Running Head: EFFICACY OF PEACE CAMP

This study examined the validity of the contact hypothesis by evaluating the efficacy of the Creativity for Peace summer camp. Creativity for Peace applies the principles of the contact hypothesis in order to reduce the prejudicial attitudes between Israeli, Palestinian, and Israeli Arab young women. To determine the camp’s ability to reduce explicit prejudice, a mixed design was utilized, in which the between-subjects variable was camper nationality and the within-subjects variable was camp experience. Surveys were given to each camper (N=15) at the beginning and end of camp. Likert scale statements assessed campers’ general prejudiced attitudes and prejudiced attitudes toward Israelis and Palestinians in particular. Two-by-two mixed ANOVAs revealed that camp experience significantly reduced general prejudiced attitudes and attitudes toward Palestinians, at p<.05, while prejudice reduction in attitudes toward Jews only reached marginal significance, at p<0.10. These results indicate that the application of the contact hypothesis can lead to meaningful reductions in prejudice levels, even between deeply conflicted groups. However, throughout the results, attitude change was most apparent in Jews and Palestinians, supporting existing evidence that contact is more effective for individuals from the majority rather than the minority. Efficacy of Peace Camp 3 The Contact Hypothesis Applied: Examining the Efficacy of a Peace Camp An enemy is one whose story we have not heard. Gene Knudeen Hoffman On February 25, 1994 Baruch Goldstein, an American-born Israeli physician, entered Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron with a machine gun in hand. He wore his Israel Defense Forces uniform so as to not appear out of the ordinary. He then opened fire—killing 29 praying Muslims and injuring another 150. He was beaten to death by those that survived. His grave is now a pilgrimage site for the religious Jewish-right. On April 17, 2006, Sami Salim Mohammed, a member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad went to the Rosh Ha’ir shawarma stand, near the old central bus station in Tel Aviv. After being asked by a security guard to open his bag for inspection, Sami detonated himself, killing eleven people and wounding over 60 more. The bomb was laced with nails and other projectiles to inflict as much damage as possible. These are common headlines elicited from the Middle East, particularly Israel. The volatile region has always seemed in turmoil—the battleground for a variety of conflicting groups over the centuries, but since 1991, ethnic violence and intergroup conflict has skyrocketed. The Balkans, Sierra Leon, Rwanda, Burundi, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, Spain, Mexico, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Algeria, Ethiopia, Uganda, and many more countries have all been the battlegrounds of competing groups. These conflicts have been particularly violent, with frequent massacres and high civilian death tolls. Today’s contemporary conflicts are rarely interstate conflicts; more often than not, they are brutal battles between unequal competing groups. These groups not only hold dehumanized stereotypes of one another, but also give their 1 This information was gathered from the Human Rights Watch website. 2 This information was gathered from the Israeli Foreign Ministry website. Efficacy of Peace Camp 4 members positive identities. In this sense, contemporary conflicts, though each conflict is distinct, share the same basic root cause: intergroup conflict. Intergroup conflict’s basis can be understood, in part, by three psychological theories: cognitive categorization theory, social identity theory, and attribution theory. Cognitive categorization theory holds that, because the world is overflowing with stimuli, these stimuli must be categorized and simplified in order for the brain to process as much information as possible. When this theory is applied to the social world, it holds that individuals must divide people into groups in order to effectively deal with the overwhelming number of people in this world. Cognitive categorization theory gives stereotyping a cognitive function. Stereotypes allow individuals to simplify the world by dividing people into distinctive categories (Tajfel, 2001). Thus, not only is stereotype formation natural, it is also necessary. Without categorizing people into groups, we could not effectively act in the world. Unfortunately, upon mere random categorization, people value ingroup members more than they do outgroup members (Dovidio, Kawakami, Gaertner, 2001). These group divisions, once created, are used beyond their modern cognitive purposes. Social identity theory holds that individuals use social categorizations for self-definition that produces self-esteem (Tajfel & Turner, 2001; Tajfel, 2001; Gaertner, Mann, Murell, & Dovidio, 2001; Niens & Cairns, 2001; Druckman, 2001). One places one’s self in a social category. By identifying with this particular social category or group, one determines one’s place within the social world. Group membership thereby allows one to develop a social identity. An individual strives for this identity to be positive. In order for this identity to be positive, ingroup identity must also be positive. This demands the comparison of an ingroup with an outgroup (Niens & Cairns, 2001). Without group comparison, a group evaluation would Efficacy of Peace Camp 5 be impossible. Thus, a relevant outgroup is chosen for comparison. This outgroup needs to be a group that can be differentiated from easily. Often this results in comparison with an outgroup that is in close proximity, which allows easy and constant differentiation. Because the outgroup is nearby and sharing resources, the outgroup is generally a group that the ingroup competes with. This competition generally increases ingroup salience and increases outgroup hostility (Sherif, 1955). Because of these two effects, competition eases the comparative process. In the comparison process, the ingroup’s strengths will often be overemphasized, while the outgroup’s weaknesses will be overvalued. According to social identity theory, what group members’ desire is a feeling of superiority and confidence. The ingroup must be perceived as positively differentiated for the outgroup (Tajfel & Turner, 2001). Regardless of the relevant power between the groups, the comparison process is meant to put the ingroup in a position of ascendancy. In addition, the outgroup is often dehumanized in this comparison process. The best way to claim superiority over another group is to deem the group less than human. Often this includes stripping away outgroup members’ ability to have secondary emotions. Secondary emotions, such as love and compassion, take time to cultivate and are viewed as primarily human emotions. On the other hand, primary emotions, such as anger and fear, are emotions all beings share, including the animals. Demoulin, Leyens, Rodriguez-Torres, Rodriguez-Perez, Paladino, and Fiske (2001) found a strong correlation between dehumanization and denial of secondary emotion. This dehumanization leads ingroup members to perceive their group as an exclusive, legitimately superior human entity. The feeling of superiority leads ingroup members to be highly prejudiced against the outgroup. Additionally, the two groups within the comparison process are often creating mirror images of one another’s beliefs (Pettigrew, 2003). To clarify, Efficacy of Peace Camp 6 both groups consider themselves the ingroup and the other the outgroup. Thus, both groups feel that they are the better, morally superior group. This sets the stage for conflict, as both groups view themselves as the legitimate entity to receive the environment’s resources. Finally, attribution theory explains how such group stereotypes and comparisons can easily be maintained over time. Attribution theory explains how individuals explain, or attribute, causes to effects. When individuals of a group are working within a schema that stresses a positive ingroup identification and negative outgroup devaluation, all new information that is presented to these individuals must first go through the lens of this schema. This affects how one attributes causes to effects because such a schema leads to an automatically biased interpretation of all incoming information. Thus, when the ingroup performs a “good” action, it is attributed to internal causes, such as morality, character, and strength, but when the same “good” action is performed by the outgroup, it is attributed to external factors, or situational factors. The opposite is true for “bad” actions performed by the ingroup or outgroup (Tajfel, 2001; Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2001). Furthermore, in terms of information processing, it has been found that people retain more information more accurately for ingroup members than for outgroup members (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2006). In fact, outgroup members behavior is often interpreted according to the cultural rules of insiders (Pederson, 2001).Thus, even when new evidence contradicting prejudice between ingroups and outgroups is encountered, it is processed in a biased way, which makes it difficult to change social stereotypes. Since many contemporary conflicts are intergroup conflicts between groups in close proximity, it follows that any chance of lasting peace demands not only a cease fire but serious modification of the social cognitive processes about both the ingroup and the outgroup. This is a Efficacy of Peace Camp 7 slightly different way of construing reconciliation. If peace is to be lasting, friendliness and respect must exist between the groups. Thus, any attempt to promote reconciliation should focus on changing the relationship between the parties in conflict (Cheryl de la Rey, 2005). However, because the conflicting groups are often functioning under such pervasive, value giving, usversus-them schemas, it is sometimes necessary for an outside agent to step in during the resolution process. Allport’s (1954) intergroup contact hypothesis suggests a method for intergroup reconciliation, including how an outside agent can promote reconciliation. It proposes a way to change the relationship between conflicting parties. It posits bringing conflicting groups into contact with one another to lessen intergroup prejudice, thus reducing conflict. Briefly, the hypothesis stresses that positive intergroup contact effects will only occur if the following four conditions are met: equal group status within the situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and normative support from authorities (Allport, 1954). Pettigrew (1998) adds a fifth condition: the situation must provide participants with the opportunity to become friends. These conditions create the necessary environment for the following processes, which are necessary for reconciliation, to occur: learning about the outgroup, ingroup reappraisal, changing behavior, and generating affective ties. Only when these processes occur can intergroup contact become an effective means of lessoning intergroup prejudice. Furthermore, generalizations of prejudice reduction across the outgroup and across situations will only occur when these conditions and processes have been realized. The following pages will detail the conditions necessary for positive intergroup contact, the processes occurring during successful intergroup contact, and how the specific contact situation can generalize across situations and to an entire outgroup. Then an application of contact theory will be discussed. Efficacy of Peace Camp 8 Conditions for Successful Intergroup Contact Equal Status Pettigrew (1998) stressed that equal group status was essential within the contact situation. It is important that the groups perceive that they have equal status within the situation because it is very likely that they will not have equal status coming in to the situation. As already discussed, within intergroup conflict situations there is generally a power differential between the groups (de la Rey, 2005). This social context greatly determines how the groups will relate to the contact situation (Sanson & Bretherton, 2001). Studies have shown that positive contact effects have been weaker among minority status groups than majority status groups (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005). Tropp and Pettigrew (2005) suggested that the minority status group fears their group’s devalued status will automatically become an enduring feature of a relationship with the majority status group. Creating equality within the contact situation can assure that there are no longer minority and majority distinctions between the groups. Equality can be created in the contact situation by meeting minority members’ fears head-on. One way to accomplish this is to hold an open discussion about the need for integration, not assimilation, within the contact situation. Often majority group members will prefer assimilation, in which the minority group’s identity would be abandoned and replaced by the majority group’s identity (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2000). The minority group must make clear that it values its own identity. Members of the minority group prefer an integrative relationship, in which both the majority and the minority retain their own cultural identities while also valuing the others’ identity (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2000). In an integrative relationship, cultural distinction remains while minority and majority status dissipates. The equality within the contact situation creates a dynamic in which both groups, the majority and minority, feel both safe and assured that their voice will be heard (de la Rey, 2005). Efficacy of Peace Camp 9 Common Goals Pettigrew’s research (1998; 2001; 2003; 2006) has shown that prejudice reduction through contact requires common goals. Common goals—goals shared by everyone— give the group something to work toward together. Sherif (1955), in particular, focused on how vital superordinate goals were in reducing prejudice. To support his hypothesis, Sherif (1955) set up a research program known as the Robbers Cave Study. This study utilized a boys’ summer camp to 1) create groups, 2) produce friction and tension between these groups, and 3) attempt to reduce intergroup conflict. Sherif (1955) began by separating the boys into two groups. After the boys were in groups, a series of goals were introduced in which one group could only achieve the goal at the expense of the other group. This competition resulted in social distance between the groups (the groups wanted nothing to do with one another), prejudice feelings toward the outgroup, and increased ingroup solidarity (Sherif, 1955). Then Sherif (1955) introduced supraordinate goals—goals that required the groups to work in conjunction. The results were strong. The introduction of supraordinate goals affectively lessoned prejudice and conflict between the groups (Sheriff, 1955). Intergroup Cooperation Intergroup cooperation is closely related to the need for common goals. If there is competition within the quest to achieve the goal, it will do more harm than good. For example, if, on an athletic team, teammates compete with one another to become starters or captain, this will undermine team unity and lengthen the path leading to the goal. A central element of conflict resolution and prejudice reduction is the focus on cooperation rather than competition (Sanson & Bretherton, 2001). Through intergroup cooperation toward a shared goal, intergroup collaboration becomes possible. Institutional Support Institutional support within the contact situation may be one of the most important conditions to produce positive contact effects. Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) found Efficacy of Peace Camp 10 that contact programs with supportive authorities had significantly stronger contact effects than samples without supportive authorities. Perhaps this finding is because the authorities within a contact situation can establish normative standards of behavior for the contact situation (Pettigrew, 1998). If these norms are not established, then participants in the contact situation will feel uncertain. The participants’ concerns about how they should act, how they might be perceived, and whether they will be accepted will remain concerns (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Such feelings will breed anxiety and feelings of threat (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Feelings of anxiety and threat will already be exceedingly common in intergroup contact situations in which groups are embedded within violent, deeply rooted conflicts. Such groups feel that they are victims of seemingly endless, random, unpredictable terror. Terrorist attacks, genocide, and ethnic cleansing can lead to the feeling of being constantly in danger. This undermines an established sense of trust, stability, and confidence in one’s environment (Pettigrew, 2003). This causes the individual to rely less on cognition and more on emotion and stereotypes, accept others less and reject others more easily, perceive the outgroup as extreme and homogeneous, and increases feelings of distrust and prejudice (Pettigrew, 2003). However, the presence of an authority in the contact situation that can mediate between the groups and provide an established set of norms can counteract the collective threat and fear the groups feel toward one another. The authority can model active listening, reduce tension between parties, dissipate high emotions, and keep the negotiations focused on group goals rather than personal agendas throughout the contact situation (Sanson & Bretherton, 2001). The mediator can provide the social context necessary for tolerant norms to develop, which will help decrease the anxiety between the groups by showing them how to act and what to expect (Pettigrew, Christ, Wagner, & Stellmacher, 2007). Efficacy of Peace Camp 11 Ability to Form Friendship Pettigrew (1998; 2006) insists that intergroup contact can only reduce prejudice when the situation fosters personal, intimate intergroup contact. Metaanalytic analyses show that contact’s capacity for prejudice reduction grows when friendships are formed (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Friendship makes possible longer lasting intergroup contact. The longer contact lasts, the more effective it will be. Friendship also aids selfdisclosure and compassionate listening, which facilitates all of the processes (learning about the outgroup, ingroup reappraisal, behavioral change, and generating affective ties) occurring during the contact situation. Aberson, Shoemaker, and Tomolillo (2004) discuss how interethnic friendships produce greater prejudice reduction than does contact without friendship. Indirect friendship, which is friendship with an outgroup member indirectly through a mutual friend, has also been found to greatly reduce prejudice. The power of indirect friendship means that intergroup contact is not only positive for participants but also for those nonparticipants that are friends with the participants (Pettigrew et al., 2007). Simply having friends with outgroup friends can lesson one’s ingroup bias and outgroup devaluation. This effect has often been referred to as the ripple effect. By changing one person’s attitudes, many people are changed because the changed individual changes those around him/her as well; thus creating an ever-expanding ripple. Processes at Work Learning about Outgroup and Ingroup Reappraisal Although two separate processes, learning about the outgroup and ingroup reappraisal are such intimately connected processes that it does not make sense to discuss them in separate sections. Learning about the outgroup leads one to ingroup reappraisal, and ingroup reappraisal leads to new feelings about the outgroup. Within intergroup contact situations, group information is being shared daily, repeatedly. In a Efficacy of Peace Camp 12 structured program, active listening skills are taught. Active listening skills involve empathy, reflection, summarizing, and body language, which show the speaker that he/she is truly being heard (Sanson & Bretherton, 2001). The contacts situation’s authorities also monitor and guide reflexive dialogue. This reflexive dialogue allows the conflicting groups to articulate to each other their cultural differences and differing perspectives on truth (Rey, 2001). The intergroup contact process allows the ingroup members to learn about the outgroup, particularly the outgroup’s views on truth and the outgroup’s characteristics. One of the central points of contention between two conflicting groups concerns the truth of the conflict situation. Each side has its own interpretation of the past and present conflict situation. Through contact the groups can begin to realize the role of perspective in defining truth. Rey (2001) discusses how one side’s freedom fighter is very often another side’s terrorist. Only through dialogue will the ingroup learn the outgroup’s perspectives on the truth. Intergroup contact allows the ingroup to realize that the outgroup shares many of the same basic attitudes and values (Niens & Cairns, 2001). Nearly all individuals and groups share the same basic needs of safety and security and value honesty, loyalty, and love. Once these similarities are discovered, ingroup boundaries can become more permeable. Further intergroup contact shows ingroup members that there is individual variability within the outgroup. Often ingroup members feel that their group is diverse, while the outgroup is homogenous and uniform (Tajfel & Turner, 2001). Interacting with multiple members of an outgroup will allow ingroup members to realize that there is variability within the outgroup as well. By learning about the outgroup, intergroup contact causes ingroup reappraisal. As already mentioned, the mere classification of people into groups results in ingroup bias. When one takes into consideration the tremendous amount of self-esteem created by group Efficacy of Peace Camp 13 membership, it is easy to see why ingroup preference is common. Thus, when groups are in conflict, it is difficult for an individual to betray his/her ingroup by befriending a member of the outgroup (Tajfel & Turner, 2001). Intergroup contact, however, can lead to ingroup reappraisal and recategorization. By engaging in dialogue with members of their own group, ingroup members realize individual differences between themselves. This encourages ingroup members to view themselves less as group members and more as individuals. By conceiving of themselves as individuals, group members will distance themselves from their respective groups (Gaertner et al., 2001). Furthermore, learning about the outgroup leads to the realization that there are many similarities between ingroup and outgroup members. As ingroup and outgroup members grow closer, they begin to perceive themselves as members of one big family, the human family (Gaertner et al., 2001). The rigidity of ingroup boundaries can be overcome and a dual identity can be created. Ingroup members realize that they are not only members of their particular group but also members of the entire human race (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2001). This allows ingroup members to establish strong relations with “outgroup” members without losing the ingroup membership that is so vital to one’s core identity. Change Behavior Behavioral change can be a first step toward attitudinal change. New situations require conforming to new expectations and new norms of behavior. If these expectations include acceptance of outgroup members, this behavior has the potential to produce attitudinal change (Pettigrew, 1998). The difference between attitude and behavior creates cognitive dissonance. This dissonance is particularly acute if long-term friendships are formed. To resolve the dissonance, attitudes change. Consistent contact, which reiterates these behavioral norms and attitudinal expectations, cements these attitudinal changes. Efficacy of Peace Camp 14 Generating Affective Ties As was discussed earlier, when groups are acting out of collective threat and fear, they are relying much more heavily on their emotions. Anxiety is common during initial intergroup contact (Pettigrew, 1998). Therefore, generating affective ties between ingroup and outgroup members is vital. Positive emotions aid in overcoming the anxiety experienced during contact situations. Additionally, emotional investment is pivotal in the formation of intergroup friendships. Empathy also aids in the process of mutual understanding between groups. It is empathy that truly allows one to understand an outsider (Sanson & Bretherton, 2001). Affective ties thus facilitate the processes of outgroup learning and ingroup reappraisal. As previously discussed, research has also shown a strong correlation between a lack of secondary emotions and dehumanization (Demoulin et al., 2001). By definition, dehumanization means ingroup bias and outgroup derogation (Demoulin et al., 2001). Research has shown that when secondary emotions are attributed to an outgroup, the ingroup is more likely to see members of the outgroup as human (Demoulin et al., 2001). Thus generating affective ties, such as love, empathy, and compassion is also key. Generating these ties will undermine the dehumanization of the outgroup. Generalizations Across Situations It is always a danger that the effect created by intergroup contact situations will not generalize to other situations (Wilder, 2001). For example, perhaps the contact occurs outside of the groups’ socio-cultural context. Some argue that the effects generated within the contact situation will end when the situation returns to the normal sociocultural context. However, according to Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2006) meta-analytic study, intergroup contact’s effects appear to be much broader than often assumed. It seems that Efficacy of Peace Camp 15 intergroup contact can generalize across diverse situations, including when group members reenter their original socio-historical contexts. Thus, if conflicting African American and Caucasian youth from Detroit’s inner-cities enter a contact program in the Kansas plains, it is likely that the positive effects experienced during the program will continue upon their return to the city. Across Outgroup Because structured intergroup contact often involves individual ingroup members meeting individual outgroup members, there is the possibility that an outgroup member will simply be disassociated from his/her group (Wilder, 2001). Outgroup members that have positive interactions with ingroup members could be deemed atypical, or exceptions to the rule (Wilder, 2001). This would prevent generalizations from occurring from the individual to the entire outgroup. Thus, prejudice against the outgroup would continue. However, if the outgroup member is perceived as a typical outgroup member then generalization to the entire outgroup can be successful (Wilder, 2001). Since intergroup contact involves recategorization, which includes the maintenance of one’s own cultural identity, generalization is possible. In fact, according to a meta-analysis of 713 independent samples from 515 studies, generalization from the individuals involved in the contact situation to the entire outgroup situation as a whole is common (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Creativity for Peace This study is going to focus on one reconciliation program that is based on the contact hypothesis. Creativity for Peace is a non-profit organization that hosts a three-week summer camp for Israeli and Palestinian youth. Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, and Palestinians all attend the camp. The camp meets the necessary conditions and facilitates the necessary processes, Examples of how the camp meets the criteria of the contact hypothesis will be described below. Efficacy of Peace Camp 16 In the camp, camp administrators attempt to insure that the five conditions necessary for optimal prejudice reduction are met at all times. For example, all groups are considered equal. It is made clear during the initial dialogue session that all people have an equal right to be heard and that all groups are victims. All individuals have an equal share in the chores and an equal opportunity to take part in fun activities like swimming and shopping. Punishments for breaking the rules are the same regardless of camper nationality. General and specific shared goals are also set. The entire camp aims at producing healing and understanding. Specific intergroup goals, such as completing art projects or devising a skit to perform in front of camp donors, are set. Completion of these tasks requires intergroup cooperation. For example, in a ropes course, Jewish girls are paired with Palestinians girls. Unless the girls help one another they cannot successfully complete the course. Furthermore, successful completion of the ropes course relies on the support of all other campers, as those who observe must be belayers. Thus, if the entire group does not work together, the group does not complete the task and someone could seriously be injured. All of these tasks are encouraged by those that run the camp. For example, the staff pairs Jewish and Palestinian girls together for all activities, assigns girls from both groups to share the same bedroom and do the same chores, and constantly models compassionate dialogue. Friendship formation is encouraged along every step of the way. Creativity for Peace specifically uses fun, typical teenage activities to facilitate friendship formation. Since the camp creates the necessary conditions, it enables the girls to open up and to go through the necessary processes that reduce prejudiced attitudes. Creativity for Peace also uses specific exercises that facilitate these processes. For example, the camp uses dialogue and storytelling to reach mutual understanding, so that ingroups learn about the outgroup and reappraise their ingroup boundaries. The girls are taught to see themselves as part of a greater Efficacy of Peace Camp 17 human family, rather than strictly as a Palestinians or a Jew. The camp also stresses behavioral change. Within the dialogue sessions, the girls are required to listen to one another and respect one another. In many of the group activities, they are forced to work together to accomplish the given goal. By acting respectfully toward one another, they slowly begin to actually respect one another. Finally, throughout the camp experience, the girls are encouraged to be empathetic, to care for one another’s suffering, and to want the best for one another. These emotional ties bind the girls together so that their friendships will continue long after they go home. Based on this information, it is hypothesized that the intergroup contact situation created at Creativity for Peace’s summer camp will effectively reduce prejudice. Specifically, it will improve campers’ general attitudes about the situation and about peace, decrease campers’ prejudiced attitudes toward Israeli Jews, and decrease campers’ prejudice attitudes toward Palestinians. Positive affective ties will be generated, which will be evidenced by increased feelings of warmth for outgroups. Also, the social distance between the groups will be reduced. Method Participants The participants were the 15 women attending the Creativity for Peace summer camp, which took place in Glorieta, New Mexico. To attend the camp, each camper voluntarily went through a competitive individual application and selection process, which made the inclusion of a control group impossible. Participants ranged in age from 15 to 18 years. Seven of the women were Israeli Jews. Four were Palestinians living in Israel, also know as Israeli Arabs, and four were Palestinians living in the West Bank. Their participation in the study was voluntary as well. Measures Attitudinal change was measured through a survey the researcher constructed. However, the survey was based on previously used measures of prejudicial attitude change, such Efficacy of Peace Camp 18 as the Ulster Project surveys and social distance scales. The survey and all directions were in English. Because all surveys were in English, the researcher and translators were on hand to jointly answer any clarification questions. The survey was divided into four sections: demographics, social distance scale, Likert scale questions, and feeling thermometers. The survey included 11 demographic questions. These questions recorded age, previous peace camp experience, type of hometown (i.e. city, village, kibbutz, ect.), nationality, religious affiliation, and previous hurtful encounters with the “other.” Five Point Likert scale questions were also included to gage importance of nationality, strength of religious affiliation, and depth of hurt. Finally, parental and self support of peace was recorded on a 5 point Likert scale. These questions were included in order to check for possible moderating variables. Following these questions, a social distance scale was presented. The participants were asked to place an X in the categories they were willing to admit members of Israeli Jewish, Israeli Arab, and Palestinian groups. The categories included “would marry into group,” “would have as close friend,” “would have as next door neighbor,” “would work in same office,” “would have as an acquaintance,” “would have as a visitor to my nation,” and “would not allow in my nation.” They were asked to respond based on their perceptions of the group as a whole. Each category of the social distance scale was assigned a number, such that increasing numbers represented increasing social distance. Thus, the category “would marry into group” was assigned a value of 1, while “would not allow into my nation” was assigned a value of 7. Participants were then asked to determine how much they agreed with 23 statements on a five point Likert scale. Four statements assessed campers’ prejudiced attitudes toward Israeli Jews. For example, participants were asked to rate how much they agreed with the statement: “Israeli Jews feel guilty when the army kills a civilian.” Four other statements assessed campers’ Efficacy of Peace Camp 19 prejudiced attitudes toward Palestinians. A sample statement was “Palestinians feel remorse after a suicide bombing.” The last fifteen statements assessed campers’ general attitudes about the situation. There were statements such as, “Peace is possible” and “Israeli Jews and Palestinians fear the same things.” The final section of the survey asked the participants to indicate their feelings of warmth or coolness toward each nationality on a feeling thermometer. They were asked to report the temperature, between 0 and 100 degrees Celsius, they felt toward Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, and Palestinians. This entire survey is included in Appendix 1. Procedure Participants took the survey immediately upon their arrival at camp. The Israeli citizens arrived a day earlier than the Palestinians; thus the Israelis took the survey one day earlier than the Palestinians. The survey was administered in small groups of two to five. Informed consent was obtained. The participants then took part in all camp activities for the following three weeks, which included living together, doing chores together, dialogues, art courses, ropes courses, and outside fun activities. All participants then took an identical survey on the last day of camp. This time the survey was administered in a group setting. The participants were then debriefed and thanked for their time. Results Because this study had only 15 participants, marginally significant (p<0.10) results and trends will be considered alongside significant results. Change in Attitudes Twenty-three five point Likert scale questions assessed attitude change. The questions were subdivided into three sections that measured general attitudes about peace, attitudes toward Jews, and attitudes toward Palestinians. Questions within each subcategory were averaged to Efficacy of Peace Camp 20 give campers a pre-camp and post-camp score. Higher averages represented a less prejudiced outlook, with 1 being the most prejudice and 5 being the least prejudiced. The subsections that measured general attitudes about peace and attitudes toward Jews were both reliable. The Cronbach’s alpha of the pre-camp general attitudes about peace section was .80, while this section had a post-camp alpha of .83. The Cronbach’s alpha of the pre-camp attitude toward the Jews section was .78, while the post-camp alpha of this section was .74. Only the reliability of the questions measuring attitudes toward Palestinians was questionable, as the pre-camp Cronbach’s alpha was .50 and the post-camp alpha was .43. General Attitudes about Peace A 2x2 mixed ANOVA was performed to assess the affect of nationality (between-subjects variable) and camp experience (within-subjects variable) on general attitudes about peace. The main effect of camp experience on general attitudes was significant, such that the camp experience led to higher, more peaceful scores (F(1,12)=11.06, p<.01). Although there was no significant interaction between camp experience and nationality, (F(2,12)=2.33, p=.12), a look at Figure 1 reveals that Jews and Palestinians seemed to change quite a bit (M=.74 and M=.67, respectively). They are mostly likely responsible for the main effect, as the Israeli Arabs barely changed (M=.04). Dependent t-tests were used to asses the effects of the camp experience on each nationality’s level of prejudice. Only the Jews became significantly more peaceful over time, (t(6)=4.71, p<.01). The Palestinians’ attitude change was next closest to statistical significance, (t(3)=1.54, p=.22), but the Israeli Arabs were far from reaching a statistically significant degree of attitude change (t(3)=.25, p=.82). Efficacy of Peace Camp 21 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Jews Israeli Arabs Palestinians Nationality Li ke rt S ca le S co re s Pre Scores Post Scores Attitudes toward Jews A 2x2 mixed ANOVA was performed to ascertain the effect of nationality (between-subjects variable) and camp experience (within-subjects variable) on campers’ prejudice levels toward the Jews. The main effect of camp experience on prejudice toward the Jews was not significant at the .05 alpha level; however, it was marginally significant, such that the camp experience often resulted in less prejudiced attitudes (F(1,12)=4.28, p=.06). There was no significant interaction between camp experience and nationality, (F(2,12)=2.35, p=.14), but a quick look at Figure 2 revealed that Palestinians and Israeli Jews seemed to change the most on average in their attitudes toward the Jews (M=1.13 and M=.64, respectively). These groups appear most responsible for the marginally significant main effect that was reached. Figure 1. The effect of camp experience and nationality on campers’ general prejudice attitudes. The error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Efficacy of Peace Camp 22 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Jews Israeli Arabs Palestinians Nationality Li ke rt S ca le S co re s Pre Scores Post Scores Attitudes toward Palestinians Even though Cronbach’s alpha was low for this subsection, a 2x2 mixed ANOVA was still performed to determine the effect of nationality (between-subjects variable) and camp experience (within-subjects variable) on campers’ prejudice attitudes toward Palestinians. The main effect of camp experience on prejudice level toward Palestinians was statistically significant, such that the camp experience resulted in less prejudiced attitudes (F(1,12)=4.95, p<.05). Although there was no significant interaction between camp experience and nationality, (F(2,12)=.28, p=.76), a look at the averages represented in Figure 3 revealed that Palestinians and Jews seemed to change the most on average in their attitudes toward Palestinians (M=.50 and M=.39, respectively). Thus, these groups accounted for most of the statistical significance. Israeli Arabs changed the least on average in their attitudes toward the Palestinians (M=.19). Figure 2. The effect of camp experience and nationality on campers’ prejudice attitudes toward Israeli Jews. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Efficacy of Peace Camp 23 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Jews Israeli Arabs Palestinians Nationality Li ke rt S ca le S co re s Pre Scores Post Scores Changes in Warmth Felt Toward Each Group A feeling thermometer, from 0 to 100 degrees Celsius, was used to ascertain the level of warmth each individual felt toward the Israeli Jews, the Palestinians, and the Israeli Arabs. Each nationality’s pre-camp and post-camp average feeling of warmth toward each nationality, including its own, was calculated. Higher averages represented warmer feelings. Warmth Felt Toward Jews A 2x2 mixed ANOVA was performed to evaluate the effect of nationality (between-subjects variable) and camp experience (within-subjects variable) on the campers’ self-reported feelings of warmth toward the Jews. The main effect of camp experience on feelings of warmth toward the Jews was statistically significant, such that the camp experience resulted in warmer feelings toward the Jews (F(1,12)=8.56, p=.01). There was also a significant interaction between camp experience and nationality, (F(2,12)=5.47, p<.05). As can be seen in Figure 4, in this interaction, Palestinians increased their feelings of warmth the most (M=40.00), followed by Israeli Arabs (M=10.71). Jews actually felt slightly cooler about themselves by the end of the camp experience (M=-2.14). Dependent t-tests were then run to Figure 3. The effect of camp experience and nationality on campers’ prejudice attitudes toward Palestinians. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Efficacy of Peace Camp 24 help explain the interaction. Only the Palestinians’ increased warmth toward the Jews was statistically significant, (t(4)=4.50, p=.02). 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Jews Israeli Arabs Palestinians Feelings Toward De gr ee s of W ar m th Pre Jewish Feelings Post Jewish Feelings Warmth Felt Toward Palestinians A 2x2 mixed ANOVA was performed to discover the effects of nationality (between-subjects variable) and camp experience (within-subjects variable) on campers’ self-reported feelings of warmth for the Palestinians. The main effect of camp experience on feelings of warmth toward Palestinians was not statistically significant, (F(1,12)=1.99, p=.18). There was also no significant interaction between camp experience and nationality. However, it seems that the Israeli Jews greatly increased their feelings of warmth for the Palestinians (M=27.86), while the Israeli Arabs and Palestinians did not change at all in their feelings of warmth. This difference can be seen in Figure 5. Figure 4. The effect of camp experience and nationality on campers’ self-reported feelings of warmth for Israeli Jews. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Efficacy of Peace Camp 25 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Jews Israeli Arabs Palestinians Feelings Toward De gr ee s of W ar m th Pre Palestinian Feelings Post Palestinian Feelings Warmth Felt Toward Israeli-Arabs A 2x2 mixed ANOVA was performed to learn what effect nationality (between-subjects variable) and camp experience (within-subjects variable) had on campers’ self-reported feelings of warmth for the Israeli Arabs. The main effect of camp experience on feelings of warmth toward Israeli Arabs was not statistically significant, (F(1,12)=1.611, p=.228). Neither was there a significant interaction between camp experience and nationality. A quick look at Figure 6 reveals that each of the nationalities increased slightly in the warmth they felt for the Israeli Arabs. There was very little difference between the average increases. Jews seemed to increase the most in their warmth toward the Israeli Arabs, (M=10.714). However, the Palestinians and the Israeli Arabs were very close behind, (M=6.25, M=5.00, respectively). Figure 5. The effect of camp experience and nationality on campers’ self-reported feelings of warmth for Palestinians. Orr bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Efficacy of Peace Camp 26 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Jews Israeli Arabs Palestinians Feelings Toward De gr ee s of W ar m th Pre Israeli Arab Feelings Post Israeli Arab Feelings Change in Social Distance Each nationality’s pre-camp and post-camp social distance scores toward each nationality, included their own, was averaged. A 2x2 mixed ANOVA was then run to assess the effect of nationality (between-subjects variable) and camp experience (within-subjects variable) on social distance; however, no effect was found. In fact, pre-camp and post-camp scores were almost identical in all cases. It appears that a ceiling effect occurred. A look at figure 7 reveals that the greatest amount of social distance was reported by the Palestinians in regards to the Jews. However, the Palestinians’ average pre-scores and post-scores were M=2.0 and M=2.5, respectively. This means that Palestinians were somewhere between willing to have a Jew as a close friend or a neighbor. Since marrying a member of the outgroup is a complete social taboo, it is not realistic to think the Palestinians could have had any less social distance between themselves and the Jews. Figure 6. The effect of camp experience and nationality on campers’ self-reported feelings of warmth for Israeli Arabs. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Efficacy of Peace Camp 27 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 Jews Israeli Arabs Palestinians Nationality In cr ea si ng S oc ia l D is ta nc e Pre Jewish SD Post Jewish SD Pre Israeli Arab SD Post Israeli Arab SD Pre Palestinian SD Post Palestinian SD Correlation Analyses Correlational analysis was used to check for any variables that moderated campers’ degree of change. Although no statistically significant moderators were found, there was one interesting and significant correlation for Israeli Jews and Palestinians. For both groups, importance of nationality correlated with importance of religion (r(5)=.844, p<.05 and r(2)=1, p<.001, respectively). This strong correlation may suggest that nationality and religion are both strong factors in the conflict situation. Discussion The results indicate that Creativity for Peace, through its use of the contact hypothesis, was able to diminish the prejudice levels of its Middle Eastern campers, especially the Israeli Jews and the Palestinians. It was able to create more peaceful general attitudes and more peaceful attitudes toward Israeli Jews and Palestinians in particular. Jews and Palestinians felt considerably warmer toward one another. Overall, the results show how powerful contact can be when occurring under the necessary conditions. Figure 7. The pre and post-camp average social distance scores for each nationality toward each nationality. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Efficacy of Peace Camp 28 Implications on the Contact Hypothesis However, not all of these results reached statistical significance. This study’s results, though meaningful and promising, do suggest possible weaknesses in the contact hypothesis or Creativity for Peace’s application of the contact hypothesis. For example, it could be that contact is less effective in deep, violent conflicts or that Creativity for Peace’s three week summer camp is not a long enough contact period. The application of the contact hypothesis might not be as effective at reducing prejudice between very violent, prejudiced groups. A majority of the research on the contact hypothesis has examined race relations in the United States. Although there is a substantial amount of prejudice between whites and blacks in the United States, the prejudice between Israelis and Palestinians often erupts into violence. In Israel and Palestine, suicide bombings and army executions are not uncommon. Thus, the prejudice between these latter groups might be more intense. Furthermore, the sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are isolated from one another. Many of the campers have never had contact with a member from the other side (outside of possible suicide bombings and Israeli checkpoints). This also differentiates the campers of Creativity for Peace from whites and blacks in the United States. Most Americans have heard of, witnessed, or been a part of positive contact between the races. For example, increasing desegregation in the work place had led to increasing contact between the races on a daily basis (Tomaskovic-Devey et al., 2006). Thus, it could be that structured contact programs are sufficient to greatly reduce the relatively minimal prejudice felt between the races in the United States but are not powerful enough to ease the prejudice between Israelis and Palestinians who have been taught to hate each other since birth. This line of reasoning is not trying to argue that Efficacy of Peace Camp 29 the results of this study indicate that contact is completely ineffective in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; rather, the results suggest that contact, even if it does occur under the right conditions, may simply not be enough to erode the deep-seeded prejudice existing between Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, and Palestinians. The results could also indicate that the contact situation created by Creativity for Peace needs to be longer. These Israeli and Palestinian campers have been indoctrinated to hate each other since birth. They know each other as enemies, as the cause of all of their problems. At the beginning of camp, some of the campers at Creativity for Peace are afraid to sleep in the same room with one another. They fear that the other side will hurt them in their sleep. Perhaps it is somewhat naïve and over ambitious to think three weeks of contact will significantly reduce their prejudice levels. It could be that a longer contact period is needed in order to significantly erode prejudice. However, only manipulating the contact period’s length could conclusively reveal whether an ideal, or significantly more effective, length exists. However, less-than-significant results could also be the result of the low number of participants included in this study. This line of reasoning suggests that, although not all of the results are statistically significant, most of them, such as those measuring attitudes and feelings of warmth, are clinically significant. Clinical significance indicates that real and meaningful changes occurred in the participants’ prejudice levels because of Creativity for Peace’s application of the contact hypothesis. For instance, the Jews and Palestinians changed quite a bit in their attitudes toward the Jews. Jews became sixty-four-hundredths of a point more positive on average. On a 1 to 5 scale, an increase of sixty-four-hundreds is a big increase. Furthermore, Palestinians increased their scores 1.13 points on average. They went from being slightly prejudiced to slightly positive! This is a huge change. Yet both changes failed to reach Efficacy of Peace Camp 30 statistical significance, which supports the results being clinically significant. Therefore, overall it seems that the results support the contact hypothesis’ ability to reduce prejudice, even between groups deeply embroiled in conflict. Examining the Israeli Arabs There was one nationality that stood out from the rest: the Israeli Arabs. The Israeli Arabs’ results implied that they were completely unfazed by the contact situation created by Creativity for Peace. The Israeli Arabs’ never significantly increased or decreased their prejudice levels. In fact, they barely changed their attitudes or feelings toward any group. I would like to propose two possible explanations for this trend. The first, which is that the contact hypothesis is challenged by minorities, points to a possible limitation of the contact hypothesis. The second—that Israeli Arabs were rather positive to begin with and thus did not have much room to change—says little about the contact hypothesis but has several positive implications on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Contact Ineffective for Minorities Perhaps it is because the Israeli Arabs are the minority that they are the least affected by the contact experience. Although people often think of the Palestinians as the minority in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I would posit that it is the third side in the conflict, the Israeli Arabs, who are the true minority. First, they are the smallest group, with only 1.4 million people, while the Palestinians have around 3.8 million people and the Israeli Jews have about 5.4 million people. Second, most people around the world fail to notice or realize their existence. Naming the conflict the Israeli-Palestinian conflict automatically suggests the Israeli-Arabs as the minority. It sets the conflict up between two rivals for power, completely ignoring the smaller, third group left in between. As the minority, the Israeli Arabs might pose a challenge to the contact hypothesis. 3 These statistics are from IsraeliPalestinianProCon.org. Efficacy of Peace Camp 31 Previous research has found that contact is less effective at changing minorities’ prejudiced attitudes (Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2007; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005; Aberson, Shoemaker, & Tomolillo, 2004; Poore et al., 2002). Researchers have suggested that minorities could be less affected by the contact situation because it makes them more fully aware of the injustices perpetrated against them. This newfound awareness keeps the minority group from fully embracing the majority because it is the majority that has often perpetrated and perpetuated these injustices (Poore et al., 2002). Tropp and Pettigrew (2005) suggested that minority group members fear their devalued status will become an enduring aspect of their relationship with the majority. This fear also keeps minority group members from engaging fully in the contact situation, which lessons the situation’s effect on minority group members. Minority group members may be affected by the contact situation, but the effect will remain rather small because they never become fully engaged in the contact situation. It seems that both of these forces could have been acting against the Israeli Arabs at Creativity for Peace. When they first arrive at camp, the Israeli Arabs often consider themselves lucky. In comparison to the Palestinians, they are living like kings, and in Israel, they are isolated from the Jews, so they are not fully aware of the rights that have been denied them. However, when they finally encounter Israeli Jews and Palestinians, everything changes. They discover how many rights they lack in Israel, but worst of all, they realize that the Palestinians dislike them because they are Israeli, while the Jews dislike them because they are Arab. The Israeli Arab campers suddenly feel as if no one wants them or accepts them. Both sides reject them. Perhaps these feelings of undeserved rejection keep the girls from warming to the other sides. Efficacy of Peace Camp 32 Furthermore, although Creativity for Peace recognizes all three sides of the IsraeliPalestinian conflict, its focus, like the focus of the rest of the world, is on the Jewish and Palestinian sides. Creativity for Peace refers to the Israeli Arabs as possible “bridges of peace” because they are both Israeli and Arab. This is a positive distinction. However, referring to the Israeli Arabs in this way almost minimizes their victimization. Their victimhood is not the primary focus of Creativity for Peace. They receive less attention. In a way, they are an afterthought. Therefore, they are not equal in the contact situation, which could keep them from fully engaging in the contact situation because they fear they will always remain unequal in their relations with the majority group. If these are the forces that are keeping the contact experience from being effective for the Israeli Arabs, then this study highlights just how challenged contact organizations, and the contact hypothesis in general, might be by minority populations. Contact theory might need an overhaul, in order to take the minority viewpoint into greater account. Since the contact hypothesis has been developed by white, male, Americans, perhaps minorities need to have their say. It is possible that the majority’s theorists have overlooked key conditions necessary for minority attitude change. Israeli Arabs as Bridges However, there is another way to interpret the results generated by the Israeli Arabs. If one looks back at the graphs, one will see that, although the Israeli Arabs rarely change their attitudes dramatically, their attitudes were always positive. Overall, they were often the least prejudiced of all the groups. They started out with somewhat peaceful attitudes and ended with somewhat peaceful attitudes. Thus, Israeli Arab attitudes might not have changed significantly because there was little room for them to change. Perhaps because of their dual identities they came to Creativity for Peace already seeing much good in both sides while also recognizing the bad. The camp experience could have simply reinforced their world Efficacy of Peace Camp 33 view. Both sides are victims, and both sides are aggressors. Perhaps instead of implying the weakness of the contact hypothesis to deal with the conflict, these results confirm Creativity for Peace’s stance that the Israeli Arabs could serve as bridges to peace. They do not favor a side nor are they blind to the atrocities of war. Rather, they see the good in both sides while also seeing the room for improvement. Future Research As mentioned earlier, this study lacked a large number of participants. Only when data collection is done over several years and many camp sessions can results conclusively indicate the ability of the contact hypothesis to reduce prejudice in a region as volatile as the Middle East. It would be of great benefit to gather data from Creativity for Peace year after year to see if the same trends always emerge from each camp session. It is possible that different group dynamics or differing home environments (i.e. overt conflict vs. covert tension at home) could affect how big or small prejudice reduction is. Even then, however, the results could only indicate if the contact situation is effective at reducing prejudice within the situation. Examining whether campers’ prejudice levels remain reduced when they return to their home environment would require longitudinal research. It is possible that the campers revert back to their former attitudes upon returning home. Although Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2006) meta-analytic study gives one hope that this is not the case, hoping does not make it so. Further data collection from these campers would be required to see if their newfound positive attitudes are resilient over time. It would also be interesting to examine if the girls have a positive impact on their friends and family once they return home. Some research has suggested that indirect friendship with the outgroup (friendship with someone who is friends with a member of the outgroup) is successful at reducing prejudice (Pettigrew, 2006). If future data supported this Efficacy of Peace Camp 34 suggestion, then one could say that organizations like Creativity for Peace trigger a ripple effect in the campers’ community. Thus, longitudinal research could be a meaningful area of future research. Determining the camp’s ability to lessen implicit prejudice would also be another fruitful avenue of future research. Previous research has found that direct friendship is particularly useful in eliminating implicit prejudice or bias (Henry & Hardin, 2006; Aberson, Shoemaker, & Tomolillo, 2006). In today’s politically correct world, overt expressions of prejudice are becoming increasingly rare (Dividio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2001). However, it seems that an aversive, implicit prejudice that is more subtle, unintentional, and perhaps even unconscious is becoming more common (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2001). This process is undoubtedly occurring in the Middle East as well. It could be especially prevalent at Creativity for Peace’s camp, as the social climate at the camp is one of openness and caring. Dual-process models of prejudice have suggested that implicit prejudice is impervious to change and conscious control (Henry & Hardin, 2006). However, recent research has begun to challenge this long-standing belief by demonstrating that it can be reduced or even reversed by contact situations like Creativity for Peace (Henry & Hardin, 2006; Aberson, Shoemaker, & Tomolillo, 2006). Aberson, Shoemaker, and Tomolillo (2004) discuss how Caucasians exhibited less implicit bias toward African Americans when in the presence of an African American experimenter instead of a Caucasian experimenter. Thus, even simple, unstructured contact, is enough to affect implicit attitudes. Dovidio, Kawakami, and Gaertner (2001) take this further by suggesting that if implicit attitudes and stereotypes can be learned, then they can be unlearned or inhibited by countervailing influences through extensive retraining. Such extensive retraining is most likely to occur when friendships are established between ingroup and outgroup members Efficacy of Peace Camp 35 (Aberson, Shoemaker, & Tomolillo, 2004). This is because conversations between friends can lead to the discovery of contradictions among self-conceptions, values, and attitudes that impede the dissolution of stereotypes. This arouses a state of dissatisfaction which motivates participants to believe and behave in ways that are no longer prejudiced (Dividio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2001). When a participant consciously and consistently works to dissolve his/her prejudiced implicit feelings, implicit biases can be overcome. Friendships with outgroup members provide the necessary motivation to walk the long road to overcoming adverse prejudice. Because Creativity for Peace strives to foster intergroup friendships, then it is possible that Creativity for Peace is helping to diminish implicit prejudice. However, only future research would be able to demonstrate if its endeavor is successful. Conclusion Although this study is not definitive, it supports the ability of the contact hypothesis to reduce prejudice when it is applied. It is possible that contact is not enough to reduce the deepseated hatred felt between deeply embroiled, indoctrinated groups, such as those of the IsraeliPalestinian conflict, yet most of the results seem to indicate clinically significant and meaningful changes in the amount of prejudice these campers feel for one another. It seems that more data collection and longitudinal research are necessary to make any definitive claims about the abilities of organizations like Creativity for Peace to reduce prejudice. Efficacy of Peace Camp 36 ReferencesAberson, C.L., Shoemaker, C., & Tomolillo, C. (2004). Implicit bias and contact: The role ofinterethnic friendships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(3), 335-347.Allport, G.W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley PublishingCompany, Inc.Demoulin, S., Leyens, J., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Rodriguez-Perez, A., Paladina, P.M., & Fiske,S.T. (2005). Motivation to support a desired conclusion versus motivation to avoid anundesirable conclusion: The cause of infra-humanization. International Journal ofPsychology, 40(6), 416-428.Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2007). Intergroup contact and attitudes toward theprinciple and practice of racial equality. Psychological Science, 18(10), 867-872.Dovidio, J.F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S.L. (2000). Reducing contemporary prejudice:Combating explicit and implicit bias at the individual and intergroup level. In. S.Oskamp, Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination (137-161), Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Publishers.Druckman, D. (2001). Nationalism and war: A social-psychological perspective. In. D.J.Christie, & D. Winter, Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21stCentury (pp. 49-65). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.Gaertner, S.L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J.F. (2001). Reducing intergroup bias: Thebenefits of recategorization. In. M.A. Hogg & D. Abrams, Intergroup Relations:Essential Readings (356-369), United Kingdom: Psychology Press. Efficacy of Peace Camp 37 Gawronski, B. (2002). What does the implicit association test measure? A test of convergent anddiscriminant validity of prejudice-related IATs. Experimental Psychology, 49(3),171-180.Henry, P.J., & Hardin, C.D. (2006). The contact hypothesis revisited: Status bias in the reductionof implicit prejudice in the United States and Lebanon. Psychological Science, 17(10),862-868.McKay, S., & Mazurana, D. (2001). Gendering peacebuilding. In. D.J. Christie, & D. Winter,Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century (pp. 341-349).Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.Niens, U., & Cairns, E. (2001). Intrastate violence. In. D.J. Christie, & D. Winter, Peace,Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century (pp. 39-48). Upper Saddle,NJ: Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.Pedersen, P.B. (2001). The cultural context of peacemaking. In. D.J. Christie, & D. Winter,Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century (pp. 39-48). UpperSaddle, NJ: Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review Psychology, 49, 65-85.Pettigrew, T.F. (2003). Peoples under threat. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology,9(1), 69-90.Pettigrew, T.F., & Tropp, L.R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783.Pettigrew, T.F., Christ, O., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J. (2006). International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 31, 411-425. Efficacy of Peace Camp 38 Poore, A.G., Gagne, F., Barlow, K.M., Lydon, J.E., Taylor, D.M., & Wright, S.C. (2002).Contact and the person-group discrimination discrepancy in an Inuit community.Journal of Psychology, 136, 371-382.Rey, C. (2001) Reconciliation in divided societies. In. D.J. Christie, & D. Winter, Peace,Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century (pp. 39-48). Upper Saddle,NJ: Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.Sanson, A. & Bretherton, D. (2001). Conflict resolution: Theoretical and practical issues. In. D.J.Christie, & D. Winter, Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21stCentury (pp. 193-209). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.Sherif, Muzafer. (1955). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. In. Bickman,& Henchy, Beyond the Laboratory: Field Research in Social Psychology (pp. 199-204).New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. (2001). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In. M.A. Hogg & D.Abrams, Intergroup Relations: Essential Readings (94-109), United Kingdom:Psychology Press.Tajfel, H. (2001). Social stereotypes and social groups. In. M.A. Hogg & D. Abrams, IntergroupRelations: Essential Readings (132-145), United Kingdom: Psychology Press. Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Zimmer, C., Stainback, K., Robinson, C., Taylor, T., & McTague, T.(2006). Documenting desegregation: Segregation in the American workplace by race,ethnicity, and sex, 1966-2003. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 565-568. Tropp, L.R., & Pettigrew, T.F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudiceamong minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16(12), 951-957. Efficacy of Peace Camp 39 Wessells, M., Schwebel, M., Anderson, A. (2001). Psychologists making a difference in thepublic arena: Building cultures of peace. In. D.J. Christie, & D. Winter, Peace, Conflict,and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century (pp. 350-362). Upper Saddle, NJ:Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.Wilder, D.A. (2001). Intergroup contact: The typical member and the exception to the rule. In.M.A. Hogg & D. Abrams, Intergroup Relations: Essential Readings (370-381), UnitedKingdom: Psychology Press. Efficacy of Peace Camp 40 Appendix 1. Survey used in study 1.Survey Questions1) How old are you? _______2) How would you describe the place you live?a. A big cityb. Small cityc. Townd. Villagee. Kibbutzf. Other: ___________ 3) Which nationality best describes you:a. Israeli Jewb. Israeli Arabc. Palestiniand. Druzee. Palestinian living in Israelf. Otherg. None4) How important is your nationality to you?Not at all SlightlyVeryImportant Important Neutral Important Important----|------------|------------|------------|------------|----123455) Have you ever taken part in a peace camp before?a. Yesb. No6) How much do your parents support peace between Palestinians and Israelis? Not at all A little NeutralA lot Completely----|------------|------------|------------|------------|----123457) What is your religion? ______________________ Efficacy of Peace Camp 41 8) How important is your religion to your everyday life?Not at all SlightlyVeryImportant Important Neutral Important Important----|------------|------------|------------|------------|----123459) How important is it for Israelis and Palestinian to live together?Not at all SlightlyVeryImportant Important Neutral Important Important----|------------|------------|------------|------------|----12345 10) Have you ever been hurt by the other side?a. Yesb. No11) If so, how deeply were you hurt?Not at all A little NeutralA lot Completely----|------------|------------|------------|------------|----12345Based on what you think of Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, and Palestinians AS A GROUP, place anX where you would be willing to admit members of each group. You may put as many X’s onthe table as you want. WouldmarryintogroupWouldhave asclosefriendWouldhave asnext doorneighborWould workin sameofficeHave asacquaintanceonlyHave asvisitors onlyto my nationWould notallow inmy nation