Backfire of good intentions: Unexpected long-term contact intervention effects in an intractable conflict area.

Abstract

We investigated whether an intergroup contact intervention that included two intergroup meetings between Jewish and Arab Israeli students in Israel led to improved long-term intergroup relations. Besides our interest in long-term intergroup contact effects in an intractable conflict, we analyzed minority-majority differences in this context. Before we calculated our results, measurement equivalence across time was ascertained. Data were computed using latent change models. Results for minority members (Arab Israeli) showed positive short-but no long-term contact intervention effects, that is, attitudes and behavior intentions improved shortly after the intervention but went back to the beforeintervention level after nine weeks. Contrary to our expectation for majority members (Jewish Israeli), the intervention led to a reduction of positive intergroup relations both in the short-and long-run. By merging quantitative data with students' comments about their intergroup experience, we identified that this effect was probably based on negative contact experiences. Results are discussed. Public Significance StatementThis paper provides new insights into long-term intergroup contact intervention research. It focuses on contact interventions in so called intractable conflict areas. A contact intervention between Jewish Israeli (majority) and Arab Israeli (minority) students in Israel was evaluated. Thus, findings were located in a long-lasting and often violent conflict in the Middle East. Against the expectations based on contact theory, results indicated negative short-and long-term effects on attitudes and behavior intentions for the Jewish Israeli majority toward the Arab Israeli minority. According to further analyses these findings were probably related to a negative contact experience during the intervention. Results also showed positive short-but no long-term effects for Arab Israeli toward Jewish Israeli students. In summary, the results indicate that the effects of contact interventions in intractable conflict areas depend on the specific circumstances of the contact situation.

Cohesion through participation? Youth engagement, interethnic attitudes, and pathways of positive and negative intergroup contact among adolescents: a quasi-experimental field study

“…Studies of both neighbourhoods (Koopmans and Veit 2014; Laurence, Schmid, and Hewstone 2017) and schools (ten Berge, Lancee, and Jaspers 2017;Bayram Özdemir et al 2018) show that as opportunities for positive-mixing increase so too do opportunities for negative mixing (Pettigrew 2008). Accordingly, youth engagement could also generate more negative contact experiences, which not only impede any positive impact of participation on youth attitudes but potentially generate worse outcomes than if young people had not participated at all (Conner and Erickson 2017;Guffler and Wagner 2017).…”

“…The type of contact participants experience appears crucial for understanding such differences in how participation affects intergroup attitudes (Erickson and O'Connor 2000;Conner and Erickson 2017;Guffler and Wagner 2017). In a study of Arab/Jewish youth in Israel, Guffler and Wagner (2017) found that involvement in an engagement programme had a short-term positive-effect on Arab youth. However, Jewish youth reported worsening attitudes post-participation, driven by reports of negative contact during engagement.…”

“…For example, processes of homophily may inhibit positive contact, even under optimal conditions (Maoz 2002). Meanwhile, although mixing between different groups may bring opportunities for positive contact, it may also increase opportunities for negative contact, which can actually harm intergroup relations (Guffler and Wagner 2017;Laurence, Schmid, and Hewstone 2017).…”

Does negative contact undermine attempts to improve intergroup relations? Deepening the understanding of negative contact and its consequences for intergroup contact research and interventions

“…Negative contact is likely to be particularly relevant in applied contexts outside the laboratory where it is especially hard to achieve optimal contact conditions (Dixon et al, 2005). For exam-ple, Guffler and Wagner (2017) studied Jewish Israeli and Arab Israeli students in an intergroup contact intervention. Contrary to the authors' expectations, Jewish Israeli students reported worse attitudes towards Arab Israeli students following this contact intervention.…”

Imagine All the People: Negotiating and Mediating Moral Concern through Intergroup Encounters

“…Research teaches us that directly and assertively confronting the more dominant group with discrimination and injustice toward disadvantaged groups might indeed elicit empathy and moral concern (Shani & Boehnke, 2017). However, and at the same time, and just as often, such a confrontation can cause a defensive response of backlash (Guffler & Wagner, 2017;Ron, et al, 2020), further polarization and a more extreme justification of the existing status quo (Maoz, Bar-On, & Yikya, 2007;Mor et al, 2016). It is therefore crucial to carefully consider the specific circumstances, the readiness of the participants in the conversation, and the nature of the intergroup relations when using confrontation to evoke moral concern.…”