Precursors of inter-group reconciliation
among the youth in Belfast and Vukovar
(Croatia)
Ankica Kosic
(please pronounce Ankiza or Anna)
University of Rome, Italy
•
despite political solutions (e.g., Belfast
Agreement of 1998; Andrew agreement,
2006), communities remained separated.
Culture of violence
“There are still many riots at interface areas
– in summer 2006 it happened that 300 young
people gathered and wanted to attack the
other community.” (interview Intercomm)
Transcending the divide and the culture of
violence among young people
• Integrated education
• Inter-community work
Study in Belfast
Participants
•320 students (139 boys and 181 girls) in
high schools in Belfast.
•M age = 17.77 years.
•Protestants (N = 128)
•Catholics (N = 174).
Measures
Adolescents’ conflict management styles within family 8 items ( = 0.80)
- adaptation of Kurdek’s CRSi (Kurdek, 1994)
Examples: Trying to find solutions that are acceptable for both sides.
Throwing insults and digs.
- Adolescents’ constructive conflict management styles
Parental communication styles with children – 7 items –
Parental non constructive communication styles
Impact of the Troubles – 4 items ( = 0.82)
whether they had any experience of
sectarianism and the Troubles
Example: Have you ever been intimidated because of your religion?
Have you ever been injured in a sectarian incident?
Feeling unsafe (e.g., walking outside the
neighbourhood, wearing school uniform…) – 3
items ( = 0.82)
Index - Impact of the violence
•Cross-community contact: quantity
– 5 items ( = 0.80)
•Integrated school
•Participation in cross-community projects
Feeling thermometer (1 = extremely unfavourable to 7
(extremely favourable)
Inter-group forgiveness – 7 items ( = 0.85)
Bogardus social distance scale - 5 items ( = 0.80) –
higher scores indicate higher social acceptance
Instrumental co-operation
propensity towards collaboration and interest in
improvement of inter-group relations
Example: I am interested in the development of good relations and cooperation with the other community.
Index of reconciliation
Results
Table 1. Summary of Moderated Multiple Regression Analyses
(R2 = .39; F= 14.50)
Reconciliation
Beta
p
Adolescents’ constructive communication styles
.17
.001
Parental non-constructive communication styles
-.39
.001
Impact of violence
.05
n.s.
Cross-community contact
.16
n.s.
Integrated school
.07
n.s.
Participation in Cross-community projects
.11
.03
Adolescents’ constructive communicative styles x Impact of the violence
.21
.001
Adolescents constructive communicative styles x Cross-community
contact
.13
.005
-.17
.001
Parental non-constructive communicative styles x Impact of the violence
Figure 1: Reconciliation as a function of adolescents constructive strategies in
conflict management within family and impact of violence.
7
Dependent variable
6
5
Low Adolescents
constructive
strategies
4
High Adolescents
constructive
strategies
3
2
1
Low Impact of violence High Impact of violence
Figure 2: Reconciliation as a function adolescents constructive strategies in
conflict management within family and inter-group contact.
7
Reconciliation
6
5
Low Adolescents
constructive
strategies
4
High Adolescents
constructive
strategies
3
2
1
Low Inter-group contact High Inter-group contact
Figure 3: Reconciliation as a function of parental non-constructive
communicative styles and impact of violence.
7
Reconciliation
6
5
Low Parental non
constructive styles
4
High Parental non
constructive styles
3
2
1
Low Impact of violence
High Impact of violence
Discussion
Constructive conflict resolution styles within
family
more propensity toward reconciliation with
the other community, even when the youth
do not feel safe in the context.
Croatia
In 1991 conflicts escalated in areas of
Croatia populated by large numbers of Serbs.
•Vukovar was almost completely destroyed.
•about 2000 people were killed or wounded
and over 500 ‘disappeared’ (Tanner, 1997).
Vukovar
• According to the 2001 census registered
population was 31.670.
• Croats (57.5%)
• Serbs (32.9%)
• other minorities (6.28%).
• The process of social ‘polarisation’.
• separated shops and coffee bars…
• parallel institutions, such as local radio
stations, sports clubs…
• children in schools and kindergartens have
been separated into different buildings or
classes.
Problems:
•people are still trying to find missing members
of their families
•slow progress of justice
•poor economic situation
Study in Croatia
Participants
277 participants, students at the University
in Vukovar and in secondary schools.
• average age = 18.32 years
• 132 male and 145 female respondents
•Croats (N = 154) and Serbs (N = 106).
Measures
•Adolescents conflict resolution styles within
family - constructive
• Parental communication styles with children –
non constructive
• Impact of the war
•Feeling unsafe
•Index – Impact of the violence
• Cross-community contact - quantity
• Participation in cross-community projects
Propensity toward reconciliation
Feeling thermometer
Inter-group forgiveness
Bogardus social distance scale
Instrumental co-operation
Index of reconciliation
Results
Table 2. Summary of Moderated Multiple Regression
Analyses (R2 = .49; F= 18.02)
Reconciliation
Beta
p
.31
.001
-.08
n.s.
Impact of violence
.12
.03.
Cross-community contact
.36
.001
Cross-community projects
.06
n.s.
Adolescents constructive communication styles x Impact of the violence
.23
.001
Adolescents constructive communication styles x Cross-community
contact
.19
.001
-.15
.003
Adolescents constructive communication styles within family
Parental non-constructive communication styles
Parental non-constructive communication styles x Impact of the violence
Figure 4: Reconciliation as a function of adolescents constructive strategies
in conflict management within family and impact of violence.
7
Dependent variable
6
5
Low Adolescents
constructive
strategies
4
High Adolescents
constructive
strategies
3
2
1
Low Impact of violence High Impact of violence
Figure 5: Reconciliation as a function adolescents constructive strategies in
conflict management within family and inter-group contact.
7
Reconciliation
6
5
Low Adolescents
constructive
strategies
4
High Adolescents
constructive
strategies
3
2
1
Low Inter-group contact High Inter-group contact
Figure 5: Reconciliation as a function of parental non-constructive
communicative styles and impact of violence.
7
Reconciliation
6
5
Low Parental nonconstructive styles
4
High Parental nonconstructive styles
3
2
1
Low Impact of violence
High Impact of violence
Conclusions
Constructive conflict resolution strategies
within family
more propensity toward reconciliation with
the other community, even when the youth
do not feel safe.
Thank you!