Predictors of intergroup bias in Turkish Cypriots

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 44 (2015) 63–71

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Predictors of intergroup bias in Turkish Cypriots Shenel Husnu a,∗ , Timo Lajunen b a b

Eastern Mediterranean University, North Cyprus, Turkey Middle East Technical University, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 2 October 2013 Received in revised form 24 November 2014 Accepted 9 December 2014 Keywords: Intergroup Bias Ingroup favoritism Intergroup contact Cyprus Conflict

a b s t r a c t We investigated the role of certain individual and group processes on intergroup bias in the context of Cyprus, an island that has endured over 40 years of interethnic tension. One hundred and fifty Turkish Cypriots were asked to complete a survey which assessed intergroup contact and intergroup bias toward Greek Cypriots. Political affiliation, ingroup favoritism and intergroup contact played a role in predicting prejudice toward Greek Cypriots. Path analysis showed the relationship between ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice was partially mediated by low intergroup contact. The findings highlight the theoretical and practical implications for prejudice reduction techniques in Cyprus. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In long-term intractable conflicts, the parties involved have a long history of rivalry, aggression, and failed attempts at conflict resolution (Bar-Tal, 2001). Indeed, in most of these conflicts (e.g., the Middle East, Cyprus, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, and Rwanda) an evolved “culture of conflict” that is dominated by societal beliefs of collective memory which are often selective, biased, and distorted function as a major obstacle to any peace process (Bar-Tal, 2007). However, it is contexts such as these that are most in need of interventions aimed towards reducing prejudice. Research on prejudice suggests that intergroup bias, or, favorably evaluating one’s own group can have negative consequences for intergroup relations. It is therefore critical to determine both individual and group processes as predictors of intergroup bias, particularly in real life contexts defined by conflict and dissolution. One such context is that of Cyprus where, despite the partial opening of borders, interethnic conflict and discord still exist. In the following study, we assessed the role of certain individual processes (i.e., political affiliation and level of religiosity) as well as group processes (i.e., intergroup contact) on intergroup bias, namely outgroup prejudice toward Greek Cypriots by Turkish Cypriots. 1.1. Intergroup bias Intergroup bias refers to the systematic, group-serving tendency to evaluate one’s own ingroup more favorably than those in the outgroup (Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002). This can include favoring the ingroup (ingroup favoritism) as well as denigrating the outgroup (outgroup derogation or prejudice). It also often includes an interpretative judgment on behalf of group members which can be unfair, or illegitimate, hence ‘biased’ in its nature (Brewer & Brown, 1998). Forms of intergroup

∗ Correspondence to: Department of Psychology, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, North Cyprus, Mersin 10, Turkey. Tel.: +90 392 630 1389. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Husnu). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.12.004 0147-1767/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

64

S. Husnu, T. Lajunen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 44 (2015) 63–71

bias can range from mild forms of bias such as prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination, injustice, oppression, to more extreme versions including ethnic cleansing and genocide (Hewstone & Cairns, 2001). Research findings have found inconsistencies in the positive relationship between ingroup bias and outgroup derogation. Many studies have found both ingroup and outgroups can be evaluated positively, however ingroups are often treated more favorably than outgroups (Brewer, 1979; Mummendey & Otten, 1998). For instance empathy, positive regard, trust, cooperation and the like positive emotions are extended to the ingroup, but not to the outgroup. This, while remaining to be a component of ingroup favoritism, should be distinguished from outgroup derogation which can include aggression and violence. Brewer (1999) has therefore suggested that ingroup love (or ingroup favoritism) is not necessarily equivalent to outgroup hate (or prejudice). Research has therefore turned to identifying key moderators of intergroup bias. Ingroup identification (Branscombe & Wann, 1994; Hinkle & Brown, 1990; Perreault & Bourhis, 1999); group characteristics such as size, power and status (Bourhis, 1994; Brewer & Brown, 1998; Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992) and threat (Jetten, Spear, & Manstead, 1997; Stephan & Stephan, 1985) are some of those variables that have been associated with intergroup bias. They have also been covered in terms of individual and group based processes (Hewstone et al., 2002). 1.1.1. Individual processes Individual processes, including personality and individual-difference variables have been linked to intergroup bias (mostly prejudice). Although there is a long list of potential personality and individual-difference variables, the most relevant for this research is the role of right-wing political affiliation and religiosity. Research by Altemeyer (1998) and Batson and Burris (1994) have established a positive relationship between prejudice and both right-wing authoritarianism (following social conventions and authorities) and strong religious beliefs. Egalitarian values have generally been associated with more favorable responses to all groups whereas endorsement of protestant work ethic values has been found to predict rejection of outgroups (Biernat, Vescio, & Theno, 1996). Although religiosity has been associated with prosocial behavior it does not predict helping behavior universally and instead can predict antisocial behavior in those who do not support one’s values (Preston, Ritter, & Hernandez, 2010). In a study by Jackson and Hunsberger (1999) it was found that religious individuals reported positive attitudes toward similar religious groups (showing ingroup favoritism) but negative attitudes to nonreligious others (i.e., outgroup derogation). In a more recent study focusing on the relationship between religiosity and intergroup bias, Johnson, Rowatt, and LaBouff (2012) found that self-reported religiosity and spirituality correlated positively with more negative attitudes toward outgroups relative to ingroups. 1.1.1.1. Group processes. As for group processes implicated in intergroup bias, intergroup contact is thought to be one of the major contributors to reducing bias, emphasizing the need for increasing quantity and quality of intergroup contact (e.g., Pettigrew, 1998). Positive intergroup contact is one of the most effective ways to reduce prejudice and intergroup discrimination (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew, 1998). This is especially thought to be the case if the contact situation embodies equal status, common goals, co-operation, and institutional sanctioning (Allport, 1954). Several studies have shown the benefits of intergroup contact between groups of different ethnic backgrounds. Islam and Hewstone (1993) showed dimensions of contact are related to intergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out group attitude in a group of Hindu and Muslim religious groups in Bangladesh. Greenland and Brown (1999) conducted research with British and Japanese nationals and found a relationship between quality of contact and negative outgroup affect and intergroup bias. In a study by Stephan, Diaz-Loving, and Duran (2000) American and Mexicans’ attitudes of one another was assessed. It was found that the quality of intergroup contact (i.e., the extent to which contact is voluntary, positive, individualized and of equal status) played an important role in attitudes toward the other group. Voci and Hewstone (2003) investigated intergroup contact with immigrants in Italy. It was observed that contact had a positive effect on perceived outgroup attitudes and decreased subtle prejudice. Similar results have been obtained with more indirect forms of contact, such as extended contact. Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Vope, and Ropp (1997) showed that White participants who had at least one ingroup friend with an outgroup friend reported less outgroup prejudice toward the target group compared to those participants who had no extended outgroup friends. Similarly, across two cross-sectional studies R. Turner, Hewstone and Voci (2007) observed that extended contact among Catholics and Protestants in North Ireland was associated with more positive outgroup attitudes and greater perceived outgroup variability. Research by Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns, and Voci (2004) have found that in addition to direct intergroup contact, indirect or vicarious forms of cross-group friendships between Catholic and Protestants in North Ireland were associated with reduced prejudice toward the religious outgroup and increased perceived outgroup variability via an anxiety-reduction mechanism. Research is now indicated that the simple mental simulation of a contact situation can provoke the cognitive mechanisms parallel to that of a real contact situation. Studies of imagined contact (Crisp & Turner, 2009) have been found to reduce prejudice in a number of different groups (for a recent narrative review see Crisp & Turner, 2012; for a meta-analysis see Miles & Crisp, 2014). A recent meta-analysis of intergroup contact effects by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) found that intergroup contact typically reduced intergroup prejudice. They observed a robust, highly significant effect of contact on prejudice. Their findings show

S. Husnu, T. Lajunen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 44 (2015) 63–71

65

that contact reduces prejudice regardless of target group, age group, geographical area or contact setting, and that there is a basic positive impact of contact even in the absence of Allport’s four conditions. Despite its benefits there have also been a number of criticisms directed at the contact theory, Dixon, Durrheim, and Tredoux (2005, 2007) for instance have argued that contact rarely occurs under such optimal and rarefied conditions. They suggest that particularly in historically divided societies such as the Middle East, Cyprus, and Northern Ireland, the historical, political and economic organization and power structure embedded within the society make the conditions outlined by the contact theory difficult to implement (Connolly, 2000; Dixon et al., 2005). This is particularly the case in groups that are involved in acute asymmetrical disputes (Maoz, 2011). Maoz (2000) for instance has raised concerns that intergroup encounters often cannot occur in isolation, removed from external tension which will ultimately improve relations outside the contact situation. Additionally, Abu-Nimer (1999) has suggested that contact can be misleading, particularly for those groups of minority status since the contact strategies neither aim at nor produce political change. Furthermore, researchers (e.g., Bekerman, 2002, 2007; Halabi & Sonnenshein, 2000) have suggested that the traditional approaches to intergroup contact may even contribute to sustaining the imbalance of power relations and structural inequalities between the groups involved. It is exactly for this reason that testing intergroup contact in such conflicted, asymmetrical contexts is necessary if we are to mend the bridge between actual and ideal forms of contact (Dixon et al., 2005). 1.2. Current research In this research we aimed at determining certain individual and group processes as predictors of intergroup bias, namely outgroup prejudice in the context of the prolonged conflict in Cyprus. 1.2.1. The context of Cyprus Cyprus is the third largest island in the Eastern Mediterranean with a strategic location at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa. Cyprus was successively conquered and controlled by several empires including Assyrians (707–650 BC), Egyptians (570–546 BC), Persians (546–333BC), Ptolemies (323–58BC), Roman (58 BC–330 AD), and Venetians (1489–1571). The Ottoman period beginning in 1571 left its mark on the island by the introduction of Turkish settlers such that by the end of the 17th century, Turkish Cypriots would comprise 20% of the total population. Both communities mostly lived and functioned separately under Ottoman rule and differences of ethnic origin, religion, language and customs meant low intercommunal contact and interaction. Each community also set up their own education system whereby Turkish and Greek Cypriot children would attend separate schools, conducted in their own language. Overall, by the time Cyprus came under British rule, a sense of Cypriot identity had become even more unlikely. Stronger attachment to their own ethic groups and the ‘motherlands’—Greece and Turkey instead prevailed. The British received Cyprus as a crown colony of Great Britain from the Ottoman Empire in the late 1880’s until 1960 when the Republic of Cyprus was established as an independent state. The first signs of trouble arose throughout anti colonial struggles in the 1950s with the formation of EOKA (National Organization of Cypriot Fighters) in 1955, an underground guerrilla organization, whose aim was “Enosis” or union with Greece. This period saw serious violence against Turkish Cypriots, with hundreds of Turkish Cypriots killed or wounded, thousands becoming refugees and several villages being destroyed (Volkan & Itzkowitz, 1994). Turkish Cypriots aligned themselves with the British and retaliated with desires of “Taksim” partition of the island between Greece and Turkey and formed the TMT (Turkish Defense Organization) (Hadjipavlou-Trigeorgis & Trigeorgis, 1993). In 1959 in Zurich, representatives of Britain, Greece and Turkey came together to negotiate the Cyprus problem. They rejected enosis or taksim and instead created the Republic of Cyprus. The arrangement of the independent state however soon fell apart due to political stalemate, continuing suspicion for each parties true aspirations (enosis and taksim) and enduring identification with the mainland’s. The early 1960’s therefore saw periods of serious communal violence once again which culminated in a Greek-inspired coup against president Makarios in 1974, in a last attempt at Enosis. Initially the violence was intra-communal among Greek Cypriots alone, however it soon involved Turkish Cypriots. Turkey, as a guarantor power by the 1960 agreements sent troops to intervene. Years later, this is still regarded as an illegal invasion by Greek Cypriots, yet a peace operation by Turkish Cypriots. The result was a cease-fire line that left Turkish Cypriots in the northern one-third of the island and Greek Cypriots in the south. Approximately, 180,000 Greek Cypriots were forced to flee to the south leaving villages, homes and businesses behind. Approximately 50,000 Turkish Cypriots also became refugees during the violence (Dodd, 2005; Mehmet, 1992). Following the fall of the Republic of Cyprus numerous efforts to negotiate a new structure occurred, however they failed. In November 1983 the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (TRNC) was proclaimed in the north of Cyprus. To date it is only recognised by Turkey. Today a UN mediation effort continues with UN soldiers remaining on the ‘Green Line’, which separates the two ethnicities. The two communities face each other over a UN buffer zone which runs throughout the island. Over the years, despite many diplomatic attempts to establish an official agreement between the governments and a number of unofficial interventions carried out by NGOs an agreement has never been reached and Nicosia is recognized as the last divided capital in Europe. In April 2003, the Turkish Cypriot administration announced a new policy of opening up the borders, followed by the Greek Cypriots. This has given the communities the opportunity to visit the ‘other’ side. Despite the partial lift of physical border separating Greek from Turk, the two communities remain very much segregated on their own side of the island hence

66

S. Husnu, T. Lajunen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 44 (2015) 63–71

the psychological border remains untouched. This inevitably maintains and reinforces conflict between the two communities through the perpetuation of ignorance regarding the “other”. The experiences and statuses of Turkish and Greek Cypriots can be seen to be asymmetric- similar to conflicts such as the Middle East (cf. Hammack, Pilecki, & Merrilees, 2014). Greek Cypriots hold the role of being the de-facto government and legitimate ruling power, part of the European Union and recognized internationally for being victim to the ‘illegal occupation’ of the Turkish military operation. On the other side Turkish Cypriots face embargoes from Europe, whereby their identity is acceptable by Turkey alone which hugely isolates the Turkish Cypriot community. However, as the banking crisis and strict austerity measures cause the economy of the South to flail; its Northern counterpart remains unscathed (Chaffin, April 2013). This has led to a shift in the experiences and statuses of Turkish and Greek Cypriots- in fact a number of Greek Cypriots are now investing in banks on the North (Kashi, December 2013). Although still somewhat asymmetrical both still share the common experience or ‘ethos’ of intractable conflict (Bar-Tal, Sharvit, Halperin, & Zafran, 2012). This can be seen in school textbooks, national rituals, symbols, and celebrations which systematically create dehumanized images of the other (Kizilyurek, 1999; Spyrou, 2002, 2006). This setting is therefore precisely the sort of intergroup context in which intergroup contact may be of value. Cyprus however represents one example where the benefits of contact have remained unrealized due to its extreme low levels of actual contact. Despite the partial opening of the borders in 2003, a small percentage of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are reported to cross the opened borders, in fact only 1% of Greek Cypriots and 8% of Turkish Cypriots say that they frequently cross over (UNFICYP, 2007). There also exist differential levels of contact among Cypriots, with older generations experiencing contact and younger generations with no actual contact at all. This challenging real-life context is therefore ideal to investigate individual and group processes of intergroup bias. 1.2.2. Individual and group processes of intergroup bias in Cyprus Previous research has established high levels of ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice toward Greek Cypriots in a sample of Turkish Cypriot children (Mertan, 2011). High levels of national identification on dimensions such as importance, degree of identification, internalization, and national pride, were found in Turkish Cypriot children. It was suggested by Mertan (2011) that children showed internalization of the official conceptualization of their identity, i.e. Turkishness. She reported that this most likely results from exposure to nationalistic discourse through media, family, and ethnocentric curricula which often comprises of outgroup derogation and national pride. Consistent with social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) as the national identification of Turkish Cypriot children increased positive affect towards Greek Cypriots reduced, with Turkish Cypriot children rating the ‘traditional enemy’ with the most negative traits in comparison to neutral outgroups. Additionally, internalization of national pride was positively correlated with positive ingroup bias in a group of Greek Cypriot children (Stavrinides & Georgiou, 2011). An age effect was found such that Greek Cypriot children reported more positive attitudes toward Turkish Cypriot outgroup (the traditional enemy) when they were younger. Older children were more likely to perceive Turkish Cypriots negatively. In line with Social Identity Development theory (Nesdale, 2004, 2008) the intergroup context and socialization processes are likely to be critical. Preschool education at an earlier stage of formal schooling years can play a significant role in Greek Cypriot children who are exposed to stories, myths, and legends of how Greek Cypriots were victimized at the hands of Turkish Cypriots. Children are taught to sing the Greek national anthem by age 5 and often perform plays and songs with patriotic and/or nationalistic references during Greek national holidays. Religiosity and right wing political affiliation as individual difference variables were particularly investigated because these two variables have been critical throughout mediation efforts in Cyprus. Looking at the history of the islanders, religion was a crucial and visible component that separated Turkish Cypriots from Greek Cypriots. Both Muslims and Orthodox Christians used to identify themselves and the members of the ‘other’ community by their religion (Cassia, 1986). Religion continues to play an important role in today’s Cypriot affairs. The case of political affiliation is also of great significance in Cyprus as it is closely linked to attitudes toward Greek Cypriots, reunification and reparation policies. For instance, mainly left wing affiliation and liberal circles emphasize the idea of ‘Cypriotness’ and adhering to a ‘Cypriot state’ that includes both Turkish and Greek Cypriots whereas right wing political affiliation and nationalist ideology have emphasized ‘Turkishness’ and loyalty to the ‘Turkish community leadership’ (Vural & Rustemli, 2006) which oppose re-unification with the South. Intergroup contact although extensively covered in social psychological literature has not been covered to a large extent in the context of Cyprus. In one such study Tausch et al. (2010) found that contact between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots was associated with more positive attitudes to the respective Cypriot outgroup in addition to attitudes toward the mainland outgroup (e.g., Greeks in Greece or Turks in Turkey) showing evidence of secondary transfer effects of contact. Other research has indicated that indirect measures of contact can be beneficial to reduce prejudice and outgroup hostility in Cyprus (Husnu & Crisp, 2010) however further investigations are necessary. In line with the above findings, with its interethnic context and intractable conflict, Cyprus is an ideal context to test predictors of intergroup bias. We therefore predicted that in a group of Turkish Cypriots, high levels of religiosity, right wing political affiliation, ingroup favoritism and low levels of intergroup contact would be related to outgroup prejudice toward Greek Cypriots. Additionally, we tested whether intergroup contact mediated the predicted impact of ingroup favoritism on outgroup prejudice. It is well established that ingroup favouritism is a predictor of outgroup prejudice (Brewer, 2001; Mummendey

S. Husnu, T. Lajunen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 44 (2015) 63–71

67

& Otten, 1998). Self-categorization as an ingroup member entails assimilation of the self to the ingroup category prototype causing enhanced similarity to other ingroup members (see Turner & Reynolds, 2001). As the ingroup is cognitively included in the self (e.g., Smith & Henry, 1996); trust, positive regard, cooperation, and empathy are extended to the ingroup, but not to the outgroup, which is the basis of ingroup favoritism (Hewstone et al., 2002). However, according to Brewer (1999) such preference for the ingroup does not necessarily lead to direct hostility or conflict and intergroup peace can be maintained through segregation and mutual avoidance. As contact is strongly resisted any social change that proposes close contact or integration can kindle hate or expulsion. On the flip side however, contact can serve to improve outgroup attitudes and prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Wilder & Thompson, 1980). We therefore expected any increase in intergroup contact to be associated with lower levels outgroup prejudice. 2. Method 2.1. Participants and design A convenience sample of 150 Turkish Cypriots (79 Female, 71 Male) aged between 18 and 60 (M = 29.40, SD = 10.96) completed a questionnaire in order to assess the amount of intergroup bias and contact they had with Greek Cypriots. Participants were mostly students from the European University of Lefke and were approached individually around campus. The majority of the sample stated Islam as their religious affiliation (84%), with some stating no religion (13.3%) and a minority reporting Christianity (2.7%). As for political orientation, 32.2% reported left-wing; 34.2% neutral and 10.9% right wing political affiliation. 2.2. Materials and procedure 2.2.1. Intergroup bias measure Participants were offered a number of adjectives of positive (e.g., warm; kind; friendly; honest) and negative (cold; hostile; sly; arrogant) content and were asked to state the extent to which the ingroup (Turkish Cypriots) and outgroup (Greek Cypriots) possessed these traits. A positive and negative trait score for each group was derived (possible range of 0–5). The higher the scores on positive traits and the higher the scores on negative traits, the more positive and negative were the ratings, respectively. An ingroup bias score was created from the number of ingroup positive evaluations minus the number of ingroup negative evaluations, ranging from −5 (very unfavorable) to 5 (very favorable). In addition, a separate outgroup bias score was determined from the number of outgroup negative evaluations minus the number of outgroup positive evaluations, ranging from 5 (very favorable) to −5 (very unfavorable). Therefore, the higher the participant’s ingroup bias and outgroup bias scores, the more was their ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice, respectively. 2.2.2. Intergroup contact To measure intergroup contact with Greek Cypriots, a number of direct contact and cross-group friendship questions were taken from the literature (Paolini et al., 2004). Direct contact items included ‘How many Greek Cypriot people have you met?’ and ‘How often do you cross to the South side?’; whereas cross-group friendship items were: ‘How many Greek Cypriot acquaintances do you have?’; ‘How many Greek Cypriot friends do you have?’ (0 = none/not at all, 3 = more than 5/a great deal). These four items were averaged to create a more reliable scale measure of contact (alpha = .73). 2.2.3. Demographic questions Lastly, participants were asked to state gender, age, political affiliation (ranging from 1 to 7; Low scores indicating left wing and higher scores indicating right wing affiliation) and level of religiosity (ranging from 1 very low to 5 very high). After completion of the questionnaire participants were thanked and debriefed. 3. Results 3.1. Regression Hierarchical multiple regression was used to assess the predictors of outgroup prejudice. After controlling for gender, age, political affiliation and level of religiosity, the roles of ingroup favoritism and intergroup contact were assessed. Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure no violations of the assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity. Gender, age, political affiliation and level of religiosity were entered in Step 1, explaining 9% of the variance in outgroup prejudice. After the entry of political affiliation and level of religiosity, ingroup favoritism and intergroup contact at step 2, the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 22.3%, F (7,144) = 5.51, p = 00. The two measures explained an additional 12.5% of the variance in outgroup prejudice, after controlling for gender, age, R square change = 12, F change (3,137) = 7.34, p = 00. In the final model, political affiliation (beta = .23, p = .01) ingroup favoritism (beta = .24, p = .03) and intergroup contact (beta = −.54, p = .00) were statistically significant. Religiosity however did not reach significance (beta = .16, p = .07).

68

S. Husnu, T. Lajunen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 44 (2015) 63–71

Table 1 Means, standard deviations and correlations between all variables.

Gender Age Political affiliation Religiosity Ingroup favoritism Intergroup contact Outgroup prejudice * ** ***

M (SD)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

– 29.39 (10.96) 3.19 (1.35) 5.37 (1.45) 1.32 (1.05) 2.09 (.78) .78 (1.42)

– – – – – – –

.17* – – – – – –

−.08 −.15* – – – – –

.07 −.06 .13* – – – –

.20** .05 .11 .06 – – –

.20** .05 −.23** .06 −.18* – –

.01 −.10 .29*** .13* .21** −.35*** –

Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the .001 level (2-tailed).

Fig. 1. The relationship between ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice mediated by contact.

The results suggested that right-wing political affiliation, ingroup favoritism and intergroup contact were predictors of outgroup prejudice. Contrary to expectations, higher levels of religiosity were only marginally related to increased outgroup prejudice (see Table 1). 3.2. Path analysis We conducted path analysis to test whether contact mediated the relationship between ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice. We first considered the correlations between these variables. Ingroup favoritism was correlated negatively with contact (r = −.18, p = .019) and positively with outgroup prejudice (r = .21, p = .009). Moreover, contact was negatively correlated with outgroup prejudice (r = −.35, p = .00) consistent with its role as a mediator. Using Preacher-Hayes bootstrap tests (Preacher & Hayes, 2004), bias-corrected bootstrapping techniques are favored over conventional mediation tests (e.g., Sobel’s Z) because of (a) their ability to handle skewed data and (b) their superior ability to detect significant mediation effects with smaller sample sizes while (c) retaining the most power (Fritz & Mackinnon, 2007). Using a 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval based on 5000 bootstrap samples, the indirect effect of ingroup favoritism on outgroup prejudice through contact did not include zero (.008 to .158 with a point estimate of .076), which indicated partial mediation (see Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010). Ingroup favoritism predicted outgroup prejudice (ˇ = .29, p = .009) and less contact (ˇ = −.13, p = .03). Low contact in turn, predicted more outgroup prejudice (ˇ = −.58, p = .0001). When controlling for contact, the relationship between ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice was weakened (ˇ = .20, p = .06). A Sobel test confirmed that intergroup contact mediated the relationship between ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice (Z = 1.89, p = .05) (See Fig. 1). We therefore found that ingroup favoritism predicted outgroup prejudice and this was partially mediated by low intergroup contact. In terms of the effect size of the mediation, k2 = .058, 95% BCa [.008, .116], suggesting a fairly small effect size (Preacher & Kelley, 2011). 4. Discussion The aim of the current study was to determine certain individual and group processes as predictors of intergroup bias in the real life context of Cyprus where inter-ethnic conflict and discord are still evident. In a group of Turkish Cypriots we assessed the role of political affiliation and level of religiosity as well as intergroup contact and ingroup favoritism on outgroup prejudice toward Greek Cypriots. Results suggested that these factors played a critical role in determining intergroup bias, particularly outgroup prejudice. It was found that outgroup prejudice was predicted by right wing political

S. Husnu, T. Lajunen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 44 (2015) 63–71

69

affiliation, ingroup favoritism, lower levels of intergroup contact and a trend was observed for higher levels of religiosity. Moreover, the relationship between ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice was mediated by intergroup contact. The research has important theoretical and practical implications. From a theoretical point of view we identified the role of both individual and group based processes in intergroup bias, particularly in a context defined by conflict. Often enough discriminatory behaviors and perceptions occur in order to maintain positive relationships within the ingroup and do not necessarily involve any direct antagonism toward the outgroup. As suggested by Brewer (1999) ingroup bias may simply be favoritism toward the ingroup and absence of an equivalent affect toward the outgroup. However, as identification with the group increases and attachment is formed, it can provide the foundations for outgroup hostility and distrust. This is what was found in the current study—a positive correlation was obtained between ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice—as positive affect for one’s own group increased, so did outgroup hostility and negative ratings of the outgroup. Those reporting high ingroup favoritism also reported low intergroup contact, a process that led to more outgroup prejudice. This brings us to the practical implications of the findings in which the role of intergroup contact has once again been highlighted. In order to ensure that attachment to one’s own group does not equate to outgroup derogation and antagonism, increasing intergroup contact is vital. This is particularly true in contexts like Cyprus where contact remains to be low (UNFICYP, 2007). In a report by the United Nations (2007) frequent crossing of the border was minimal and not crossing at all was reported in almost 30% of Turkish Cypriots and 40% of Greek Cypriots. In fact, one study found that 57% of Greek Cypriots considered it “inappropriate” for Greek Cypriots to cross the border, stating that travelling to the North would pose an implicit recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, a political entity considered by most Greek Cypriots to be an illegal occupation regime, and the spending of money would serve to fuel the economy of the illegal state (Webster & Timothy, 2006). In order to overcome such concerns and anxieties intergroup contact is vital (Stephan & Stephan, 1985; Pettigrew, 1998). As highlighted by the research findings in the current study, bringing groups together may help to reduce the antagonism felt. In one study Husnu and Crisp (2010) implemented an imagined contact intervention in Cyprus. Imagined contact is the mental simulation of contact with an outgroup member (Crisp & Turner, 2009) and has been found to be an effective prejudice reduction tool. In their study, Turkish Cypriots were asked to imagine contact with a Greek Cypriot in order to enhance intentions to engage in future contact. Those participants who repeatedly imagined positive contact with Greek Cypriots subsequently reported greater intentions to engage in future contact. One other study was conducted with Greek Cypriots aimed at comparing direct and extended contact on attitudes toward Turkish Cypriots (Ioannou, 2009). In a pre–post test experimental design, Greek Cypriot students either interacted with a Turkish Cypriot confederate in a laboratory setting (direct contact condition) or watched as a friend interacted with the Turkish Cypriot confederate (extended contact condition). It was found that in both conditions, attitudes changed for the positive with direct contact having a greater impact on attitudes compared to extended contact. Particularly interesting in the context of Cyprus is the existence and role of the superordinate or common group identification (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000) of ‘Cypriotness’. One reason why intergroup contact might help to reduce outgroup prejudice is that when groups come to see themselves as part of a common ingroup, the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ becomes a ‘we’. Such recategorization at a higher and more inclusive level helps to reduce prejudice toward the outgroup. It might be that those Turkish Cypriots in contact with Greek Cypriots develop an identity that is based around the inclusive ‘Cypriot’ identity. Indeed research has shown individuals emphasizing ‘Cypriotness’ as a more prominent part of their identity tend to be more likely to endorse pro-peace attitudes (Vural & Rustemli, 2006). However, it is important to acknowledge that there are also shortcomings when a minority or less-advantaged group identity is concerned (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). When the subgroup identity is threatened by a superordinate category, social harmony will not prevail but instead social conflict is likely. It is therefore necessary to maintain the subgroup identity as opposed to weakening it, so that it does not conflict with the superordinate identity, such a dual identification will foster harmonious relations (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). In the context of Cyprus, it will be necessary to assess the effectiveness of maintaining both the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot subgroup identities before each group can learn to embrace the superordinate and mutual group identity of Cypriotness. This might help to ensure that prejudice reduction techniques such as introducing intergroup contact work successfully for both groups and not a single more advantaged group (Dixon, Tropp, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2010). Another reason why ingroup favoritism might turn to outgroup prejudice which is of relevance for the case of Cyprus is perceived threat (Brewer, 1999). In line with realistic conflict theory of intergroup relations (LeVine & Campbell, 1972; Sherif & Sherif, 1953) intergroup relations might suffer most in conditions where groups are in competition over scarce physical resources or political power. This might particularly be the case with Turkish Cypriots whereby Greek Cypriots constitute an actual or imagined threat, both realistically or symbolically (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Identification and interdependence with the ingroup becomes associated with fear and hostility toward the outgroup who are threatening group interests. When intergroup attitudes are therefore conflict-based, attitudes toward the ingroup and prejudice toward the outgroup become interrelated. Future studies might consider incorporating the role of symbolic and realistic threat when evaluating intergroup bias in Cyprus. In line with previous findings right wing political affiliation predicted outgroup prejudice toward Greek Cypriots and a trend was obtained for religiosity. This is not surprising in the context of north Cyprus and Turkish Cypriots, whereby high levels of religiosity are associated with right wing politics and endorsement of anti-unification policies (Vural & Rustemli, 2006; Vural & Ozuyanik, 2008). In a study by Vural and Rustemli (2006) the identity fluctuations of Turkish Cypriots and its correlates with solutions to the Cyprus problem were analyzed. It was found that those individuals who emphasized a ‘Turkish’ or ‘Moslem’ identity supported a solution of two separate states, with those of ‘Moslem’ identity more likely to

70

S. Husnu, T. Lajunen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 44 (2015) 63–71

endorse integration of North Cyprus with Turkey. Similarly, those individuals reporting high levels of religiosity were more likely to report outgroup prejudice in the current study. One of the limitations of the study is that it is of correlational nature and therefore does not offer any cause–effect relationships. It is therefore also possible that those individuals with higher prejudice avoid contact hence making it difficult to ascertain the direction of the causal arrow as flowing from contact to prejudice reduction. Additionally, the study can only provide insight into the relationship between intergroup bias and intergroup contact in a Turkish Cypriot population alone. Further studies are needed to examine the attitudes of Greek Cypriots also, in order to get a more comprehensive picture of the situation on the island in general. A larger sample size employing a probability sample design would also be beneficial for the generalization of results. 5. Conclusions The current study investigated the role of certain individual and group based processes implicated in outgroup prejudice in the context of the inter-ethnically divided island of Cyprus. The findings confirmed the processes outlined in previous work on intergroup bias, while extending and applying them to a challenging real life conflict. The research highlights the importance of developing interventions that incorprate intergroup contact in order to reduce prejudice and discrimination. References Abu-Nimer, M. (1999). Dialogue, conflict resolution and change: Arab–Jewish encounters in Israel. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MS: Addison- Wesley. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 47–91). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Batson, C. D., & Burris, C. T. (1994). Personal religion: depressant or stimulant of prejudice and discrimination? In M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olsen (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (pp. 149–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bar-Tal, D. (2001). Why does fear override hope in societies engulfed by intractable conflict, as it does in the Israeli society? Political Psychology, 22, 601–627. Bar-Tal, D. (2007). Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1430–1453. Bar-Tal, D., Sharvit, K., Halperin, E., & Zafran, A. (2012). Ethos of conflict: The concept and its measurement. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 18, 40–61. Bekerman, Z. (2002). The discourse of nation and culture: Its impact on Palestinian–Jewish encounters in Israel. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 8, 259–276. Bekerman, Z. (2007). Rethinking intergroup encounters: Rescuing praxis from theory, activity from education, and peace/co-existence from identity and culture. Peace Education, 4, 29–41. Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Theno, S. (1996). Violating American values: A “value congruence” approach to understanding outgroup attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 387–441. Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of out-group derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 641–657. Brewer, M. B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation. A cognitive motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324. Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444. Brewer, M. B. (2001). Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict: When does ingroup love become outgroup hate? In R. D. Ashmore, L. Jussim, & D. Wilder (Eds.), Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction (pp. 17–41). New York: Oxford University Press. Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 554–594). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Brown, R., & Hewstone, H. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 255–343). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Bourhis, R. Y. (1994). Power, gender and intergroup discrimination: some minimal group experiments. In M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olsen (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (pp. 209–232). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cassia, P. (1986). Religion, politics and ethnicity in Cyprus during the Turkocratia. Archives Europe´ennes de Sociologie, 27, 3–28. Chaffin, J. (2013, April 01). Northern Cyprus watches neighbor’s anguish. Financial Times. Retrieved from http://www.ft.com Connolly, P. (2000). What now for the contact hypothesis? Towards a new research agenda. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 3, 169–193. Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions? Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. American Psychologist, 64, 231–240. Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2012). The imagined contact hypothesis. In J. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 125–182). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 697–711. Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2007). Intergroup contact and attitudes toward the principle and practice of racial equality. Psychological Science, 18, 867–872. Dixon, J., Tropp, L. R., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2010). ”Let them eat harmony”: Prejudice-reduction strategies and attitudes of historically disadvantaged. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 76–80. Dodd, C. (2005). Constitutional features of the UN plan for Cyprus and its antecedents. Turkish Studies, 6, 39–51. Fritz, M. S., & Mackinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Greenland, K., & Brown, R. (1999). Categorization and intergroup anxiety in contact between British and Japanese nationals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 503–521. Hadjipavlou-Trigeorgis, M., & Trigeorgis, L. (1993). Cyprus: An evolutionary approach to conflict resolution. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37, 340–360. Halabi, R., & Sonnenshein, N. (2000). Consciousness, identity, and challenge to reality, educational approaches at the Neveh Shalo School for Peace. In A. Halabi (Ed.), Identities in dialogue (pp. 16–27). Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House. Hammack, P. L., Pilecki, A., & Merrilees, C. (2014). Interrogating the process and meaning of intergroup contact: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 24, 296–324. Hewstone, M., & Cairns, E. (2001). Social psychology and intergroup conflict. In D. Chirot, & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Ethnopolitical warfare: Causes, consequences and possible solutions (pp. 319–342). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604.

S. Husnu, T. Lajunen / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 44 (2015) 63–71

71

Hinkle, S., & Brown, R. J. (1990). Intergroup comparisons and social identity: some links and lacunae. In D. Abrams, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 48–70). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143–156. Husnu, S., & Crisp, R. J. (2010). Imagined intergroup contact: A new technique for encouraging greater inter-ethnic contact in Cyprus. Journal of Peace and Conflict, 16, 97–108. Ioannou, M. (2009). Comparing direct and extended contact in Cyprus. Journal of European Psychology Students, 1, 1–10. Islam, R. M., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimension of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived outgroup variability and outgroup attitudes: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700–710. Jackson, L. M., & Hunsberger, B. (1999). An intergroup perspective on religion and prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38, 509–523. Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1997). Distinctiveness threat and prototypicality: Combined effects on intergroup discrimination and collective self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 635–657. Johnson, M. K., Rowatt, W. C., & LaBouff, J. P. (2012). Religiosity and prejudice revisited: In-group favoritism, outgroup derogation, or both? Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 4, 154–168. Kashi, D. (2013, December 04). Cypriots find way out of banking crisis: How Turkish banks may be the answer. International Business Times. Retrieved from http://www.ibtimes.com Kizilyurek, N. (1999). National memory and Turkish-Cypriot textbooks. Internationale Schulbuchforschung, 21, 387–396. LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes and group behavior. New York: Wiley. Maoz, I. (2000). Multiple conflicts and competing agendas: A framework for conceptualizing structured encounters between groups in conflict – The case of a coexistence project of Jews and Palestinians in Israel. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 6, 135–156. Maoz, I. (2011). Does contact work in protracted asymmetrical conflict? Appraising 20 years of reconciliation-aimed encounters between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Journal of Peace Research, 48, 115–125. Mehmet, O. (1992). Towards a solution in Cyprus through economic federalism. In N. Salem (Ed.), Cyprus: A regional conflict and its resolution (pp. 169–186). Great Britain: The Macmillan Press. Mertan, B. (2011). Children’s perception of national identity and ingroup/outgroup attitudes: Turkish Cypriot school children. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 74–86. Miles, E., & Crisp, R. J. (2014). A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 17, 3–26. Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: an integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103–122. Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1998). Positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination. In W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 107–143). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Nesdale, D. (2004). Social identity processes and children’s ethnic prejudice. In M. Bennett, & F. Sani (Eds.), The development of the social self (pp. 219–245). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Nesdale, D. (2008). Social identity development and children’s ethnic attitudes in Australia. In S. M. Quintana, & C. McKown (Eds.), The handbook of race, racism and the developing child (pp. 313–338). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. (2004). Effects of direct and indirect cross-group friendships on judgments of Catholic and Protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediating role of an anxiety-reduction mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 770–786. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. Perreault, S., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1999). Ethnocentrism, social identification, and discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 92–103. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731. Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16, 93–115. Preston, J. L., Ritter, R. S., & Hernandez, J. I. (2010). Principles of religious prosociality: A review and reformulation. Social and Personality Compass, 4, 574–590. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension: An integration of studies on intergroup relations. New York: Harper. Smith, E. R., & Henry, S. (1996). An ingroup becomes part of the self: Response time evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 635–642. Stavrinides, P., & Georgiou, S. (2011). National identity and in-group/out-group attitudes with Greek-Cypriot children. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 87–97. Stephan, W. G., Diaz-Loving, R., & Duran, A. (2000). Integrated threat theory and intercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 240–249. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–176. Spyrou, S. (2002). Images of ‘the Other’: The Turk in Greek Cypriot children’s imaginations. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 5, 255–272. Spyrou, S. (2006). Constructing ‘the Turk’ as an enemy: The complexity of stereotypes in children’s everyday worlds. South European Society and Politics, 11, 95–110. Tajfel, H., & Turner, C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worschel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J. B., Psaltis, C., Schmid, K., Popan, J. R., et al. (2010). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: Alternative accounts and underlying processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 282–302. Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007). Reducing explicit and implicit prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 369–388. Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2001). The social identity perspective in intergroup relations: theories, themes, and controversies. In R. Brown, & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 133–152). Malden, MA: Blackwell. United Nations (2007). UN in Cyprus. Retrieved from www.unficyp.org Vural, Y., & Özuyanık, E. (2008). Redefining identity in the Turkish-Cypriot school history textbooks: A step towards a united federal Cyprus. South European Society and Politics, 13, 133–154. Vural, Y., & Rustemli, A. (2006). Identity fluctuations in the Turkish Cypriot community. Mediterranean Politics, 11, 329–348. Voci, A., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 37–54. Volkan, V. D., & Itzkowitz, N. (1994). Turks and Greeks: Neighbours in conflict. Cambridgeshire, England: Eothen Press. Webster, C., & Timothy, D. J. (2006). Travelling to the “other side”: The occupied zone and Greek Cypriot views of crossing the Green Line. Tourism Geographies, 8, 162–181. Wilder, D. A., & Thompson, J. E. (1980). Intergroup contact with independent manipulations of ingroup and outgroup interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 589–603. Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Vope, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendship and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73–90. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.