Different forms of intergroup contact with former adversary are linked to distinct reconciliatory acts through symbolic and realistic threat

Abstract

In a society burdened with the most severe type of intergroup conflict, we examined the association between willingness to reconcile with former adversary, intergroup contact with, and perceived threat from former adversary. We focused on three reconciliatory acts—forgiveness to the outgroup, support for ingroup apology and support for financial compensation to the outgroup. We included different forms of positive and negative intergroup contact—direct and indirect (extended and mass‐mediated). In the link between contact and reconciliation, we tested the mediating role of two types of intergroup threat—realistic and symbolic. The sample comprised Bosniaks (N = 267) and Croats (N = 278) from Bosnia and Herzegovina. In both samples, reconciliation associated with indirect forms of intergroup contact even when controlling for its link with direct contact. This indicates the potential of indirect contact to promote reconciliation in the lack of direct contact, characteristic for segregated post‐conflict societies. Symbolic threat mediated the relationship between intergroup contact and symbolic forms of reconciliation—forgiveness and support for ingroup apology. Realistic threat mediated the link between intergroup contact and a more tangible form of reconciliation—support for financial compensation. This highlights the importance of considering different types intergroup threat when targeting distinct reconciliatory acts. Our results suggest that practitioners promoting reconciliation in post‐conflict societies need to implement different means when tailoring interventions that should enhance different sides of peace‐making process.

The generalization of intergroup contact effects: Emerging research, policy relevance, and future directions

“…Secondary transfer effects of positive direct contact have mostly been demonstrated in cross‐sectional research (Pettigrew, 2009) with only a few studies using longitudinal (Eller & Abrams, 2004; Mähönen & Jasinskaja‐Lahti, 2016; Tausch et al., 2010; Van Laar et al., 2005) or experimental designs (e.g., Shook et al., 2016; Spiegler et al., 2021). Secondary transfer effects have also been found for other types of intergroup contact—extended (e.g., Joyce & Harwood, 2014), mass‐mediated (e.g., Rupar et al., 2021a), or imagined contact (e.g., de Carvalho‐Freitas & Stathi, 2017; Harwood et al., 2011; Visintin, Birtel, et al., 2017), and for a variety of outcome measures including behavioral intentions (Meleady & Forder, 2019) and actual behavior (Zingora & Graf, 2019). In addition, secondary transfer effects have been found among children and adolescents (e.g., Vezzali et al., 2018; Vezzali & Giovannini, 2012), student samples (e.g., Shook et al., 2016), and adults (e.g., Tausch et al., 2010), and they have been documented not only for ethnic majority but also minority groups (e.g., Bowman & Griffin, 2012; Marrow et al., 2019, for a recent review on secondary transfer effects see Vezzali et al., 2021).…”

“…Relatedly, greater outgroup morality (perceiving the outgroup as honest, trustworthy, and sincere) also explains the effect of positive intergroup contact on outgroup attitudes (Brambilla et al., 2013; Vezzali et al., 2019). Finally, there is evidence that trust and outgroup morality generalize to other secondary outgroups consequently improving attitudes towards them (e.g., trust: Rupar et al., 2021a; Žeželj et al., 2020; outgroup morality: Vezzali et al., 2019).…”

“…Intergroup contact also reduces intergroup anxiety (discomfort when interacting with members of different social groups) and intergroup threat (perceiving the outgroup as detrimental to the ingroup), each of which are important predictors of prejudice (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). Research has supported the mediating role of anxiety and threat in primary transfer effects using cross‐sectional (e.g., Hutchison & Rosenthal, 2011; Salvati et al., 2019), longitudinal (e.g., Binder et al., 2009; Swart et al., 2011; Wölfer et al., 2016), and experimental designs (e.g., Turner et al., 2013); including different samples such as religious (e.g., Hutchison & Rosenthal, 2011; Tausch et al., 2007) or ethnic groups (e.g., Rupar & Graf, 2019), minority‐majority samples (e.g., Hayward et al., 2017); and considering different types of direct and indirect contact (for meta‐analyses see, Aberson, 2019; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). There is also evidence that lower anxiety felt towards one outgroup because of intergroup contact can generalize to another outgroup, consequently improving attitudes towards that secondary outgroup (Vezzali & Giovannini, 2012; Swart et al., 2019).…”

“…Finally, research has not only focused on mechanisms that can explain primary transfer effects of positive but also negative intergroup contact. Negative contact relates, for example, to unfavorable outgroup evaluations through lower levels of empathy (e.g., Hayward et al., 2017; Pagotto & Voci, 2013) and trust (e.g., Pagotto & Voci, 2013), as well as higher levels of intergroup anxiety (e.g., Techakesari et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2019) and threat (e.g., Lutterbach & Beelmann, 2020; Rupar & Graf, 2019; Zingora & Graf, 2019). Yet, research on negative contact is still in its infancy, and more research considering mechanisms of primary transfer effects of positive and negative contact simultaneously is needed.…”

Beyond direct contact: The theoretical and societal relevance of indirect contact for improving intergroup relations

“…This is especially true when considering that the relation between positive and negative contact forms can be more complex than expected and positive and negative direct and indirect contact can interact in several ways (Árnadóttir et al., 2018; Schäfer et al., 2021). Finally, Rupar and Graf (2019) found that negative mass‐mediated contact was positively associated with negative affect (i.e., intergroup threat).…”