Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 62, No. 1, 2006, pp. 99--120
Intergroup Contact, Forgiveness, and Experience
of “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland
Miles Hewstone∗
University of Oxford
Ed Cairns
University of Ulster
Alberto Voci
University of Padua
Juergen Hamberger
GVK Bio, Hamburg
Ulrike Niens
University of Ulster
Two studies used random sample surveys to test the “contact hypothesis” on intergroup attitudes of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. In Study 1,
archival data from two different surveys in 1989 (N = 310 Catholics, 422 Protestants) and 1991 (N = 319 Catholics, 478 Protestants) showed that contact was
positively related to attitudes toward denominational mixing. Study 2 (N = 391
Catholics, 647 Protestants) explored predictors of intergroup forgiveness, and
also showed that intergroup contact was positively related to outgroup attitudes,
perspective-taking, and trust (even among those who had a worse experience of
sectarian conflict). These studies indicate that research in peace psychology can
∗ Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Miles Hewstone, Department of Experimental Psychology, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD, UK. [e-mail:
[email protected]]. We wish to express our gratitude to the Templeton Foundation, for
their generous funding of part of the work reported here, and to M. Poole for his help with the neighborhood violence index used in Study 2. The term, The Troubles is now widely understood to refer to
contemporary problems in Northern Ireland; it has, in fact, been used to refer to unrest in Ireland since
at least 1880, and James Joyce’s Ulysses (published in 1922) refers to “Times of the troubles” (Oxford
English Dictionary).
99
C
2006 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
100
Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, and Niens
provide a deeper understanding of the conflict in Northern Ireland and, in due
course, contribute to its resolution.
If there is ever to be a durable peace and genuine reconciliation, what is really needed is the
decommissioning of mind-sets in Northern Ireland. That means that trust and confidence
must be built, over time, by actions in all parts of society. (Senator George Mitchell, Making
peace, 1999, p. 37)
The possibility that intergroup contact might be a means to improve intergroup relations can be traced to the work of Gordon Allport (1954). In his groundbreaking publication The Nature of Prejudice, Allport influenced research for the
next 50 years and also had a profound impact on social policy in many countries
(see Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami, 2003; Miller & Brewer, 1984; Pettigrew
& Tropp, 2000). The international scope of work on the “Contact Hypothesis”
was demonstrated by Hewstone and Brown’s (1986) edited volume that examined
the hypothesis in a range of societies, including several that were experiencing
extreme forms of conflict (Israel, South Africa, and Northern Ireland). As Christie
and Dawes (2001) have pointed out, for too long psychologists appeared to devote
their efforts to understanding intolerance without contributing to its elimination.
The contact hypothesis, however, provides both an intervention and a theoretical
framework, and has contributed greatly to the fact that psychology is now in its
best position ever to make a contribution to the advancement of world peace by
actively promoting intergroup tolerance.
The Current Research
Northern Ireland provides a useful context within which to explore the Contact Hypothesis because the main policy initiatives that have been pursued in
order to transform the conflict have concentrated on making contact between
Catholics and Protestants possible (see Cairns & Hewstone, 2002; Hewstone
et al., 2005; Hughes & Carmichael, 1998; Niens, Cairns, & Hewstone, 2003;
Trew, 1986).
In this article, we will address the question, “Has contact made a difference
to intergroup attitudes in the context of the conflict in Northern Ireland?” To this
end, we will begin by examining archival data on attitudes toward intergroup
contact in Northern Ireland, and related variables such as education and social
class. Education, especially, is an important “background” variable in this context,
having a consistently positive effect on outgroup attitudes (see Hagendoorn &
Nekuee, 1999; Pettigrew et al., 1998; Wagner & Zick, 1995). Like education, class
is typically positively associated with both contact and tolerance (e.g., Hamberger
& Hewstone, 1997; Pettigrew, 1997); moreover, middle class and upper class
residential areas are often more mixed, which again may affect people’s attitudes
toward, as well as their opportunity for intergroup contact (Poole, 1982).
We will then move on to outline some recent research where we focus on
the relationship between intergroup contact and variables thought to be important
Contact in Northern Ireland
101
for the political future of Northern Ireland, namely outgroup trust and outgroup
forgiveness (Hewstone et al., 2004; McLernon, Cairns, Lewis, & Hewstone, 2003;
Morrow, 2000).
Conflict in Northern Ireland
As Cairns and Darby (1998) have pointed out, the conflict in Northern Ireland
is basically a struggle between those who wish to see Northern Ireland remain part
of the United Kingdom (Protestants/Unionists/Loyalists), who make up about 50%
of the population, and those (Catholics/Nationalists/Republicans) who wish to see
the unification of the island of Ireland (about 40%). This conflict is underpinned
by historical, religious, political, economic, and psychological elements. These
elements lie behind the violence that has spanned the last 30 years and has led to
death and injury, has increased community divisions, and had deleterious effects
on mental health (Cairns & Darby, 1998).
Segregation and Contact in Northern Ireland
A crucial characteristic of Northern Irish society that helps explain many
aspects of the conflict is the extreme degree to which the two religious communities
are segregated (Cairns & Hewstone, 2002; Knox & Hughes, 1994; Whyte, 1990).
The types of segregation that have received most attention are residential (Poole,
1982; Poole & Doherty, 1996) and educational (Darby et al., 1977; McClenaghan,
Cairns, Dunn & Morgan, 1996). Both primary and secondary education are highly
segregated (Gallagher, 1995, estimates that 95% of school-age children in Northern
Ireland attend denominational schools). Support for this school system comes from
both communities, even though in surveys the majority of the population claim
they would support integrated education (see Hughes & Carmichael, 1998) or
would, at least, like to see some mixing between pupils from different schools
(see Boal, Keane, & Livingstone, 1997). There are currently only 57 Integrated
Schools, educating a tiny proportion of the total pupil population (see Niens et al.,
2003; http://www.nicie.org/).
Despite this separation, total residential segregation does not exist in Northern
Ireland (Poole, 1982). Whyte (1990) estimates that only about 35% to 40 % of
the population live in segregated neighborhoods, which means that more than
50% of the population live in mixed neighborhoods. Therefore, unlike some other
apparently intractable conflicts, the potential for contact between members of the
two communities exists in many areas (Cairns & Darby, 1998; Trew, 1986). For
example, in the cities, even where working class housing areas in particular are
more highly segregated, people often travel out of their own area to work, thus
increasing the potential for contact in the work place.
Even though segregation is not thought to be the cause of intergroup conflict,
it is believed to play a major role in establishing and maintaining conflict between
102
Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, and Niens
two communities (Hewstone et al., 2005). Because the problem of segregation
and its relevance for the Northern Ireland conflict has been recognized for quite
some time, policies and methods to reduce the extent of segregation and to increase opportunities for intergroup contact have been introduced. The importance
of these initiatives can be gauged by the fact that in 1995/96, government departments in Northern Ireland spent £5.3 million on improving community relations
(Knox & Hughes, 1996). These funds went to a range of projects from “Cultural
Traditions” workshops that focus on cultural awareness, to reconciliation groups,
and groups set up in response to some particular act of political violence (Knox &
Hughes, 1997). In addition, the educational authorities in Northern Ireland have
funded peace education (see Dunn & Morgan, 1999) through projects encouraging
contact between Catholic and Protestant schools, and more recently through the
development of planned integrated schools.
While specific goals for all these projects have been framed in generic terms,
they have concentrated principally on making contact between Catholics and
Protestants possible (Knox & Hughes, 1997).
The Contact Hypothesis in Northern Ireland
In its simplest form, the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954; Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Hewstone & Brown, 1986; Pettigrew, 1986) proposes that bringing
together individuals, from opposing groups, can reduce intergroup conflict “under
optimal conditions” (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000). Allport (1954) suggested the reduction of intergroup conflict was most likely if four conditions were met. First,
there should be equal status contact between members of majority and minority groups. Second, they should pursue common goals. Third, contact should be
sanctioned by institutional supports. Fourth, contact should be of the kind that
leads to the perception of common interests and humanity between members of
the two groups. More recently, Pettigrew (1998) has highlighted the importance
of positive affective processes in explaining what makes contact effective. Specifically, he noted that contact could have its positive effects via variables such as
reduced anxiety and increased empathy, perspective-taking, and self-disclosure
(a claim substantiated by Brown & Hewstone’s, 2005, recent review). Extensive
meta-analytic support for the contact hypothesis is presented by Pettigrew and
Tropp (in press).
In this article we will summarize two studies that have used data from random
sample surveys of the adult population of Northern Ireland to examine the effect
of contact in a divided society. In the first study we report secondary analyses of
survey data from a limited set of measures designed to explore attitudes toward
intergroup contact (specifically, attitudes toward “mixing” with the other group).
This is an important criterion variable, because it allows us to assess whether
prior contact makes people more, or less, willing to engage in future contact with
Contact in Northern Ireland
103
the outgroup (see, e.g., Boal et al., 1997). These studies were carried out in two
different representative samples, in 1989 and 1991, thus providing the opportunity
to test and replicate a model. The second study, which was carried out more recently
(2000), employed an expanded set of measures, and focused on the association
between intergroup contact and forgiveness.
Study 1
In this study we reanalyzed archival data sets that were not originally planned
as tests of the contact hypothesis. This secondary analysis of data has advantages
and disadvantages as a methodological tool (see Kiecolt & Nathan, 1985). A main
advantage is that we make use of existing data sets, prior to collecting original data.
However, a main disadvantage is that our research objectives were not those of the
original compilers of the survey, and indeed measures of some of the key constructs
(notably the measures of contact) are suboptimal. To provide independent tests of
the proposed model, we first developed a model for the 1989 data, and then tested
that model on the 1991 data set. We analyzed data separately for Catholic and
Protestant subsamples for three reasons. The first is to provide independent tests
of the model. The second is that historically the two groups have been both social
and numerical minority and majority, respectively (Whyte, 1990). This means, for
example, that Protestants would be expected to have higher mean values on social
class and education, and that Catholics would have greater opportunities for crossgroup contact. Third, Catholics have tended to report more favorable outgroup
attitudes than have Protestants (see Whyte, 1990).
Method
Samples. The data in this study come from two independent probability surveys carried out in February–March 1989 and 1991 under the aegis of the “Northern
Ireland Social Attitude Survey.” The surveys were designed to yield a representative sample of all adults aged 18 years or more living in Northern Ireland (for
further information on sampling and items, see Hamberger, 1998). When those
who did not categorize themselves as either Catholic or Protestant were excluded,
these surveys resulted in achieved sample sizes of over 700 respondents: 1989
(Catholics, 310 [male: 142; female: 168]; Protestants, 422 [male: 187; female:
235]; mean age: 45.73 years); 1991 (Catholics, 319 [male: 144; female: 175];
Protestants, 478 [male: 199; female: 279]; mean age: 45.13 years) (there were,
however, no gender or age differences, so we do not discuss these variables).
Measures. We assembled a set of predictor variables from the questions available in both surveys. These consisted of, first, standard measures of educational
level (based on highest level of qualification) and social class (based on degree of
104
Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, and Niens
skill). To assess past experience of integrated schooling, respondents were asked
whether they had “ever attended a mixed or integrated school,” which was further
specified as a school with “fairly large numbers of both Catholic and Protestant children.” The response format was “1 = yes, in Northern Ireland,” “2 =
yes, somewhere else,” “3 = no, have not.” This variable was reverse coded, with
higher values indicating more past experience of integrated schooling in Northern
Ireland. Three questions were used to assess contact. The first question was, “about
how many of your friends would you say are the same religion as you—that is,
Protestant or Catholic?” For the following two questions with regard to “relatives”
and “neighbors” the same response format was used: “1 = all,” “2 = most,” “3 =
half”; “4 = less than half”; “5 = none.” Thus higher values indicate more contact
with the other religious group. All respondents who answered “don’t know” to any
of these items were assigned missing values and excluded from further analyses.
Although the contact scale did not reach the conventional Cronbach’s alpha level
of .7 (even when items were selectively deleted), the alphas based on only three
items were considered acceptable in each of the surveys (1989: .59; 1991: .55).
Our criterion variable, attitudes toward mixing with the outgroup (i.e., attitudes toward intergroup contact), was formed by summing six items that asked
respondents if they were in favor of more mixing or more separation in (a) primary
schools, (b) secondary schools (including those which select by ability), (c) where
people live, (d) where people work, (e) people’s leisure or sports activities, and (f)
people’s marriages. Higher scores on this scale indicated more favorable attitudes
toward mixing with the outgroup, and the scale was highly reliable in each of the
surveys (1989: .92; 1991: .92).
All measures were normally distributed with the exception of “(past) integrated schooling” (due to the vast majority of respondents attending schools with
unequal numbers of Catholic and Protestant pupils); these scores were therefore
log-transformed.
Results and Discussion
Pearson product-moment correlations between all variables, computed separately for Catholics and Protestants in each survey, are shown in Table 1. Although
the correlations between education and class were highly significant, they did not
correlate with other variables in exactly the same way, so we included both as separate predictors. It should also be noted that with large samples small correlations
may attain significance, hence they should be interpreted with caution; however,
given the nature of the data set, we believe that even small, but significant, correlations are impressive. In this article we focus on path analyses that test whether
attitudes toward mixing with the outgroup can be predicted from other measures
(we developed a model for the 1989 data, which we then tested on the 1991 data
set). Path analyses (see Everitt & Dunn, 1991), rather than structural equation
Contact in Northern Ireland
105
Table 1. Correlations between Predictor and Criterion Variables (Study 1)
Measure
(1)
(1) Education
(2) Class
1989
1991
1989
1991
(3) Integrated schooling
1989
1991
(4) Contact
1989
1991
(5) Attitude to contact
1989
1991
(2)
(3)
(4)
.48∗∗∗
.54∗∗∗
.03
.13∗∗
.01
.13∗∗
.19∗∗∗
.17∗∗∗
.03
.05
.09
.12∗
.25∗∗∗
.13∗∗
.02
.11∗
.17∗∗
.08
.55∗∗∗
.64∗∗∗
−.01
.11∗
.15∗∗
.02
.16∗∗
.22∗∗∗
.11∗
.33∗∗∗
.11∗
.18∗∗
.19∗
.09
.20∗∗
.01
.14
.04
(5)
.18∗∗∗
.30∗∗∗
.33∗∗∗
.18∗∗
Note. Catholics below the diagonal and Protestants above.
∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.
models, were used because most of the measured variables were assessed using
only single items. For a full discussion of the data and analyses, see Hamberger
(1998). As is conventional in survey research, we report coefficients with a significance level of p < .10; however, in view of the large sample sizes, we focus on
the overall variance explained in each path model.
For the path analysis, three regressions were computed, using the forced entry
procedure (see, e.g., Hamberger & Hewstone, 1997; Islam & Hewstone, 1993).
That is, all relevant predictor variables were entered simultaneously into the regression. Thus, in a first step, the criterion variable (attitude toward mixing with
the outgroup) was regressed on all the predictors simultaneously (education, class,
past integrated schooling, and contact). In a second step, contact was regressed
on education and class. Finally, since we assumed that past integrated schooling
would be predicted by the level of education and social status, we computed a third
regression with integrated schooling as the criterion variable. We report standardized regression coefficients below, because they enable us to compare the relative
importance of several predictors measured in different units. To compare the relative importance of each of the predictors on the criterion variable, all the predictors
are standardized before being entered in the regression procedure. Because these
are cross-sectional data we cannot, of course, draw conclusions about cause and
effect. However, we tested a model consistent with the contact hypothesis (i.e.,
contact predicts attitudes, rather than vice versa), hence we will refer to attitude
as the criterion variable, and contact and other variables as “predictors,” as is
conventional when using regression techniques.
The path diagram summarizing the results for the Catholic subsample (for
the 1989 survey) is shown in Figure 1. In this figure the strength of each path
106
Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, and Niens
Note. Significant paths only are shown. Numbers are standardized partial regression coefficients (β)
except those between “education” and “class” and between “integrated schooling” and “contact,” which
are bivariate correlation coefficients (r). Levels of significance: ∗ p < .10; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.
N = 310.
Fig. 1. Path diagram for Catholics (1989).
is indicated by the size of the standardized path coefficient. This coefficient represents the direct effect of each predictor variable on the criterion variable (i.e.,
with the effects of all other variables partialed out). Where a predictor variable
has an indirect effect, this may be evident from the fact that the simple correlation
between the two measures is substantially higher than the path coefficient (see
total covariance, shown in Tables 3 and 4).
As can be seen, there were two significant predictors of attitude toward mixing
with the outgroup—class and, especially, contact. Both coefficients were positive,
indicating that higher social class (β = .14) and more contact with Protestants
(β = .30) were positively associated with a more positive attitude toward mixing.
Overall, 15% of the variance in the criterion variable was explained by the simultaneous regression of attitudes toward mixing on all the predictors. The model
also shows that contact was predicted only by education (β = .16), and past integrated schooling was predicted positively by social class (β = .21) and negatively
by education (β = –.12). To summarize this model, we can conclude that the
measure of contact appears to be the central and most reliable predictor. Contact
predicts attitude toward mixing with the outgroup, and is in turn predicted by
education.
The path model for the Protestant subsample is shown in Figure 2. Attitude
toward mixing with the outgroup was predicted by three variables: past integrated
Contact in Northern Ireland
107
Note. Significant paths only are shown. Numbers are standardized partial regression coefficients (β)
except those between “education” and “class” which is a bivariate correlation coefficients (r). Levels
of significance: ∗ p < .10; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001. N = 422.
Fig. 2. Path diagram for Protestants (1989).
schooling (β = .13), contact (β = .18), and class (β = .23). Overall, the model
accounted for 12% of the variance in the criterion variable. Only class was a
predictor of contact (β = .10).
We then tested the same model on the 1991 samples, and standardized regression coefficients are shown in Table 2. At first glance, the number of significant
paths seems to be rather low. However, the results yield clear empirical evidence
for the role of contact as a predictor of attitudes toward outgroup mixing. In all
subsamples, and partialing out the effects of other variables, only contact made a
consistent, significant contribution to explaining variance in the criterion variable.
Moreover, in all cases the direction of the path coefficient was positive, indicating
that respondents who reported having more contact with outgroup members held
a more positive attitude toward mixing with the outgroup.
Finally, to provide an indication of how well the path model fits the data (i.e.,
how well the path-analytic models reproduce the original zero-order correlations)
we investigated the magnitude of spurious or noncausal effects. To test the overall
goodness of fit of this model, we decomposed the total covariance (correlation)
between each pair of variables in the model (except the relations of education and
class, and contact with past integrated schooling). The results of these analyses are
shown in Tables 3 and 4. Total covariation was partitioned into the total (causal)
effect (the sum of direct and indirect path coefficients) and the noncausal or spurious effects, which are those that are explained by variables not specified in the
108
Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, and Niens
Table 2. Standardized Regression Coefficients for 1989 and 1991 Surveys
1989
Paths
Attitude/contact
Attitude/integrated school
Attitude/education
Attitude/class
Int. school/education
Int. school/class
Contact/education
Contact/class
Int. school/contact
Education/class
R2 contact
R2 integrated schooling
R2 total
Catholics
(N = 310)
.30∗∗∗
.09
.11
.10
−.12∗
.21∗∗
.16∗
.03
.11∗
.55∗∗∗
.03
.03
.15
1991
Protestants
(N = 422)
.18∗∗∗
.13∗∗
.04
.23∗∗∗
.01
.02
−.02
.10
.02
.48∗∗∗
.01
.00
.12
Catholics
(N = 319)
.24∗∗∗
Protestants
(N = 478)
.29∗∗∗
.06
−.05
−.04
.13∗
−.06
.04
.31∗∗∗
.17∗∗
.64∗∗∗
.11
.01
.06
.01
.09
.04
.15∗∗
−.03
.09
.07
.11∗
.54∗∗∗
.02
.02
.11
Note. “Attitude” (toward mixing with the outgroup) is the dependent variable in the first equation,
with all variables entered simultaneously; “Contact” (with the outgroup) is the dependent variable
in the second equation; and “Integrated schooling” is the dependent variable in the third equation.
∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.
model (see Asher, 1983). The spurious effects were quite small, thus indicating
a good fit of the model to the data in all three samples. Finally, we computed a
series of χ 2 analyses (see Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner & Bent, 1975, p. 394)
to test restricted models (without the assumption of a direct path from contact to
attitude toward mixing with the outgroup). In all four subsamples, excluding contact as a predictor from the equation led to significantly weaker prediction (critical
level of chi-square (df =1), for alpha level .05 = 3.84): 1989, Catholics = 23.70;
Protestants = 23.89; 1991, Catholics = 3.93; Protestants = 7.61.
To summarize, this first study, while limited in its measures due to reliance
on secondary analysis of existing data sets, was successful in providing support
for the contact hypothesis based on survey data in Northern Ireland. Contact predicted the criterion variable, attitude toward mixing with the outgroup, and was
the only predictor that consistently and significantly explained variance in this
attitudinal outcome. It is not, however, possible to say what aspects of contact
contribute positively in this way. The measure chosen for the original survey is, in
terms of face validity, a measure of contact quantity ( “about how many of your
friends/relatives/neighbors. . .”), but because one of the items asks specifically
about contact with friends, we can argue that this measure also taps contact quality
(on the special value of intergroup friendships, see Hamberger & Hewstone, 1997;
Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns, & Voci, 2004; Pettigrew, 1997; Phinney, Ferguson, &
Tate, 1997). Because there was only one item for each type of contact, we preferred
here to merge them to yield a more reliable measure of contact.
Contact in Northern Ireland
109
Table 3. Correlation Decomposition for Catholics (1989)
Attitude–contact
Attitude–Int. school
Attitude–education
Total
Covariance
.325∗∗∗
.144∗
.192∗∗
Attitude–class
Int. school– education
Int. school–class
Contact–education
Contact–class
Int. school–contact
Education–class
.195∗∗
−.007
.149∗∗
.164∗∗
.114∗
.106∗
.550∗∗∗
Bivariate Relationship
Causal Effects
Direct
.297∗∗∗
.092
.111
.097
−.119∗
.215∗∗
.157∗
.029
–
–
Indirect
.157 × .297 = .047
−.119 × .092 = .011
.215 × .092 = .020
.029 × .297 = .009
–
–
–
–
–
–
Total
Effect
Noncausal
Effects
.297
.092
.147
.028
.052
.045
.126
−.119
.215
.157
.029
–
–
.069
.112
−.066
.007
.085
–
–
Note. Levels of significance ∗ p < .10; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.
Study 2
Our second, and more recent, study provided an opportunity to overcome
some of the limitations of this earlier study. Given the recent evidence for the
special impact of outgroup friends (e.g., Pettigrew, 1998), we focused on this
aspect of intergroup contact. There is increasing evidence that contact based on
personal friendships is particularly effective in reducing prejudice (Hamberger
& Hewstone, 1997; Pettigrew, 1997, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, in press; Phinney
et al., 1997). It appears to be such a potent form of contact because of its potential to
Table 4. Correlation Decomposition for Protestants (1989)
Bivariate Relationship
Attitude–contact
Attitude–int. school
Attitude–education
Attitude–class
Int. school–education
Int. school–class
Contact–education
Contact–class
Int. School–contact
Education–class
Total
Covariance
.185∗∗∗
.171∗∗∗
.185∗∗∗
.247∗∗∗
.032
.029
.013
.086
.023
.485∗∗∗
Causal Effects
Direct
.179∗∗∗
.134
.039
.226∗∗∗
.015
.019
−.023
.098
–
–
Indirect
.015 × .134 =.0021
−.023 × .179 = .0041
.019 × .134 = .0025
.098 × .179 = .017
–
–
–
–
–
–
Note. Levels of significance ∗ p < .10; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.
Total
Effect
Noncausal
Effects
.179
.134
.037
.006
.037
.148
.245
.015
.019
−.023
.098
–
–
.002
.017
.01
.036
−.012
–
–
110
Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, and Niens
generate positive orientations and emotions like perspective-taking and empathy,
and to reduce the negative emotion of anxiety, all important mediators of the effects
of contact (Brown & Hewstone, 2005).
We were also, more generally, interested in the issue of intergroup forgiveness
in Northern Ireland (see Hewstone et al., 2004). Because intergroup bias is such a
pervasive phenomenon, present at public and private, explicit and implicit levels
(see Hewstone Rubin, & Willis, 2002), we should not be surprised if we find
evidence that “we” are reluctant to forgive “them” (see Cairns, Tam, Hewstone, &
Niens, 2005; Hewstone et al., 2004). In the context of an ongoing ethnic conflict,
promoting intergroup forgiveness is a difficult issue to broach and not just to those
who have suffered directly. But because friendships promote positive orientations
and effectively challenge intolerance, we hypothesized that outgroup friends would
be a significant predictor of forgiveness. To our knowledge, no prior research has
investigated whether contact is related to outgroup forgiveness, a variable that
may be correlated with outgroup attitudes, but is conceptually quite distinct (see
Hewstone et al., 2004, 2005).
We also explored several other potential predictors of forgiveness, including both social-psychological perceptions and measures of personal experience of
sectarian incidents and violence in Northern Ireland. As a psychological factor,
identification with one of the two religious communities has been shown to play
an important role in the maintenance of the conflict in Northern Ireland (Cairns,
1982; Trew & Benson, 1996), with those most strongly identified with their ethnic group having most entrenched attitudes. We adapted an established scale to
measure identification with own religious group (see Brown, Condor, Mathews,
Wade, & Williams, 1986). We also assessed attitude toward the outgroup, using a highly reliable single-item feeling thermometer (see Haddock, Zanna, &
Esses, 1993).
The relationship between trust and forgiveness is, as yet, unclear. Some scholars see trust as a potential benefit to the injured/forgiving party associated with
forgiveness, while others argue that trust is a necessary precursor of forgiveness
(see McLernon, Cairns, & Hewstone, 2002). What the literature lacks are studies
examining trust and distrust in real intergroup conflicts, where the restoration of
trust is essential to the survival of the individuals involved, as well as the community as a whole. We adapted Brehm and Rahn’s (1997) measure of trust, worded to
measure outgroup trust. We also measured perspective-taking (the cognitive component of empathy), which has been found to be associated with prosocial motivation, altruism, and forgiveness (e.g., Batson et al., 1997; McCullough, Rachal,
& Worthington, 1997), and we adapted items from Davis’ (1994) Interpersonal
Reactivity Index for this particular intergroup context.
Finally, we used two measures to tap respondents’ personal experience of
sectarianism. Previous surveys in Northern Ireland have used a standard measure
of direct and indirect experience of ”The Troubles” (see Boal et al., 1997; Hayes
Contact in Northern Ireland
111
& McAllister, 2002). We also assigned an objective score to each respondent,
based on how much sectarian violence had taken place in their residential area
(“neighborhood violence” index).
Full reports on this data set will appear in due course; here we provide a
summary and overview of some of the more interesting findings, focusing on
contact and other predictors of forgiveness.
Method
Sample. Respondents were 1,038 adults, comprising a representative sample of the Northern Irish population, who provided complete data on all the key
measures in a survey we commissioned from the Northern Ireland Statistics and
Research Agency in May, 2000 (391 Catholics, 647 Protestants).
Measures. Correlations between the variables are shown in Table 5. The number of items used to measure each construct, the scoring procedure, and the reliability of scales are reported in Table 6. Our measure of intergroup forgiveness
consisted of a 7-item scale developed for this research and based on the responses
of Northern Irish adults in a series of focus group interviews (McLernon et al.,
2002; e.g., “The two communities in Northern Ireland must learn not to retaliate
against political violence”; “Only when the two communities of Northern Ireland
learn to forgive each other can we be free of political violence”).
Our predictors included measures of: (1) contact with outgroup friends (e.g.,
“About how many of your friends are from the other community?”; “How often
do you visit friends who are from the other community in their home?”); (2) a
short measure of experience of “The Troubles” (one item each asked whether the
respondent had suffered directly, and one whether family or a close friend had
suffered); (3) ingroup identification (based on Brown et al.’s, 1986, scale; e.g., “I
identify with my community”; “My community is an important group to me”);
(4) outgroup attitude (a single-item “feeling thermometer”; see Haddock et al.,
1993); (5) outgroup perspective-taking (based on Batson et al., 1997; e.g., “I try to
look at both communities’ side of the conflict in Northern Ireland before I make
a decision”); (5) outgroup trust (items based on Brehm & Rahn, 1997; e.g., “Generally speaking, would you say that most members of the other community can
be trusted or that you can’t be too careful with people?”); and (6) neighborhood
violence index (by working with a demographer, we were able to assign a score
to each respondent, based on how much sectarian violence had taken place in
their residential area). We used the neighborhood violence index as well as the
subjective measure of experience of The Troubles. In fact, the items were significantly, but not highly, correlated (r = + 0.13, p < .001, for the full sample),
presumably because one’s direct and indirect experience is not limited to where one
lives.
112
Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, and Niens
Results
As in the first study, we report results separately for each religious group,
given their differences in history, status, and size. Pearson product-moment correlations between all variables, computed separately for Catholics and Protestants,
are shown in Table 5; notably, there were significant positive correlations between
contact with outgroup friends and forgiveness, trust, and perspective-taking (but
a negative correlation with neighborhood violence). Table 6 shows the summary
data for the results from this survey. We first computed t-tests to compare Catholic
and Protestant respondents on all measures. Catholics showed greater outgroup
forgiveness, more positive outgroup attitudes, greater outgroup perspective-taking
and outgroup trust than Protestants, but they also showed higher ingroup identification. Consistent with the literature (Hayes & McAllister, 2002), the mean
neighborhood violence index for Catholics was significantly higher than that for
Protestants, although there was no difference in self-reported experience of The
Troubles.
We regressed forgiveness on all the predictors simultaneously, computing
separate equations for Catholic and Protestant respondents. Explained variance
was quite good for Catholics (R2 = .23) and especially Protestants (R2 = .41).
The strongest positive predictors of forgiveness were outgroup trust, outgroup
perspective-taking, and outgroup attitude; for Protestants only, ingroup identification was a negative predictor. The measure of intergroup contact (outgroup friends)
was only a significant predictor of forgiveness for Catholics (although this form
Table 5. Correlations between Predictor and Criterion Variables (Study 2)
Measure
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(1) Outgroup
.34∗∗∗ −.09∗
−.39∗∗∗
.35∗∗∗
.42∗∗∗
.52∗∗∗ −.09
forgiveness
(2) Contact with
.31∗∗∗
.06
−.28
.23∗∗∗
.25∗∗∗
.49∗∗∗ −.13∗∗∗
outgroup
friends
(3) Experience of −.08
−.13∗
.00
−.05
.03
−.01
.14∗∗∗
troubles
(4) Ingroup
−.02
−.17∗∗∗
.09
−.04
−.18∗∗∗ −.30∗∗∗
.00
identification
∗∗∗
∗∗
∗∗∗
∗∗∗
(5) Outgroup
.24
.14
−.03
.03
.29
.39
−.06
attitude
(6) Outgroup
.27∗∗∗
.21∗∗∗
.00
−.04
.19∗∗∗
.40∗∗∗ −.01
perspective
taking
(7) Outgroup trust
.41∗∗∗
.41∗∗∗ −.18∗∗∗ −.06
.35∗∗∗ .31∗∗∗
−.07
(8) Neighborhood −.19∗∗∗ −.39∗∗∗
.11∗
.03
.03
−.02
−.18∗∗∗
violence
Note. Catholics below the diagonal and Protestants above; ∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.
Contact in Northern Ireland
113
Table 6. Mean Scores as a Function of Religion, Catholic-Protestant Differences, and Standardized
Regression Coefficients with Forgiveness as Criterion (Study 2)
Standardized β
Mean scores
Measure
Outgroup forgiveness
(7; .74; 1−5)++
Contact with outgroup
friends (4; .83; 1−4)
Experience of The Troubles
(2; .62; 0/1)
Ingroup identification
(3; .89; 1−5)++
Outgroup attitude
(1; n/a; 0−100)++
Outgroup perspective-taking
(2; .66; 1−5)+
Outgroup trust
(3; .86; 1−5)++
Neighborhood
violence++
(Criterion = Forgiveness)
Catholics
Protestants
Catholics
(N = 391)
Protestants
(N = 647)
4.07
3.82
–
2.39
2.35
.12∗
0.69
0.70
−.02
3.70
3.39
.01
60.93
55.01
.13∗∗∗
.16∗∗∗
3.46
3.29
.14∗∗
.21∗∗∗
4.04
3.83
.24∗∗∗
.26∗∗∗
2.41
2.03
−.11∗
–
.05
.08∗∗
−.25∗∗∗
.04
Note. In parentheses after each scale names are listed: number of items included in the scale to form
a reliable measure; Cronbach’s alpha; scoring per scale item. Where necessary, items were reverse
coded, so that high scores denote high forgiveness, high outgroup contact, more experience of The
Troubles, higher ingroup identification, more positive outgroup attitudes, higher perspective-taking,
and higher trust. There is no Cronbach’s alpha for the single-item feeling-thermometer measure
of outgroup evaluation. Significance of Catholic-Protestant difference: + p < .01; ++ p < .001.
Significance of standardized betas:
∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.
of contact was positively correlated with forgiveness for both groups: Catholics,
r = .31, p < .001; Protestants, r = .34, p < .001).
Next, we looked in more detail at the importance of experience of The Troubles
and the neighborhood violence index as moderators of the association between predictors and forgiveness. Almost identical proportions of Catholics and Protestants
reported direct (19.9%) and indirect experience (Catholics: 27.6%; Protestants:
27.5%). We split the sample into two equal-sized subgroups: “no experience”
(score of 0; 50.4%) and “some experience” (score of 1 or 2, based on direct +
indirect experience; 49.6%). We found that those respondents with high experience reported significantly less forgiveness (M high = 3.86 versus M low = 3.99; p <
.01) and trust (M high = 3.84 versus M low = 3.98; p < .01). Interestingly, however,
contact with friends was significantly correlated with forgiveness (p < .001), for
members of both religious groups, whether they had no or some experience of The
Troubles (no experience: Catholics, r = .25; Protestants, r = .27; some experience:
Catholics, r = .35; Protestants, r = .41).
For the neighborhood violence index, we also created two equal-sized subgroups of “low” and “high” violence (low level: < 1.00 fatal incidents per 1000:
114
Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, and Niens
53.4%; high level: > 1.00 fatal incidents per 1000: 46.6%). We found that respondents living in areas that had experienced high levels of sectarian violence
reported less contact with outgroup friends (M high = 2.17 versus M low = 2.53;
p < .001) and showed lower levels of forgiveness (M high = 3.86 versus M low =
3.97; p < .001), and less outgroup trust (M high = 3.82 versus M low = 3.99; p <
.001) than those living in low-violence areas. However, contact with friends was
significantly correlated with forgiveness (p < .003), for members of both religious
groups, independent of the level of sectarian violence (low level: Catholics, r =
.25; Protestants, r = .36; high level: Catholics, r = .26; Protestants, r = .29).
To summarize, forgiveness was positively associated with trust, perspectivetaking, outgroup attitudes, and contact with outgroup friends. People who had
more negative experience of The Troubles reported less contact with outgroup
friends, and less forgiveness and trust.
General Discussion
We focus our discussion of these studies on three main issues: intergroup
contact, forgiveness, and experience of The Troubles.
Intergroup Contact
Consistent with the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp,
2000), our first study showed that respondents with previous experience of outgroup contact had more positive attitudes toward mixing with members of the
outgroup. Even when prior schooling, education level, and social class were controlled, the positive effect of contact was evident, despite the weaknesses of secondary analysis.
Our second study also showed promising results for intergroup contact. Although a more specific measure of contact with outgroup friends was only a significant predictor of forgiveness for Catholics, this more intimate form of contact
was positively correlated with forgiveness for members of both religious groups.
It must also be emphasized that this preliminary analysis does not allow us to test
more precise and sophisticated models, whereby the effects of contact are mediated by other variables (e.g., contact may work via affective processes such as
perspective- taking; see Pettigrew, 1998). This is the focus of our current work.
We acknowledge that these data are only correlational, and clearly need to
be backed up by both more controlled and extensive experimental studies and
longitudinal research. Nonetheless, there is growing evidence from experimental
and longitudinal work that the path from contact to prejudice is stronger than the
reciprocal path (see Pettigrew, 1997, 1998). Thus our results provide support for
continuing contact schemes as part of peace education in the adult and, especially,
school sectors (Cairns & Hewstone, 2002; McGlynn, Niens, Cairns, & Hewstone,
Contact in Northern Ireland
115
2004) and have important policy implications for interventions aimed at improving intergroup relations in Northern Ireland. In particular, we would argue that the
integrated school sector in Northern Ireland holds the greatest potential for implementing peace education, which embodies the findings noted here (McGlynn
et al., 2004).
Our research indicates that contact can make a difference. However, planned
intergroup contact schemes are still badly needed, because segregation sustains
conflict by creating a social climate that fosters mutual ignorance and suspicion
(Gallagher, 1995). There is, however, safety in segregation, and things are unlikely
to improve dramatically until people feel safer. Residential segregation increased
as a direct result of large population movements in response to intimidation, as
families moved from religiously mixed areas into safe havens dominated by their
coreligionists (Whyte, 1990). Although we believe that segregation is part of the
problem in Northern Ireland (Hewstone et al., 2005), and hence reducing it is part
of the solution, we acknowledge that the issue is a complex one. While segregation may be a pernicious influence on prejudice, recent North American research
has found that among African Americans it is associated with greater feelings of
ingroup acceptance, which itself predicted psychological well-being (Postmes &
Branscombe, 2002). However, this study also reported that segregation was associated with perceived rejection by outgroup members. Clearly, societal solutions
must achieve some kind of trade-off between the benefits and costs of segregation.
Our view is that in the history of conflict in Northern Ireland any benefits (which
have yet to be demonstrated in this context) have been far outweighed by the
costs.
Forgiveness
The strongest positive predictors of forgiveness were measures of outgroup
trust, perspective-taking, and attitude; ingroup identification was a negative predictor, but only for Protestants. Outgroup contact was a significant positive predictor for Catholics only, but was significantly correlated with forgiveness for both
groups. It remains a topic for future research to explore the causal relations between these variables (e.g., does trust promote forgiveness, or vice versa, or do
they mutually influence each other?).
Many interventions to improve intergroup relations focus on improving outgroup attitudes. However, given the corrosive nature of many real-world conflicts,
outgroup liking is often unlikely; and achieving other outcomes may be more realistic and as important (Hewstone et al., 2002). To reduce full-blown intergroup
conflict, effective interventions also need to build trust, address collective guilt and
its related emotions (Doosje, Branscombe, Spears, & Manstead, 1998), and build
intergroup forgiveness (Hewstone et al., 2004). We believe that for the Northern
Irish peace process to be successful in the long run, forgiveness needs to be the
116
Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, and Niens
starting point (Borris & Diehl, 1998) from which reconciliation may follow (see
Enright, Freedman & Rique, 1998).
Experience of The Troubles
Our second study revealed the powerful moderating role of measures of how
closely “affected” by the conflict our respondents were (experience of The Troubles and the neighborhood violence index). Our subjective measure of experience
of The Troubles revealed less forgiveness and trust among those who had suffered
most; yet, there are some grounds for optimism, in that contact with friends was
significantly correlated with forgiveness in both subgroups. Relatedly, levels of
trust and forgiveness were lower among respondents living in areas that had experienced high levels of sectarian violence. For this measure, however, the contact
results were more pessimistic: those who had suffered most reported less contact
with outgroup friends.
Hayes and McAllister (2002) propose that exposure to violence is one of the
reasons for the intractability of the conflict. First, so many people have been victims
of violence. Hayes and McAllister state that by 1998 about one in seven of the adult
population reported direct experience of violence; one in five had had a family
member or close relative injured or killed, and more than half personally knew
someone who had been injured or killed. Second, in both communities exposure to
violence is associated with public support for paramilitary groups; thus violence
breeds violence.
Our results provide yet another reason to stop the violence, because it encourages the two communities in Northern Ireland to grow further apart.
Conclusion
We hope we have shown in this article that research in peace psychology,
which is firmly grounded in social-psychological theory, can make a contribution
to a better understanding of, and hopefully, ultimately resolution of, intergroup
conflict. Moreover, our work exemplifies the feasibility of providing a framework
in which social-psychological theory can be both applied to help one understand
a conflict situation, and used prescriptively to reduce conflict. We have focused
on the potential for cross-community contact to improve intergroup relations in
Northern Ireland, and we firmly believe that in this and in other deeply segregated societies, contact is an essential part of any solution. However, we have also
shown that contact can be effective in promoting improved intergroup relations
in a much broader sense than merely improving outgroup attitudes. Positive experience of cross-community contact also translates into better ways of dealing
with the past (greater forgiveness) and more positive strategies for dealing with the
future (greater trust). In the terms used by Senator George Mitchell (who chaired
Contact in Northern Ireland
117
the Northern Ireland peace talks that led to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement)
positive cross-community contact has a key role to play in “decommissioning of
mind sets” in the long-running conflict in Northern Ireland, and potentially in
many other similar conflicts in our troubled world.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Asher, H. B. (1983). Causal modeling (2nd ed.). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. (1997). Is empathyinduced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
495–509.
Boal, F. W., Keane, M. C., & Livingstone, D. N. (1997). Them and us? Attitudinal variation among
churchgoers in Belfast. Belfast: Institute of Irish Studies, Queen’s University of Belfast.
Borris, E. R., & Diehl, P. F. (1998). Forgiveness, reconciliation and the contribution of international
peacekeeping. In H. Langholtz, (Ed.), The psychology of peacekeeping (pp. 207–222). New
York: Praeger.
Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social
capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 999–1023.
Brown, R. J., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. A. (1986). Explaining intergroup
differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 273–286.
Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Cairns, E. (1982). Intergroup conflict in Northern Ireland. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and
intergroup relations (pp. 277–297). London: Cambridge University Press.
Cairns, E., & Darby, J. (1998). The conflict in Northern Ireland: Causes, consequences, and controls.
American Psychologist, 53, 754–760.
Cairns, E., & Hewstone, M. (2002). The impact of peacemaking in Northern Ireland on intergroup
behaviour. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), The nature and study of peace education (pp.
217–228). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cairns, E., Tam, T., Hewstone, M., & Niens, U. (2005). Forgiveness in Northern Ireland. In E. L.
Worthington (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 461–476). New York: Brunner/Routledge.
Christie, D., & Dawes, A. (2001) Tolerance and solidarity. Peace & Conflict: The Journal of Peace
Psychology, 7, 131–142.
Darby, J., Murray, D., Batts, D., Dunn, S., Farren, S., & Harris, J. (1977). Education and community
in Northern Ireland: Schools apart? Coleraine: The New University of Ulster.
Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Guilty by association: When
one’s group has a negative history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 872–886.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kawakami, K. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past, present and
future. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 5–21.
Dunn, S., & Morgan, V. (1999) A fraught path – education as a basis for developing community relations
in Northern Ireland. Oxford Review of Education, 25, 141–153.
Enright, R. D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In R.
D. Enright & J. Noah (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 46–62). Wisconsin: The University of
Wisconsin Press.
Everitt, B. S., & Dunn, G. (1991). Applied multivariate data analysis. London: Edward Arnold.
Gallagher, A. M. (1995). The approach of government: Community relations and equity. In S. Dunn
(Ed.), Facets of the conflict in Northern Ireland (pp. 27–43). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Haddock, G., Zanna, M. P., & Esses, V. M. (1993). Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes:
The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
1105–1118.
118
Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, and Niens
Hagendoorn, L., & Nekuee, S. (Eds.). (1999). Education and racism: A cross-national inventory of
positive effects of education on ethnic tolerance. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Hamberger, J. (1998). Changing intergroup perceptions: A multi-methodological approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cardiff University, UK.
Hamberger, J., & Hewstone, M. (1997). Inter-ethnic contact as a predictor of blatant and subtle prejudice: Tests of a model in four West European nations. British Journal of Social Psychology,
36(2), 173–190.
Hayes, B. C., & McAllister, I. (2002). Sowing dragon’s teeth: Public support for political violence and
paramilitarism in Northern Ireland. Political Studies, 49, 901–922.
Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the contact
hypothesis. In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters
(pp. 3–44). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Voci, A., McLernon, F., Niens, U., & Noor, M. (2004). Intergroup forgiveness
and guilt in Northern Ireland: Social psychological dimensions of ‘The Troubles’. In N. R.
Branscombe & B. Doosje (Eds.), Collective guilt: International perspectives (pp. 193–215).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Voci, A., Paolini, S., McLernon, F., Crisp, R., & Niens, U. (2005). Intergroup
contact in a divided society: Challenging segregation in Northern Ireland. In D. Abrams, J. M.
Marques, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 265–292).
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53,
575–604.
Hughes, J., & Carmichael, P. (1998). Community relations in Northern Ireland: Attitudes to contact and
segregation. In G. Robinson, D. Heenan, A. M. Gray, & K. Thompson (Eds.), Social attitudes
in Northern Ireland: The seventh report (pp. 1–19). Gower, UK: Aldershot.
Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety,
perceived outgroup variability, and outgroup attitude: An integrative model. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700–710.
Kiecolt, K. J., & Nathan, L. E. (1985). Secondary analysis of survey data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Knox, C., & Hughes, J. (1994). Cross community contact: Northern Ireland and Israel—A comparative
perspective. Ulster Papers in Public Policy and Management, Number 32.
Knox, C., & Hughes, J. (1996). Crossing the divide: Community relations in Northern Ireland. Journal
of Peace Research, 33, 83–98.
Knox, C., & Hughes, J. (1997). Ten years wasted effort?—An overview of community relations in
Northern Ireland. A Report to the Central Community Relations Unit.
McClenahan, C., Cairns, E., Dunn, S., & Morgan, V. (1996). Intergroup friendships: Integrated and desegregated schools in Northern Ireland. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 549–
558.
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C., & Worthington, E. L. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336.
McGlynn, C., Niens, U., Cairns, E. & Hewstone, M. (2004). Moving out of conflict: The contribution
of integrated schools in Northern Ireland to identity, attitudes, forgiveness and reconciliation.
Journal of Peace Education, 1, 147–163.
McLernon, F., Cairns, E., & Hewstone, M. (2002). Views on forgiveness in Northern Ireland. Peace
Review, 14, 285–290.
McLernon, F., Cairns, E., Lewis, C. A., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Memories of recent conflict and
forgiveness in Northern Ireland. In E. Cairns & M. Roe (Eds.), The role of memory in ethnic
conflict (pp. 125–143). Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.
Miller, N., & Brewer, M. B. (Eds.). (1984). Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Mitchell, G. (1999). Making peace. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Morrow, D. (2000). Forgiveness and reconciliation. In Future policies for the past. Democratic Dialogue, Report No. 13. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/dd/report13/report13a.htm.
Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. H. (1975). Statistical package for
the social sciences. New York: McGraw Hill.
Contact in Northern Ireland
119
Niens, U., Cairns, E., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Contact and conflict in Northern Ireland. In O. Hargie
& D. Dickson (Eds.), Researching The Troubles: Social science perspectives on the Northern
Ireland conflict (pp. 123–140). Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing.
Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. (2004). Effects of direct and indirect cross-group
friendships on judgments of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediating role
of an anxiety-reduction mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 770–786.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1986). The contact hypothesis revisited. In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact
and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 169–195). Oxford: Blackwell.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social
Psychological Bulletin, 23,173–185.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–
85.
Pettigrew, T. F., Jackson, J., Ben Brika, J., Lemaine, G., Meertens, R. W., Wagner, U., & Zick, A. (1998).
Outgroup prejudice in Western Europe. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review
of social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 241–273). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice?: Recent metaanalytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination. ‘The Claremont
Symposium on applied social psychology’ (pp. 93–114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. (in press). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology.
Phinney, J. S., Ferguson, D. L., & Tate, J. D. (1997). Intergroup attitudes among ethnic minority
adolescents: A causal model. Child Development, 68, 955–969.
Poole, M. (1982). Religious segregation in urban Northern Ireland. In F. W. Boal & J. N. H. Douglas
(Eds.), Integration and division: Geographical perspectives on the Northern Ireland problem
(pp. 281–308). London: Academic Press.
Poole, M., & Doherty, P. (1996). Ethnic residential segregation in Northern Ireland. Coleraine: University of Ulster Press.
Postmes, T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2002). Influence of long-term racial environmental composition
on subjective well-being in African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
83, 735–751.
Trew, K. (1986). Catholic-Protestant contact in Northern Ireland. In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.),
Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 93–106). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Trew, K., & Benson, D. (1996). Dimensions of social identity in Northern Ireland. In G. M. Breakwell & E. Lyons (Eds.), Changing European identities (pp. 123–143). Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann.
Wagner, U., & Zick, A. (1995). Formal education and ethnic prejudice. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 25, 41–56.
Whyte, J. (1990). Interpreting Northern Ireland. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
MILES HEWSTONE is Professor of Social Psychology and Fellow of New College, Oxford University. He has published widely on the topics of attribution theory, social cognition, stereotyping, and intergroup relations. His current research
focuses on the reduction of intergroup conflict. He is co-founding editor of the
European Review of Social Psychology, and a former editor of the British Journal
of Social Psychology. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and an Honorary
Fellow of the British Psychological Society.
ED CAIRNS is Professor of Psychology in the School of Psychology at the University of Ulster in Coleraine, Northern Ireland. He is a fellow of the British
Psychological Society and former President of the Division of Peace Psychology
of the American Psychological Association. Most of his work has investigated the
120
Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, and Niens
psychological aspects of the conflict in Northern Ireland. His most recent book
(with M. Roe) is The Role of Memory in Ethnic Conflict (Palgrave, 2003).
ALBERTO VOCI is Associate Professor of Social Psychology at the University of
Padua, Italy. His research interests are prejudice reduction, perceptions of group
variability, the antecedents of ingroup bias and, more broadly, the motivational and
cognitive processes related to the dynamics between personal and social identity.
JUERGEN HAMBERGER obtained his Diploma in Social Sciences from the
University of Mannheim, and his PhD in Social Psychology from the University
of Cardiff. He is now working in research in the private sector.
ULRIKE NIENS obtained her Diploma in Psychology at the Free University of
Berlin, and her PhD in social psychology at the University of Ulster. Since 2002,
she has been a Research Fellow with the UNESCO Centre, School of Education,
at the University of Ulster where she leads a research program on citizenship
education and democracy. Her research interests focus on peace education and
conflict studies and include identity, reconciliation, and social change.