evolving relations, and enables them to accept themselves. Middle Easterners have reached this stage only recently, as their education level has risen. METHODOLOGICAL

ISSUES

Schtitz and Six provide a meta-analytical answer to the strength of the relationship between prejudice and discrimination. It is almost a social truism that prejudice breeds discrimination, and that discrimination is the behavioral expression of prejudice; yet, demonstrating even such simple relationships has been difficult for many attitude researchers. What is the actual strength of the relationship, and what accounts for variations in the different empirical investigations? It appears that this relationship is not very strong in general and varies across specific behavioral categories. The author suggests recommendations for future research designs, and draws attention to the lack of theory on the relationship between prejudice and discrimination. Frindte, Funke and Waldzus’ investigation is included as a methodological contribution. It advises researchers in the field not to employ unidimensional conceptualizations in characterizing the nature of intergroup tensions. Their study, framed in the context of German xenophobia and right wing extremism, shows that hatred for others may subsume multiple components. Their work suggests that hatred may explode into action only when all the trigger elements are in place. CONFLICT RESOLUTION FROM A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE Lustick tackles the thorny question of territorial conflicts as it arises in political science applied to current events. He attempts to delineate universal, transhistorical, beneficial and implementable criteria for discerning appropriate group boundaries, proffers an interim solution

270

J. Schwarzwald and Y. Amir

of hegemonically institionalized norms, and demonstrates tion in the realm of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

their applica-

REFERENCES AMIR, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 74-106.

AMIR, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and ethnic relations. In P. Katz (Ed.), Toward the elimination ofracism (pp. 245308). New York: Pergamon Press. BREWER, M. B. (1986). The role of ethnocentrism in intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson Hall. BREWER, M. B., & MILLER, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281-302). New York: Academic Press. COOK, S. W. (1985). Experimenting on social issues: The case of social desegregation. American Psychologist, 40, 452-460. GAERTNER, S. L., DOVIDIO, J., ANASTASIO, P., BACHMAN, B., & RUST, M. (1993). The Common Ingroup Identity Model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. I-26). Chichester: Wiley. HEWSTONE, M., & BROWN, R. J. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the ‘contact hypothesis’. In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. l-44). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. STEPHAN, W. G., & STEPHAN, C. W. (1995). Intergroup relations. Madison Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark. TAYLOR, D. M., & McKIRNAN, D. J. (1984). A five stage model of intergroup relations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 29 I-300.