III. Negative Peace: Intervention
during Conflict, Violence, or
Post-Violence Phase
A. Intervention during the
Conflict Phase
Conflict Resolution:
Theoretical and Practical Issues

Definitions of Conflict
• perceived differences in interests, views, or
goals (Deutsch, 1973);
• opposing preferences (Carnevale & Pruitt,
1992);
• a belief that the parties’ current aspirations
cannot be achieved simultaneously (Rubin,
Pruitt, & Kim, 1994);
Sanson & Bretherton (2001)
Causes of Conflicts


Limited Resources (time, money,
property)
Unmet Basic Needs (security, identity,
material necessities, self-determination)

Clashing Values (freedom versus equality)

Beliefs (chosen people)

Ideologies (capitalism versus communism;
religious extremism)
Conflict and Violence






Conflict is primarily about human cognition
Violence primarily involves behavior
Conflicts are inevitable
Violence is not inevitable
Conflicts can be constructive or destructive
Violence is destructive
Conflict Resolution:
Theoretical and Practical Issues

Principles of Conflict Resolution
• conflict resolution is a cooperative endeavor,
rather than competitive)
• solutions sought are integrative ones, meeting
the interests and needs of all
• foundation is an understanding of all parties’
interests, versus power or rights-based
approaches
• both the process and its outcome are nonviolent
Sanson & Bretherton (2001)
Conflict Resolution:
Theoretical and Practical Issues

From Principles to Practice
• Build cooperative attitude (not competitive)
• Use active listening for interests
• Listen also for feelings
• Move from positions to an analysis of interests and
needs of each party
• Communicate interests and needs
• Strive for Integrative Solutions, expanding the pie
• If serious difficulties in negotiating arise, formulate
BATNA
Sanson & Bretherton (2001)
Interest Based Approach
Position
Interests/Concerns
Needs & Values
Mutual
Empathy
Conflict Resolution:
An Opportunity for Joint Problem Solving & Relationship Building
High Competing
Contending
Assertiveness
Collaborative
Problem Solving
Compromise
(concern for self)
Low Avoiding
Low
Accommodating
Cooperativeness
(concern for the relationship)
High
Conflict Resolution:
Theoretical and Practical Issues


Lewicki et al., (1992) identified 44 major models
of conflict, negotiation, and third-party
processes
Some Models and Perspectives
• Principled Negotiation Model (Fisher & Ury, 1996)
• Creative Problem-Solving Model (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986)
• Problem-Solving Conflict Resolution Model (Burton,
1987)
• Problem-Solving Workshops (Kelman, 1997)
Sanson & Bretherton (2001)
Conflict Resolution:
Theoretical and Practical Issues


Principled Negotiation Model (Fisher & Ury, 1996)
• Separate the people from the problem
• Focus on interests
• Invent options for mutual gain
• Insist on objective criteria to judge solutions
Creative Problem-Solving Model (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986)
• Set reasonably high aspirations for gains
• Pursue with firmness and commitment and
flexibility
Sanson & Bretherton (2001)
Conflict Resolution

Problem-Solving CR Model (Burton, 1987)
• Analyze parties and issues
• Facilitate interaction and exploration of positions
• When there is an agreed definition of the problem, explore
possible options
• Groups meet in private and “controlled communication”
takes place (correcting misperceptions, improving accuracy
of assessment)

Problem-Solving Workshop (Kelman, 1997)
• Addresses inter-ethnic conflict, emphasizing empathy,
insight, creative problem solving and learning
• Involves politically interested but unofficial representatives
of the conflicted parties
Sanson & Bretherton (2001)
Responses to Conflict and
Some Psychological Consequences
a. Withdrawing (self-destructive behavior)
b
b. Dominating (aggression)
c. Submitting (depression)
a
b
d
a
d. Engaging (healthy)
e. Vascillating (anxiety)
c
c
Levels of Conflict

Intrapersonal or Intrapsychic (psychotherapist?)

Interpersonal (marriage counselor?)

intragroup (leadership?)

intergroup (diplomacy?)

Inter and multi-state (world government?)
Conflict Resolution:
Theoretical and Practical Issues

Cultural Limitations (East meets West)
• Directness
• Avoidance
• Conflict as constructive
• Harmony as a value
• Individualistic
• Nonhierarchical
Prejudice Reduction: What Works?


Review: broad scope, methodological
focus (internal & external validity), &
practical and theoretical recommendations
Special Emphasis: on causal pathway from
some intervention to a reduced level of
prejudice (i.e., use of random assignment)
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Prejudice Reduction: What Works?


Method: 985 published and unpublished
reports, 72% published.
Methods, interventions, and dependent
variables diverse: meta-analysis potentially
meaningless
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Prejudice Reduction: What Works?

Structure of Review:
1. Nonexperimental prejudice-reduction field
research.
2. Prejudice reduction in the laboratory.
3. Field experiments in order to assess the
correspondence between 1 & 2.
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Nonexperimental Field Research



Outcomes can be explained by a combination of
“intervention, random chance, and unmeasured preexisting differences between comparison groups (p.
343).”
“For scientists who understand prejudice as a
pandemic of the same magnitude as that of AIDS or
cancer, a reliance on nonexperimental methods
seems justifiable only as a short-run approach en
route to experimental testing (p. 343).”
“...majority of prejudice-reduction interventions
(77%) are evaluated solely with nonexperimental
methods, when they are evaluated at all (p. 343).”
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Nonexperimental Field Research
1. Qualitative Studies
2. Cross-Sectional Studies
3. Quasi-Experimental Panel Studies
4. Near-Random Assignment
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Nonexperimental Field Research

Qualitative Studies: Gather narrative
(textual, nonquantified) data and typically
observe rather than manipulate variables.
• Useful in generating hypotheses
• Cannot reliably assess impact of a program
• Can augment and further explore experimental
measurement of outcomes
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Nonexperimental Field Research

Cross-Sectional Studies: A design in which
two or more naturally existing (i.e., not
randomly assigned) groups are assessed
and compared at a single time point.
• Conflate participants’ predispositions with
program impact
• Cannot establish causality (even with
statistical controls) because of unmeasured
differences between treatment and control
groups.
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Nonexperimental Field Research

Quasi-Experimental Panel Studies: Experiments
with treatment and placebo or no-treatment
conditions in which the units are not randomly
assigned to conditions.
• Social Justice Educational Program at U of MI. (Gurin et
al., 1999)

Pretest: matching on gender, race/ethnicity, etc.

Four years and four post-tests

White students saw more commonality in values with various
groups of color than white control students
• Internal validity remains questionable
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Nonexperimental Field Research

Near-Random Assignment (e.g., waiting list
design)
• Corporate Diversity Training (Hanover & Cellar, 1998)
• Assigned white managers to diversity training, using a
phased-in mandatory training policy
• Those with training vs. not: (a) rated diversity
practices as important, and (b) more likely to
discourage prejudiced comments

Causality can be inferred; unfortunately, all
measures were self-report.
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Laboratory Experimental Research
1. Intergroup Approaches

Contact Hypothesis

Social Identity and Categorization Theories
2. Individual Approaches

Instruction

Expert Opinion and Norm Information

Manipulating Accountability

Consciousness Raising

Targeting Emotions

Targeting Value Consistency & Self-Worth
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Laboratory Experimental Research:
Intergroup Approaches

Contact Hypothesis
• Interaction between two groups should reduce prejudice
under conditions of

Equal status; shared goals authority sanction, and absence
of competition (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006)
• Cook’s (1971, 1978) classic railroad studies



Assignment of white young adults to work on a railroad
company management task with two “co-workers” (one
black and one white confederate)
Experimental group exhibited higher ratings of black coworker on attractability, likeability, and competence
One month follow up: less racial prejudice that controls.
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Laboratory Experimental Research:
Intergroup Approaches

Social Identity and Categorization Theories

Minimal Group Paradigm (MGP)
• Decategorization Approach (Individual)
• Recategorization (Superordinate)
• Crossed Categorization (Shared 3rd Group)
• Integrative Models (Crossed & Superordinate)

Most Empirical Support: Crossed & Integrative
• Consistent with multicultural policies that emphasize
ethnic diversity under a common national identity
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Laboratory Experimental Research
1. Intergroup Approaches

Contact Hypothesis

Social Identity and Categorization Theories
2. Individual Approaches

Instruction

Expert Opinion and Norm Information

Manipulating Accountability

Consciousness Raising

Targeting Emotions

Targeting Value Consistency & Self-Worth
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Laboratory Experimental Research:
Individual Approaches

Instruction (addresses ignorance)
• Modest success: attitude change, friendliness,
diminished stereotypes

Expert Opinion and Norm Information
• Modest success: attitude change when people
are told, for example, experts believe
personality is malleable (Levy et al., 1998) or
stereotyping is not the norm for peers
(Stangor et al., 2001)
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Laboratory Experimental Research:
Individual Approaches

Manipulating Accountability
• MGP: allocation to out-group changes when asked
to justify (Dobbs & Crano, 2001)

Consciousness-raising
• Implicit Attitudes Test (IAT): classification speed
and strength of association
• IAT changes though (a) memory of past
discrimination – guilt! (Son Hing et al., 2002); (b)
pairing stigmatized groups with positive images
(Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001)
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Laboratory Experimental Research:
Individual Approaches

Targeting Emotions
• Perspective Taking and Empathic Inductions (Batson,
1991) enjoy some success.

Targeting Value Consistency
• Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957): Agreeing to
write public statements favoring pro-black policies
produces attitude changes toward anti-black policies
(Eisenstadt et al., 2003)
• Self-Affirmation Theory (Steele, 1998): Some evidence
for reduction in derogation of others when self-worth
affirmed
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Lessons for the Real World from
Laboratory Experiments

Internal Validity (causal impact) can be tested

External Validity often questionable: Limited by

Interventions: usually brief, subtle, and at micro level

Environment: artificial

Population: North American college students



Prejudices: MGP shorn of context; hard-core prejudices
not examined
Measures: Low stake behaviors (e.g., tokens), indirect
(e.g., linguistic bias), IAP-behavior link questionable
Theories: Lab-generated echo chamber
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Experimental Research Conducted
in the Field

Supplemental Table 1 provides summary

Total of 71 studies (minus cooperative learning)

56% lasted one day or less

84% with students or school personnel

Only 11 studies involve measures of behavior

Power problem: half have samples n<100
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Experimental Research Conducted
in the Field
1. Cooperative Learning
2. Entertainment
•
Reading
•
Media
3. Discussion and Peer Influence
4. Instruction
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Experimentation in the Field:
Cooperative Learning


Typical Outcomes of “Jigsaw classroom”
(Aronson et al., 1978): increases in
interpersonal attraction, perspective taking,
social support, and constructive conflict
management
Generalization: seldom tested
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Experimentation in the Field:
Entertainment

Change processes: Narrative persuasion &
extended contact rather than informational
approach
• Narrative persuasion theory: emphasizes
perspective taking, empathy, communicating social
norms
• Extended contact hypothesis: vicarious experience
of cross-group friendships
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Experimentation in the Field:
Entertainment


Reading: 11 of 17 studies yielded positive outcomes,
mostly self-reported attitude change - e.g., friendship
and shared adventures with a disabled child (Cameron
& Rutland, 2006)
Media: Year-long radio soap opera, a fictional story
about two Rwandan communities. N=600 citizens,
prisoners & genocide survivors. Affected perception
of social norms and behavior re intermarriage, open
dissent, cooperation & trauma healing, but did not
change personal beliefs (Paluck, 208; Paluck & Green,
2008).
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Experimentation in the Field:
Entertainment


Instruction: Jewish students and perspective
taking (i.e., write essay from Palestinian point
of view), resulting in more sympathy to
damages and to power asymmetry (Lustig,
2003)
Other (less frequently used) approaches
• Contact (e.g., Outward Bound camping
expedition)
• Social Identity & Categorization (e.g., green
circle community)
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Some Green Circle Concepts
1. The Green Circle represents "your world of people -- the people you
care about!"
2. Your Green Circle begins with YOU -- when you were a baby.
3. The circle must grow in order to include family and friends.
4. It feels good to be INSIDE the Green Circle.
5. It feels bad to be OUT of the Green Circle.
6. People who are excluded from the Green Circle feel the same way I
felt when I was outside the Green Circle.
7. Each child must take POSITIVE action in order to include someone
in his/her circle.
8. People of different sizes and shapes can be in the circle.
9. People of all colors can be in the circle.
10. People of all religions can be in the circle.
11. Physically challenged (handicapped) people can be in the circle.
12. All people belong to the human family.
13. Our circle grows when our hearts are loving.
14. YOU must decide who is going to be in your circle.
Experimentation in the Field:
Entertainment


Instruction: Jewish students and perspective taking
(i.e., write essay from Palestinian point of view),
resulting in more sympathy to damages and to power
asymmetry (Lustig, 2003)
Other (less frequently used) approaches
• Contact (e.g., Outward Bound camping expedition)
• Social Identity & Categorization (e.g., green circle
community)
• Value Consistency & Self-worth (e.g., Rokeach value
confrontation)
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Conclusions

Some Lessons from Field Experiments
• Dearth of evidence for most prejudice-reduction
programs
• Cooperative learning breaks down barriers between
students
• Extended contact can reduce outgroup hostility
• Narratives can communicate norms, encourage empathy
& perspective taking
• Recommendation: Use field as lab to generate theory
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Summary





Spending on diversity training in US is estimated at US$8
billion annually (Hansen, 2003)
Yet, key questions remain unanswered such as: Do
diversity training workshops encourage empathy and break
down stereotypes; or do they elicit reactance and reinforce
stereotypes?
Due to weaknesses in internal and especially external
validity, we don’t know whether, when, and why
interventions reduce prejudice in the world.
Nonexperimental research can offer guidance on the how
question but not what works and why.
More theoretically grounded randomized field based
studies could begin to answer the whether, when and why
questions
Paluck & Green, 2009, ARP
Intergroup Contact and the
Improvement of Intergroup Relations
Tausch, N., Kenworthy, J., & Hewstone, M. (2001).
Intergroup contact and the improvement of
intergroup relation. In M. Fitzduff & C. Stout
(Eds.), The psychology of resolving global
conflicts: From war to peace, Vol. 2 (pp. 67-107).
Westport, CT: Praeger Security International.
Intergroup Contact and the
Improvement of Intergroup Relations
1.
Dependent Variables
2.
Moderating Variables
3.
Mediating Mechanisms
4.
Guidelines for Applications
Tausch et al., 2006
Intergroup Contact:
Dependent Variables
Cognitive variables
Selective Attention
Attributions
of Behavior
Perception
Stereotype
Biases
Seeking ExpectancyConfirming Evidence
Elaboration
of Events
Memory of Events
Tausch et al., 2006
Intergroup Contact:
Dependent Variables

Some Cognitive Consequences
• Decrease in negative stereotypes
• Increase in outgroup variability
• Decrease in infrahumanization (attributing uniquely
human characteristics to one’s ingroup)
Tausch et al., 2006
Intergroup Contact:
Dependent Variables

Some Affective Consequences
• Note: Affective variables predict intergroup behavior
better than stereotypes (Talaska, Fiske, & Chaiken,
2003)
• Specific emotions, can have specific behavioral
consequences (Smith, 1999)

Fear --------- Flight

Anger ------- Fight

Disgust ----- Avoid
• Forgiveness - also associated with guilt, perspective
taking and trust (Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, &
Niens, U. (2006)
Tausch et al., 2006
Intergroup Contact:
Moderator Variables




Allport (1954): Optimal conditions include equal
status, cooperation toward common goal, &
institutional support
Are the conditions necessary? Sufficient?
Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) meta-analysis of over
500 studies found a robust highly significant
negative effect of contact on prejudice, even
when contact did not meet ‘optimal conditions’
Hence, conditions are not necessary but enhance
or facilitate the basic contact effect. Quality of
interactions matter.
Tausch et al., 2006
Intergroup Contact:
Moderator Variables

Quality Matters:
• Negative contact effects 5% of the time; negative
factors (obstacles) may include anxiety, threat, and
stereotype confirmation (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).
• Other obstacles: competition or participation is
involuntary, frustrating, tension laden, or threatens the
status of one of the groups (Amir, 1969, 1976).
Tausch et al., 2006
Intergroup Contact:
Eleven Moderator Variables that Facilitate
1. Equal Status
• Allport emphasized equal status with respect to task
• Boosting “expectations” of the performance of minority
members may be helpful (Cohen & Roper, 1972)
• However, if large status differences exist in society,
generalization of effects may be a problem
2. Cooperation
• Positive-sum expectations important
• Importance of cooperative learning well established
• However, failure on a cooperative task can increase
intergroup bias (Worchel et al., 1977)
Tausch et al., 2006
Intergroup Contact:
Eleven Moderator Variables that Facilitate
3. Institutional Support
• Demonstrated in many field-based studies
4. Group membership should be kept salient in
contact situation for generalization to occur
• Otherwise, subtyping can be a problem
5. Cross-group friendships
• Personalized friendships result in group categories being
deemphasized (Pettigrew, 1997)
• Prejudice reduction: Outgroup friendship > contact;
better yet, friendship x contact. (Pettigrew & Tropp,
2006)
Tausch et al., 2006
Intergroup Contact:
Eleven Moderator Variables that Facilitate
6. Extended contact: merely knowing an in-group
members has a close relationship with an
outgroup member can lead to more pos
intergroup attitudes
• Mediating mechanism may be intergroup anxiety
(Stephen & Stephan, 1985) or perceived ingroup norms
(Tausch et al., 2006)
• Works for majority and minority members (Wright et al.,
1997)
Tausch et al., 2006
Intergroup Contact:
Eleven Moderator Variables that Facilitate
7. Person Factors
• Can’t manipulate but may be useful for selection of
participants
• Higher levels of education, socioeconomic status, and
younger individuals (Stephen, 1987)
• Political affiliation?
• High self-esteem, low authoritarianism, Protestant work
ethic, high competence in task-relevant skills (Stephen,
1987)
8. Choice
• Effect sizes larger when participants have little choice in
participating (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006)
Tausch et al., 2006
Intergroup Contact:
Eleven Moderator Variables that Facilitate
9. Number of Participants
• In small groups, balanced ratios of in-group and outgroup members beneficial (Stephan, 1987)
10. Group Status
• Significant effects weaker for minority group members
(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006)
11. Macro Factors
• Normative support (Pettigrew, 1998), institutional
leadership, political discourse, media framing (Taylor,
2000)
Tausch et al., 2006
Intergroup Contact:
Mediating Mechanisms

Cognitive mechanisms
• Information (addressing ignorance) mediates only about
1 percent of the reduction in prejudice (Pettigrew &
Tropp, 2006)!
• Reducing the Salience of Social Categories

Decategorization (Individualized)

Recategorization (Superordinate)
• Increasing Salience of Social Categories

Categorization (Inter-Group)
• Integrated (complementary) Approaches

D & C; R & C (Dual Social Identities); D-> C-> R (Threestage longitudinal model)
Tausch et al., 2006
Intergroup Contact:
Cognitive Mediating Mechanisms

Decategorization: focus on individual vs. category based
information, can affect reward allocation
• Problems: may be restricted to majority group members
(Bettencourt et al., 1997); also subtyping; generalization to
intergroup relations.

Recategorization (Common In-group Identity Model):
from us and them to we, i.e., superordinate identity.
Typical manipulations: Seating arrangements; shirt colors
• Problems: Deep divisions in the real world; generalization to
intergroup relations.
Tausch et al., 2006
Intergroup Contact:
Cognitive Mediating Mechanisms
Categorization Approach (Hewstone & Brown, 1986)
1.
Contact is intergroup not interpersonal encounter
2.
Complementary roles toward common goal (positive
interdependence)
•
Problems: intergroup anxiety; greater ingroup bias;
reinforcement of stereotypes; generalization of negative
information
Tausch et al., 2006
Intergroup Contact:
Cognitive Mediating Mechanisms

Integration of Theoretical Models
• Decategorization & Categorization: emphasizes both
personalization and typicality producing generalized
positive contact effects.
• Recategorization and Categorization: A dual identity
approach, generally producing positive outcomes perhaps
especially for minority groups ... Consistent with pluralistic
integration of ethnic minorities within a society
• Decategorization -> Categorization -> Recategorization:
The first step is meant to prevent anxiety; second to
generalize positive attitudes from individiual to group;
third stage may maximize reduction of prejudice
(Pettigrew, 1998)
Tausch et al., 2006
Intergroup Contact:
Affective Mediating Mechanisms


Affective processes more predictive of behavior
than cognitive variables (e.g., Talaska et al.,
2003)
Positive and negative affect can function
independently (Cacioppo & Bernston, 2001);
hence, both should be targeted
Tausch et al., 2006
Intergroup Contact:
Affective Mediating Mechanisms

Negative Affect: Anxiety
• Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) meta-analytic findings suggest
~21% of the contact effect on reduced prejudice is
mediated by reduced anxiety!
• The effects of cross-group friendships (both direct and
extended) on the reduction of prejudice and the increase
in perceived outgroup variability is mediated by anxiety
reduction (Wright et al., 1997)
Tausch et al., 2006
Intergroup Contact:
Affective Mediating Mechanisms

Negative Affect: Threat
• Perceptions of threats to the in-group can be real or
symbolic (e.g., threats to in-group’s values, beliefs,
worldview, language, religion, ideology, morality)
• Growing evidence that symbolic threats are powerful
mediators of prejudice
Tausch et al., 2006
Intergroup Contact:
Affective Mediating Mechanisms

Positive Affect:
• Empathy


reduced white prejudice toward blacks (cf. Finlay & Stephan,
2000)
partially mediated relationship between contact and attitudes
between Catholics and Protestants in N. Ireland (Tam et al.,
2003)
• Perspective Taking


Can reduce both explicit and implicit stereotyping (Galinsky &
Moskowitz)
mediates the relationship between contact and intergroup bias i.e., prejudice, trust, and forgiveness (Craig et al., 2002)
Tausch et al., 2006
Applying Intergroup Contact Research
in the Field: Limitations

Direction of Causality: Contact hypothesis is framed as a
longitudinal effect, most studies are cross-sectional


Lack of Behavioral Measures


Changes in cognition and feelings do not imply changes in
behavior
Unit of Analysis Problem


The problem of causality has been addressed many ways (e.g.,
statistical control, longitudinal & experimental designs) and
generally suggest causality is bidirectional
Changes in individual attitudes do not imply changes in societal
norms
Ethical Concerns

Changes in positive affect do not imply changes in power relations
Tausch et al., 2006
Applying Intergroup Contact Theory
in the Field: Applications
1. Equal status (Altering expectations, if necessary, re task
competence)
2. Cooperation toward common goal
3. High profile representatives (e.g., politicians, community
leaders, etc.)
4. Personalized contact (anxiety reduction?)
5. Typicality and explicit linkages between participants and
group
6. Employ extended contact (exploiting public role models
who have close relationship with outgroup members
Tausch et al., 2006
Applying Intergroup Contact Theory
in the Field: Applications
7. Contact should be repeated and prolonged
(consolidating friendships and changed attitudes)
8. Rigorous evaluation of intervention programs,
including actual levels of interaction (cf. Moaz, 2002);
longitudinal or experimental designs, behavioral
measures;
9. Societal indicators of social change (policy, norms,
public opinion) should be assessed
10.Psychological mechanisms should be impacted:
empathy, perspective taking, anxiety and threat
reduction.
Tausch et al., 2006