Lay people play a central role in conflict resolution and peace processes. However, relatively little scholarly attention is given to the frames that lay people use to make sense of conflict and conflict resolution. As conflict frames of lay people at the local level might provide us a way to grasp the nature of the conflict and the frames of lay people reflect society in miniature, exploring the conflict frames of lay people can provide us information about the whole society. The current study explores the conflict frames of lay people in the Kurdish conflict context in Turkey. Entman's (1993) systematic frame analysis is used to approach the conflict frames and modified to comprise 5 domains: (a) problem definition, (b) source of the problem, (c) moral evaluation, (d) solution to the problem, and (e) barrier to the solution of the problem. Q methodology, which is suitable to uncover socially shared viewpoints, is used to explore socially shared frames among 71 lay persons with different ethnic backgrounds. The analysis reveals 4 distinct frames toward the Kurdish conflict. The meanings of these frames, their differences and similarities, the importance of conflict frames for conflict resolution and peace building, and the usefulness of systematic frame analysis of Entman (1993) in the conflict context are discussed.

Positive intergroup contact is effective in reducing prejudice in both high-and low-status groups. However, it is important to study the impact of contact between groups in conflict-ridden societies on additional outcomes, such as attitudes toward reconciliation and peace-related policies. The current conditions in Turkey offer the opportunity to study the relations between intergroup contact, endorsement of conflict narratives, and peace-related attitudes in 3 different groups: (a) the ethnic majority (Turks); (b) a subgroup within the ethnic majority who feel excluded due to their political preferences (i.e., participants in the recent Gezi Park protests who developed a common identity as "çapulcu" [looter]); and (c) the ethnic minority (Kurds). Bivariate correlations and multigroup path analysis suggested that intergroup contact may not lead majority-status groups to support prominority conflict narratives, but may lead them to support prominority policies, whereas it may lead majority-status groups who feel excluded to support both prominority narratives and policies. Results also indicated that contact may be counterproductive for minority groups by altering their endorsement of specific conflict narratives, which then reduces their support for changes that would benefit their group.

Within social psychology, fieldwork in conflict settings is still not commonplace, despite recent calls for more researchers to engage in fieldwork to understand conflict dynamics. With this article, we wish to emphasize the importance of conducting fieldwork to the future of psychological science, while simultaneously acknowledging the challenges such research entails. We approach the subject as "outsiders," and consider a number of important factors that researchers in that position should be aware of before entering a conflict situation. We have chosen the issues we believe to be the main challenges and those which are most in need of discussion prior to outsiders conducting fieldwork in conflict contexts. These issues are listed as either practical or ethical. Practical concerns include the following: (a) actual and perceived safety of researchers and participants, (b) the complexities of getting research permits, (c) identities of the researcher, (d) social and cultural script, and (e) language barriers between researchers and participants. Ethical concerns necessary to take into account in conflict contexts include but are not limited to (a) getting informed consent, (b) recording interviews, (c) avoiding psychological harm to respondents, (d) psychological demands of research for the research team, and (e) giving back to the respondents. With a need for more conflict research within social psychology, we hope to contribute to an increase in the work done in such contexts as well as the general discussions of such experiences. Public Significance StatementFieldwork in conflict areas is called for within social psychology but not undertaken very often. More knowledge on practical and ethical issues as well as the challenges of conducting fieldwork is important to encourage more scholars to pursue it. Such fieldwork is necessary to complement the psychological literature's focus on lab studies in order to better address issues of conflict mechanisms and intergroup relations in conflict.

Over the last few years, large-scale social movements and the consequences of these movements from the perspectives of protesters have been gaining increased attention across the globe. Psychological research has tended to focus on individual or group level change; however, understanding the consequences of these social movements involves realizing that social movements bring about change in different ways: at the individual level, the group level, and the systemic or policy level. The current research attempts to examine not only the individual and group level change but also system level change from the perspective of participants of the Gezi Park protests in I ˙stanbul, Turkey. The consequences of the protests in the subsequent 3 years will be discussed through a series of expert interviews. Overall, results indicate that a number of gains occurred on all 3 levels, but there were overall losses over time. With the impact of other political factors, many of those gains were lost as well. Public Significance StatementThe current research attempts to examine not only the individual and group level change but also system level change from the perspective of protestors in a politically volatile context where anti-government protests and increasing authoritarianism are seen at the same time. The results highlight that a number of gains may occur on all three levels, but there may be overall losses over time. With the impact of other political factors, many of those gains may be lost as well.

Prejudice reduction research has focused on reducing negative regard as a means to improve relations between various groups (e.g., religious, ethnic, political). Though positive regard between groups may be created, these forms of contact and common identification do not alter policy orientations of advantaged groups toward disadvantaged ones. Rather than intergroup contact, it is suggested that a collective action model of prejudice reduction (Dixon, J., Levine, M., Reicher, S., & Durrheim, K. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 411-425) would create ties between disadvantaged groups to work toward beneficial policy change. We seek to show that the Gezi Park protests in Taksim, İstanbul functioned as an intergroup phenomenon, requiring the cooperation of a number of disadvantaged groups (e.g., feminists, Kurds) working together to improve the status of all present. In a series of interviews with 34 activists from the Gezi Park protests, participants were to reflect on their individual and group-based experiences during their time in the Gezi Park protests. Data indicate that although a few groups remained distant or disconnected during the protests, a common ground was achieved such that some participants were able to overcome past prejudices. Data also indicate that through group perceptions and individuals’ descriptions of events, groups who had previously not been able to cooperate were able to work and stick together at Gezi. Results also imply, in line with Dixon et al. (2012), that if disadvantaged groups work together, they might change the position of their groups and improve each group’s disadvantaged position via collective action

Typically, members of advantaged racial groups tend to have limited awareness of discrimination targeting members of disadvantaged racial groups (Tropp & Barlow, 2018). White Americans are generally less likely to perceive racial discrimination against Black people and other racial minorities than are Black Americans (Gallup, 2016; Pew, 2016). Many White Americans are also disinclined to believe that racial prejudice and discrimination still exist against racial minorities (Wilkins & Kaiser, 2014), often presuming that members of disadvantaged racial groups are somehow exaggerating any claims of discrimination they may face (see ABC News, 2000; Dover et al., 2014). We contend that one reason for this limited awareness of racial discrimination targeting other racial groups is that, because of their relative racial privilege, members of advantaged racial groups do not regularly experience the same kinds of mistreatment as those experienced by members of disadvantaged racial groups. Racebased privileges are often invisible to advantaged racial groups, at the same time as they are readily visible and likely to impact the life experiences and opportunities of members of disadvantaged racial

Previous research has shown that positive intergroup contact among disadvantaged group members may predict a so-called sedative effect according to which positive contact is associated with reduced support for social change. Conversely, positive contact is associated with increased support for social change toward equality among advantaged group members. This raises the important question of under which circumstances intergroup contact can encourage support for social change among both disadvantaged and advantaged groups. In this theoretical article, we tackle this question by introducing a new Integrated Contact-Collective Action Model (ICCAM). We first provide an upto-date review of how intergroup contact may promote or hinder social change for both disadvantaged and advantaged groups. We, then, use ICCAM to examine when the many forms of intergroup contact promote or hinder support for social change, proposing the existence of two different paths for disadvantaged and advantaged group members. Finally, we discuss the implications of the model for social intervention and make policy recommendations stemming from a review of available evidence.

This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version.