Over four decades of cognitive complexity research demonstrate that higher integrative complexity (measured by the ability to differentiate and integrate multiple dimensions or perspectives on an issue) predicts more lasting, peaceful solutions to conflict. Interventions that seek to raise integrative complexity offer a promising approach to preventing various forms of intergroup conflict (e.g. sectarianism, violent extremism). However, these contexts can also be extremely stressful, and dominant theory suggests that cognitive complexity diminishes in the face of high stress. However, we know that this is not always the case, with some findings demonstrating the opposite pattern: increases in complexity under high stress. How is it that some people in the midst of stressful conflict are able to recognize multiple perspectives and solutions, while others become increasingly narrow and rigid in their thinking? The aim of this paper is to integrate these divergent findings through the broader framework of the biopsychosocial model of stress and to explore possible underlying mechanisms such as affect. Implications for intervention will also be discussed.
This investigation sought to expand the theoretical and practical knowledge of intervention approaches to reduce the risk of interethnic violence and extremism in fragile contexts by leveraging increases in cognitive complexity and resilience among at-risk young Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats (n = 121, ages 16-33) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). Low cognitive complexity, characterized by categorical thinking that does not recognize the validity of other viewpoints, is an important psychological predictor of violence in intergroup conflicts (Suedfeld et al., Looking back, looking forward: Perspectives on terrorism and responses to it, strategic multi-layer assessment, 2013). In collaboration with the International Organization of Migration (IOM), local experts, and community members, a multiday course was developed, piloted, and tested in ten ethnically representative towns and villages across BiH which aimed to enhance participants' cognitive complexity on contested social issues. To do this, the intervention used structured group activities and facilitator-led reflections to develop meta-awareness of thoughts and feelings when engaging with group dynamics. Pre-and posttesting over ten courses showed that, as hypothesized, cognitive complexity increased significantly by the end of the course (Cohen's d = .78, 95% CI [.53, 1.02]). Resilience and cognitive perspective-taking scores also increased significantly. Without a control group, causal inferences should be made cautiously and in concert with additional evidence. Follow-up monitoring deployed by the funding organization suggested continued benefits at 6 and 12 months after the course. Implications for broader prevention efforts are discussed. Public Significance StatementWe present evidence from an intervention designed to develop cognitive and emotional skills among at-risk youth with the aim of reducing the risk of extremism and violence arising from interethnic tensions. Results from this field study in Bosnia and Herzegovina suggest increases in complex thinking, empathy, and resilience. Policymakers may be interested in the potential of such interventions to promote peace-building abilities among youth in fragile postconflict contexts.
Why do so people often pursue social rank using coercive and potentially costly dominance-oriented strategies (grounded in fear and intimidation) rather than noncoercive prestige-oriented strategies (grounded in respect and admiration)? In 10 studies (N = 3,372, including a high-powered preregistered replication), we propose that people's beliefs about the nature of social hierarchies shape their preference for dominance strategies. Specifically, we find that zero-sum beliefs about social hierarchiesbeliefs that one person's rise in social rank inevitably comes at others' expense-drive the preference for dominance-oriented, but not prestige-oriented, approaches to status. The more participants viewed social hierarchies as zero-sum, the more they were willing to use dominance tactics and the more interested they were in reading books about how to use such tactics. Moreover, we find evidence that zerosum beliefs about social hierarchies causally increase the preference for dominance-oriented, but not prestige-oriented, strategies for gaining rank, and that both objective factors in the organizational environment and people's subjective interpretations of these environments can trigger this effect. We discuss implications for the intragroup and intergroup dynamics of attaining and retaining high social rank.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.