Intergroup Contact, Forgiveness, and Experience of “The

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 CairnsUniversity of Ulster

Alberto VociUniversity of Padua

Juergen HambergerGVK Bio, Hamburg

Ulrike NiensUniversity of Ulster

Two studies used random sample surveys to test the “contact hypothesis” on in-tergroup attitudes of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. In Study 1,archival data from two different surveys in 1989 (N = 310 Catholics, 422 Protes-tants) and 1991 (N = 319 Catholics, 478 Protestants) showed that contact waspositively related to attitudes toward denominational mixing. Study 2 (N = 391Catholics, 647 Protestants) explored predictors of intergroup forgiveness, andalso showed that intergroup contact was positively related to outgroup attitudes,perspective-taking, and trust (even among those who had a worse experience ofsectarian conflict). These studies indicate that research in peace psychology can

∗Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Miles Hewstone, De-partment of Experimental Psychology, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD, UK. [e-mail:[email protected]]. We wish to express our gratitude to the Templeton Foundation, fortheir generous funding of part of the work reported here, and to M. Poole for his help with the neigh-borhood violence index used in Study 2. The term, The Troubles is now widely understood to refer tocontemporary problems in Northern Ireland; it has, in fact, been used to refer to unrest in Ireland sinceat least 1880, and James Joyce’s Ulysses (published in 1922) refers to “Times of the troubles” (OxfordEnglish 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 duecourse, contribute to its resolution.

If there is ever to be a durable peace and genuine reconciliation, what is really needed is thedecommissioning of mind-sets in Northern Ireland. That means that trust and confidencemust be built, over time, by actions in all parts of society. (Senator George Mitchell, Makingpeace, 1999, p. 37)

The possibility that intergroup contact might be a means to improve inter-group relations can be traced to the work of Gordon Allport (1954). In his ground-breaking publication The Nature of Prejudice, Allport influenced research for thenext 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 examinedthe hypothesis in a range of societies, including several that were experiencingextreme forms of conflict (Israel, South Africa, and Northern Ireland). As Christieand Dawes (2001) have pointed out, for too long psychologists appeared to devotetheir efforts to understanding intolerance without contributing to its elimination.The contact hypothesis, however, provides both an intervention and a theoreticalframework, and has contributed greatly to the fact that psychology is now in itsbest position ever to make a contribution to the advancement of world peace byactively promoting intergroup tolerance.

The Current Research

Northern Ireland provides a useful context within which to explore the Con-tact Hypothesis because the main policy initiatives that have been pursued inorder to transform the conflict have concentrated on making contact betweenCatholics and Protestants possible (see Cairns & Hewstone, 2002; Hewstoneet al., 2005; Hughes & Carmichael, 1998; Niens, Cairns, & Hewstone, 2003;Trew, 1986).

In this article, we will address the question, “Has contact made a differenceto intergroup attitudes in the context of the conflict in Northern Ireland?” To thisend, we will begin by examining archival data on attitudes toward intergroupcontact in Northern Ireland, and related variables such as education and socialclass. 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, classis typically positively associated with both contact and tolerance (e.g., Hamberger& Hewstone, 1997; Pettigrew, 1997); moreover, middle class and upper classresidential areas are often more mixed, which again may affect people’s attitudestoward, as well as their opportunity for intergroup contact (Poole, 1982).

We will then move on to outline some recent research where we focus onthe 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 outgroupforgiveness (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 Irelandis basically a struggle between those who wish to see Northern Ireland remain partof the United Kingdom (Protestants/Unionists/Loyalists), who make up about 50%of the population, and those (Catholics/Nationalists/Republicans) who wish to seethe unification of the island of Ireland (about 40%). This conflict is underpinnedby historical, religious, political, economic, and psychological elements. Theseelements lie behind the violence that has spanned the last 30 years and has led todeath and injury, has increased community divisions, and had deleterious effectson mental health (Cairns & Darby, 1998).

Segregation and Contact in Northern Ireland

A crucial characteristic of Northern Irish society that helps explain manyaspects of the conflict is the extreme degree to which the two religious communitiesare 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 highlysegregated (Gallagher, 1995, estimates that 95% of school-age children in NorthernIreland attend denominational schools). Support for this school system comes fromboth communities, even though in surveys the majority of the population claimthey would support integrated education (see Hughes & Carmichael, 1998) orwould, at least, like to see some mixing between pupils from different schools(see Boal, Keane, & Livingstone, 1997). There are currently only 57 IntegratedSchools, 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 NorthernIreland (Poole, 1982). Whyte (1990) estimates that only about 35% to 40 % ofthe population live in segregated neighborhoods, which means that more than50% of the population live in mixed neighborhoods. Therefore, unlike some otherapparently intractable conflicts, the potential for contact between members of thetwo communities exists in many areas (Cairns & Darby, 1998; Trew, 1986). Forexample, in the cities, even where working class housing areas in particular aremore highly segregated, people often travel out of their own area to work, thusincreasing 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


two communities (Hewstone et al., 2005). Because the problem of segregationand its relevance for the Northern Ireland conflict has been recognized for quitesome time, policies and methods to reduce the extent of segregation and to in-crease opportunities for intergroup contact have been introduced. The importanceof these initiatives can be gauged by the fact that in 1995/96, government depart-ments in Northern Ireland spent £5.3 million on improving community relations(Knox & Hughes, 1996). These funds went to a range of projects from “CulturalTraditions” 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 havefunded peace education (see Dunn & Morgan, 1999) through projects encouragingcontact between Catholic and Protestant schools, and more recently through thedevelopment 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 andProtestants possible (Knox & Hughes, 1997).

The Contact Hypothesis in Northern Ireland

In its simplest form, the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954; Brown & Hew-stone, 2005; Hewstone & Brown, 1986; Pettigrew, 1986) proposes that bringingtogether individuals, from opposing groups, can reduce intergroup conflict “underoptimal conditions” (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000). Allport (1954) suggested the re-duction of intergroup conflict was most likely if four conditions were met. First,there should be equal status contact between members of majority and minor-ity groups. Second, they should pursue common goals. Third, contact should besanctioned by institutional supports. Fourth, contact should be of the kind thatleads to the perception of common interests and humanity between members ofthe two groups. More recently, Pettigrew (1998) has highlighted the importanceof positive affective processes in explaining what makes contact effective. Specif-ically, he noted that contact could have its positive effects via variables such asreduced anxiety and increased empathy, perspective-taking, and self-disclosure(a claim substantiated by Brown & Hewstone’s, 2005, recent review). Extensivemeta-analytic support for the contact hypothesis is presented by Pettigrew andTropp (in press).

In this article we will summarize two studies that have used data from randomsample surveys of the adult population of Northern Ireland to examine the effectof contact in a divided society. In the first study we report secondary analyses ofsurvey data from a limited set of measures designed to explore attitudes towardintergroup contact (specifically, attitudes toward “mixing” with the other group).This is an important criterion variable, because it allows us to assess whetherprior contact makes people more, or less, willing to engage in future contact with


the outgroup (see, e.g., Boal et al., 1997). These studies were carried out in twodifferent representative samples, in 1989 and 1991, thus providing the opportunityto 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 associationbetween intergroup contact and forgiveness.

Study 1

In this study we reanalyzed archival data sets that were not originally plannedas tests of the contact hypothesis. This secondary analysis of data has advantagesand disadvantages as a methodological tool (see Kiecolt & Nathan, 1985). A mainadvantage 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 theoriginal compilers of the survey, and indeed measures of some of the key constructs(notably the measures of contact) are suboptimal. To provide independent tests ofthe proposed model, we first developed a model for the 1989 data, and then testedthat model on the 1991 data set. We analyzed data separately for Catholic andProtestant subsamples for three reasons. The first is to provide independent testsof the model. The second is that historically the two groups have been both socialand numerical minority and majority, respectively (Whyte, 1990). This means, forexample, that Protestants would be expected to have higher mean values on socialclass and education, and that Catholics would have greater opportunities for cross-group contact. Third, Catholics have tended to report more favorable outgroupattitudes than have Protestants (see Whyte, 1990).

Method

Samples. The data in this study come from two independent probability sur-veys carried out in February–March 1989 and 1991 under the aegis of the “NorthernIreland Social Attitude Survey.” The surveys were designed to yield a represen-tative sample of all adults aged 18 years or more living in Northern Ireland (forfurther information on sampling and items, see Hamberger, 1998). When thosewho 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 avail-able in both surveys. These consisted of, first, standard measures of educationallevel (based on highest level of qualification) and social class (based on degree of


skill). To assess past experience of integrated schooling, respondents were askedwhether they had “ever attended a mixed or integrated school,” which was furtherspecified as a school with “fairly large numbers of both Catholic and Protes-tant children.” The response format was “1 = yes, in Northern Ireland,” “2 =yes, somewhere else,” “3 = no, have not.” This variable was reverse coded, withhigher values indicating more past experience of integrated schooling in NorthernIreland. Three questions were used to assess contact. The first question was, “abouthow 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 contactwith the other religious group. All respondents who answered “don’t know” to anyof these items were assigned missing values and excluded from further analyses.Although the contact scale did not reach the conventional Cronbach’s alpha levelof .7 (even when items were selectively deleted), the alphas based on only threeitems were considered acceptable in each of the surveys (1989: .59; 1991: .55).

Our criterion variable, attitudes toward mixing with the outgroup (i.e., atti-tudes toward intergroup contact), was formed by summing six items that askedrespondents if they were in favor of more mixing or more separation in (a) primaryschools, (b) secondary schools (including those which select by ability), (c) wherepeople 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 attitudestoward mixing with the outgroup, and the scale was highly reliable in each of thesurveys (1989: .92; 1991: .92).

All measures were normally distributed with the exception of “(past) inte-grated schooling” (due to the vast majority of respondents attending schools withunequal numbers of Catholic and Protestant pupils); these scores were thereforelog-transformed.

Results and Discussion

Pearson product-moment correlations between all variables, computed sepa-rately for Catholics and Protestants in each survey, are shown in Table 1. Althoughthe correlations between education and class were highly significant, they did notcorrelate with other variables in exactly the same way, so we included both as sep-arate predictors. It should also be noted that with large samples small correlationsmay attain significance, hence they should be interpreted with caution; however,given the nature of the data set, we believe that even small, but significant, corre-lations are impressive. In this article we focus on path analyses that test whetherattitudes 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 dataset). Path analyses (see Everitt & Dunn, 1991), rather than structural equation


Table 1. Correlations between Predictor and Criterion Variables (Study 1)

Measure (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

(1) Education1989 .48∗∗∗ .03 .01 .19∗∗∗1991 .54∗∗∗ .13∗∗ .13∗∗ .17∗∗∗

(2) Class1989 .55∗∗∗ .03 .09 .25∗∗∗1991 .64∗∗∗ .05 .12∗ .13∗∗

(3) Integrated schooling1989 −.01 .15∗∗ .02 .17∗∗1991 .11∗ .02 .11∗ .08

(4) Contact1989 .16∗∗ .11∗ .11∗ .18∗∗∗1991 .22∗∗∗ .33∗∗∗ .18∗∗ .30∗∗∗

(5) Attitude to contact1989 .19∗ .20∗∗ .14 .33∗∗∗1991 .09 .01 .04 .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 usingonly 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 sig-nificance level of p < .10; however, in view of the large sample sizes, we focus onthe overall variance explained in each path model.

For the path analysis, three regressions were computed, using the forced entryprocedure (see, e.g., Hamberger & Hewstone, 1997; Islam & Hewstone, 1993).That is, all relevant predictor variables were entered simultaneously into the re-gression. Thus, in a first step, the criterion variable (attitude toward mixing withthe outgroup) was regressed on all the predictors simultaneously (education, class,past integrated schooling, and contact). In a second step, contact was regressedon education and class. Finally, since we assumed that past integrated schoolingwould be predicted by the level of education and social status, we computed a thirdregression with integrated schooling as the criterion variable. We report standard-ized regression coefficients below, because they enable us to compare the relativeimportance of several predictors measured in different units. To compare the rela-tive importance of each of the predictors on the criterion variable, all the predictorsare standardized before being entered in the regression procedure. Because theseare cross-sectional data we cannot, of course, draw conclusions about cause andeffect. However, we tested a model consistent with the contact hypothesis (i.e.,contact predicts attitudes, rather than vice versa), hence we will refer to attitudeas the criterion variable, and contact and other variables as “predictors,” as isconventional when using regression techniques.

The path diagram summarizing the results for the Catholic subsample (forthe 1989 survey) is shown in Figure 1. In this figure the strength of each path


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,” whichare 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 rep-resents 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 variablehas an indirect effect, this may be evident from the fact that the simple correlationbetween the two measures is substantially higher than the path coefficient (seetotal covariance, shown in Tables 3 and 4).

As can be seen, there were two significant predictors of attitude toward mixingwith 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 simul-taneous regression of attitudes toward mixing on all the predictors. The modelalso shows that contact was predicted only by education (β = .16), and past inte-grated schooling was predicted positively by social class (β = .21) and negativelyby education (β = –.12). To summarize this model, we can conclude that themeasure of contact appears to be the central and most reliable predictor. Contactpredicts attitude toward mixing with the outgroup, and is in turn predicted byeducation.

The path model for the Protestant subsample is shown in Figure 2. Attitudetoward mixing with the outgroup was predicted by three variables: past integrated


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). Levelsof 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 modelaccounted for 12% of the variance in the criterion variable. Only class was apredictor of contact (β = .10).

We then tested the same model on the 1991 samples, and standardized regres-sion coefficients are shown in Table 2. At first glance, the number of significantpaths seems to be rather low. However, the results yield clear empirical evidencefor the role of contact as a predictor of attitudes toward outgroup mixing. In allsubsamples, and partialing out the effects of other variables, only contact made aconsistent, significant contribution to explaining variance in the criterion variable.Moreover, in all cases the direction of the path coefficient was positive, indicatingthat respondents who reported having more contact with outgroup members helda 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 overallgoodness of fit of this model, we decomposed the total covariance (correlation)between each pair of variables in the model (except the relations of education andclass, and contact with past integrated schooling). The results of these analyses areshown 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 spu-rious effects, which are those that are explained by variables not specified in the


Table 2. Standardized Regression Coefficients for 1989 and 1991 Surveys

1989 1991

Catholics Protestants Catholics ProtestantsPaths (N = 310) (N = 422) (N = 319) (N = 478)

Attitude/contact .30∗∗∗ .18∗∗∗ .24∗∗∗ .29∗∗∗Attitude/integrated school .09 .13∗∗ .06 .01Attitude/education .11 .04 −.05 .09Attitude/class .10 .23∗∗∗ −.04 .04Int. school/education −.12∗ .01 .13∗ .15∗∗Int. school/class .21∗∗ .02 −.06 −.03Contact/education .16∗ −.02 .04 .09Contact/class .03 .10 .31∗∗∗ .07Int. school/contact .11∗ .02 .17∗∗ .11∗Education/class .55∗∗∗ .48∗∗∗ .64∗∗∗ .54∗∗∗R2 contact .03 .01 .11 .02R2 integrated schooling .03 .00 .01 .02R2 total .15 .12 .06 .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 variablein 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 indicatinga good fit of the model to the data in all three samples. Finally, we computed aseries of χ2 analyses (see Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner & Bent, 1975, p. 394)to test restricted models (without the assumption of a direct path from contact toattitude toward mixing with the outgroup). In all four subsamples, excluding con-tact as a predictor from the equation led to significantly weaker prediction (criticallevel 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 relianceon secondary analysis of existing data sets, was successful in providing supportfor the contact hypothesis based on survey data in Northern Ireland. Contact pre-dicted the criterion variable, attitude toward mixing with the outgroup, and wasthe only predictor that consistently and significantly explained variance in thisattitudinal outcome. It is not, however, possible to say what aspects of contactcontribute positively in this way. The measure chosen for the original survey is, interms of face validity, a measure of contact quantity ( “about how many of yourfriends/relatives/neighbors. . .”), but because one of the items asks specificallyabout 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 preferredhere to merge them to yield a more reliable measure of contact.


Table 3. Correlation Decomposition for Catholics (1989)

Causal EffectsTotal Total Noncausal

Bivariate Relationship Covariance Direct Indirect Effect Effects

Attitude–contact .325∗∗∗ .297∗∗∗ .297 .028Attitude–Int. school .144∗ .092 .092 .052Attitude–education .192∗∗ .111 .157 × .297 = .047 .147 .045

−.119 × .092 = .011.215 × .092 = .020

Attitude–class .195∗∗ .097 .029 × .297 = .009 .126 .069Int. school– education −.007 −.119∗ – −.119 .112Int. school–class .149∗∗ .215∗∗ – .215 −.066Contact–education .164∗∗ .157∗ – .157 .007Contact–class .114∗ .029 – .029 .085Int. school–contact .106∗ – – – –Education–class .550∗∗∗ – – – –

Note. Levels of significance ∗p < .10; ∗∗p < .01; ∗∗∗p < .001.

Study 2

Our second, and more recent, study provided an opportunity to overcomesome of the limitations of this earlier study. Given the recent evidence for thespecial impact of outgroup friends (e.g., Pettigrew, 1998), we focused on thisaspect of intergroup contact. There is increasing evidence that contact based onpersonal friendships is particularly effective in reducing prejudice (Hamberger& Hewstone, 1997; Pettigrew, 1997, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, in press; Phinneyet al., 1997). It appears to be such a potent form of contact because of its potential to

Table 4. Correlation Decomposition for Protestants (1989)

Causal EffectsTotal Total NoncausalBivariate Relationship Covariance Direct Indirect Effect Effects

Attitude–contact .185∗∗∗ .179∗∗∗ .179 .006Attitude–int. school .171∗∗∗ .134 .134 .037Attitude–education .185∗∗∗ .039 .015 × .134 =.0021 .037 .148

−.023 × .179 = .0041.019 × .134 = .0025

Attitude–class .247∗∗∗ .226∗∗∗ .098 × .179 = .017 .245 .002Int. school–education .032 .015 – .015 .017Int. school–class .029 .019 – .019 .01Contact–education .013 −.023 – −.023 .036Contact–class .086 .098 – .098 −.012Int. School–contact .023 – – – –Education–class .485∗∗∗ – – – –

Note. Levels of significance ∗p < .10; ∗∗p < .01; ∗∗∗p < .001.


generate positive orientations and emotions like perspective-taking and empathy,and to reduce the negative emotion of anxiety, all important mediators of the effectsof contact (Brown & Hewstone, 2005).

We were also, more generally, interested in the issue of intergroup forgivenessin Northern Ireland (see Hewstone et al., 2004). Because intergroup bias is such apervasive phenomenon, present at public and private, explicit and implicit levels(see Hewstone Rubin, & Willis, 2002), we should not be surprised if we findevidence 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 thosewho have suffered directly. But because friendships promote positive orientationsand effectively challenge intolerance, we hypothesized that outgroup friends wouldbe a significant predictor of forgiveness. To our knowledge, no prior research hasinvestigated whether contact is related to outgroup forgiveness, a variable thatmay be correlated with outgroup attitudes, but is conceptually quite distinct (seeHewstone et al., 2004, 2005).

We also explored several other potential predictors of forgiveness, includ-ing both social-psychological perceptions and measures of personal experience ofsectarian incidents and violence in Northern Ireland. As a psychological factor,identification with one of the two religious communities has been shown to playan important role in the maintenance of the conflict in Northern Ireland (Cairns,1982; Trew & Benson, 1996), with those most strongly identified with their eth-nic group having most entrenched attitudes. We adapted an established scale tomeasure identification with own religious group (see Brown, Condor, Mathews,Wade, & Williams, 1986). We also assessed attitude toward the outgroup, us-ing a highly reliable single-item feeling thermometer (see Haddock, Zanna, &Esses, 1993).

The relationship between trust and forgiveness is, as yet, unclear. Some schol-ars see trust as a potential benefit to the injured/forgiving party associated withforgiveness, while others argue that trust is a necessary precursor of forgiveness(see McLernon, Cairns, & Hewstone, 2002). What the literature lacks are studiesexamining trust and distrust in real intergroup conflicts, where the restoration oftrust is essential to the survival of the individuals involved, as well as the commu-nity as a whole. We adapted Brehm and Rahn’s (1997) measure of trust, worded tomeasure outgroup trust. We also measured perspective-taking (the cognitive com-ponent of empathy), which has been found to be associated with prosocial moti-vation, altruism, and forgiveness (e.g., Batson et al., 1997; McCullough, Rachal,& Worthington, 1997), and we adapted items from Davis’ (1994) InterpersonalReactivity Index for this particular intergroup context.

Finally, we used two measures to tap respondents’ personal experience ofsectarianism. Previous surveys in Northern Ireland have used a standard measureof direct and indirect experience of ”The Troubles” (see Boal et al., 1997; Hayes


& 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 asummary and overview of some of the more interesting findings, focusing oncontact and other predictors of forgiveness.

Method

Sample. Respondents were 1,038 adults, comprising a representative sam-ple of the Northern Irish population, who provided complete data on all the keymeasures in a survey we commissioned from the Northern Ireland Statistics andResearch Agency in May, 2000 (391 Catholics, 647 Protestants).

Measures. Correlations between the variables are shown in Table 5. The num-ber of items used to measure each construct, the scoring procedure, and the re-liability of scales are reported in Table 6. Our measure of intergroup forgivenessconsisted of a 7-item scale developed for this research and based on the responsesof 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 retaliateagainst political violence”; “Only when the two communities of Northern Irelandlearn 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 oftendo you visit friends who are from the other community in their home?”); (2) ashort measure of experience of “The Troubles” (one item each asked whether therespondent had suffered directly, and one whether family or a close friend hadsuffered); (3) ingroup identification (based on Brown et al.’s, 1986, scale; e.g., “Iidentify 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 tolook at both communities’ side of the conflict in Northern Ireland before I makea decision”); (5) outgroup trust (items based on Brehm & Rahn, 1997; e.g., “Gen-erally speaking, would you say that most members of the other community canbe trusted or that you can’t be too careful with people?”); and (6) neighborhoodviolence index (by working with a demographer, we were able to assign a scoreto each respondent, based on how much sectarian violence had taken place intheir residential area). We used the neighborhood violence index as well as thesubjective measure of experience of The Troubles. In fact, the items were sig-nificantly, 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 onelives.


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 corre-lations between all variables, computed separately for Catholics and Protestants,are shown in Table 5; notably, there were significant positive correlations betweencontact with outgroup friends and forgiveness, trust, and perspective-taking (buta negative correlation with neighborhood violence). Table 6 shows the summarydata for the results from this survey. We first computed t-tests to compare Catholicand Protestant respondents on all measures. Catholics showed greater outgroupforgiveness, more positive outgroup attitudes, greater outgroup perspective-takingand outgroup trust than Protestants, but they also showed higher ingroup iden-tification. Consistent with the literature (Hayes & McAllister, 2002), the meanneighborhood violence index for Catholics was significantly higher than that forProtestants, although there was no difference in self-reported experience of TheTroubles.

We regressed forgiveness on all the predictors simultaneously, computingseparate equations for Catholic and Protestant respondents. Explained variancewas quite good for Catholics (R2 = .23) and especially Protestants (R2 = .41).The strongest positive predictors of forgiveness were outgroup trust, outgroupperspective-taking, and outgroup attitude; for Protestants only, ingroup identifica-tion 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) Outgroupforgiveness

.34∗∗∗ −.09∗ −.39∗∗∗ .35∗∗∗ .42∗∗∗ .52∗∗∗ −.09

(2) Contact withoutgroupfriends

.31∗∗∗ .06 −.28 .23∗∗∗ .25∗∗∗ .49∗∗∗ −.13∗∗∗

(3) Experience oftroubles

−.08 −.13∗ .00 −.05 .03 −.01 .14∗∗∗

(4) Ingroupidentification

−.02 −.17∗∗∗ .09 −.04 −.18∗∗∗ −.30∗∗∗ .00

(5) Outgroupattitude

.24∗∗∗ .14∗∗ −.03 .03 .29∗∗∗ .39∗∗∗ −.06

(6) Outgroupperspectivetaking

.27∗∗∗ .21∗∗∗ .00 −.04 .19∗∗∗ .40∗∗∗ −.01

(7) Outgroup trust .41∗∗∗ .41∗∗∗ −.18∗∗∗ −.06 .35∗∗∗ .31∗∗∗ −.07(8) Neighborhood

violence−.19∗∗∗ −.39∗∗∗ .11∗ .03 .03 −.02 −.18∗∗∗

Note. Catholics below the diagonal and Protestants above; ∗p < .05; ∗∗p < .01; ∗∗∗p < .001.


Table 6. Mean Scores as a Function of Religion, Catholic-Protestant Differences, and StandardizedRegression Coefficients with Forgiveness as Criterion (Study 2)

Mean scores Standardized β

Catholics Protestants (Criterion = Forgiveness)Measure (N = 391) (N = 647) Catholics Protestants

Outgroup forgiveness(7; .74; 1−5)++ 4.07 3.82 – –Contact with outgroupfriends (4; .83; 1−4) 2.39 2.35 .12∗ .05Experience of The Troubles(2; .62; 0/1) 0.69 0.70 −.02 .08∗∗Ingroup identification(3; .89; 1−5)++ 3.70 3.39 .01 −.25∗∗∗Outgroup attitude(1; n/a; 0−100)++ 60.93 55.01 .13∗∗∗ .16∗∗∗Outgroup perspective-taking(2; .66; 1−5)+ 3.46 3.29 .14∗∗ .21∗∗∗Outgroup trust(3; .86; 1−5)++ 4.04 3.83 .24∗∗∗ .26∗∗∗Neighborhoodviolence++ 2.41 2.03 −.11∗ .04

Note. In parentheses after each scale names are listed: number of items included in the scale to forma reliable measure; Cronbach’s alpha; scoring per scale item. Where necessary, items were reversecoded, so that high scores denote high forgiveness, high outgroup contact, more experience of TheTroubles, 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 measureof 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 Troublesand the neighborhood violence index as moderators of the association between pre-dictors and forgiveness. Almost identical proportions of Catholics and Protestantsreported 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 experi-ence reported significantly less forgiveness (Mhigh = 3.86 versus Mlow = 3.99; p <.01) and trust (Mhigh = 3.84 versus Mlow = 3.98; p < .01). Interestingly, however,contact with friends was significantly correlated with forgiveness (p < .001), formembers of both religious groups, whether they had no or some experience of TheTroubles (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 sub-groups of “low” and “high” violence (low level: < 1.00 fatal incidents per 1000:


53.4%; high level: >1.00 fatal incidents per 1000: 46.6%). We found that re-spondents living in areas that had experienced high levels of sectarian violencereported less contact with outgroup friends (Mhigh = 2.17 versus Mlow = 2.53;p < .001) and showed lower levels of forgiveness (Mhigh = 3.86 versus Mlow =3.97; p < .001), and less outgroup trust (Mhigh = 3.82 versus Mlow = 3.99; p <.001) than those living in low-violence areas. However, contact with friends wassignificantly correlated with forgiveness (p < .003), for members of both religiousgroups, 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, perspective-taking, outgroup attitudes, and contact with outgroup friends. People who hadmore negative experience of The Troubles reported less contact with outgroupfriends, and less forgiveness and trust.

General Discussion

We focus our discussion of these studies on three main issues: intergroupcontact, 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 out-group contact had more positive attitudes toward mixing with members of theoutgroup. Even when prior schooling, education level, and social class were con-trolled, the positive effect of contact was evident, despite the weaknesses of sec-ondary analysis.

Our second study also showed promising results for intergroup contact. Al-though a more specific measure of contact with outgroup friends was only a sig-nificant predictor of forgiveness for Catholics, this more intimate form of contactwas positively correlated with forgiveness for members of both religious groups.It must also be emphasized that this preliminary analysis does not allow us to testmore precise and sophisticated models, whereby the effects of contact are me-diated by other variables (e.g., contact may work via affective processes such asperspective- taking; see Pettigrew, 1998). This is the focus of our current work.

We acknowledge that these data are only correlational, and clearly need tobe backed up by both more controlled and extensive experimental studies andlongitudinal research. Nonetheless, there is growing evidence from experimentaland longitudinal work that the path from contact to prejudice is stronger than thereciprocal path (see Pettigrew, 1997, 1998). Thus our results provide support forcontinuing contact schemes as part of peace education in the adult and, especially,school sectors (Cairns & Hewstone, 2002; McGlynn, Niens, Cairns, & Hewstone,


2004) and have important policy implications for interventions aimed at improv-ing intergroup relations in Northern Ireland. In particular, we would argue that theintegrated school sector in Northern Ireland holds the greatest potential for im-plementing peace education, which embodies the findings noted here (McGlynnet al., 2004).

Our research indicates that contact can make a difference. However, plannedintergroup contact schemes are still badly needed, because segregation sustainsconflict by creating a social climate that fosters mutual ignorance and suspicion(Gallagher, 1995). There is, however, safety in segregation, and things are unlikelyto improve dramatically until people feel safer. Residential segregation increasedas a direct result of large population movements in response to intimidation, asfamilies moved from religiously mixed areas into safe havens dominated by theircoreligionists (Whyte, 1990). Although we believe that segregation is part of theproblem in Northern Ireland (Hewstone et al., 2005), and hence reducing it is partof the solution, we acknowledge that the issue is a complex one. While segrega-tion may be a pernicious influence on prejudice, recent North American researchhas found that among African Americans it is associated with greater feelings ofingroup acceptance, which itself predicted psychological well-being (Postmes &Branscombe, 2002). However, this study also reported that segregation was asso-ciated with perceived rejection by outgroup members. Clearly, societal solutionsmust 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 (whichhave yet to be demonstrated in this context) have been far outweighed by thecosts.

Forgiveness

The strongest positive predictors of forgiveness were measures of outgrouptrust, perspective-taking, and attitude; ingroup identification was a negative pre-dictor, but only for Protestants. Outgroup contact was a significant positive predic-tor for Catholics only, but was significantly correlated with forgiveness for bothgroups. It remains a topic for future research to explore the causal relations be-tween these variables (e.g., does trust promote forgiveness, or vice versa, or dothey mutually influence each other?).

Many interventions to improve intergroup relations focus on improving out-group attitudes. However, given the corrosive nature of many real-world conflicts,outgroup liking is often unlikely; and achieving other outcomes may be more re-alistic and as important (Hewstone et al., 2002). To reduce full-blown intergroupconflict, effective interventions also need to build trust, address collective guilt andits related emotions (Doosje, Branscombe, Spears, & Manstead, 1998), and buildintergroup forgiveness (Hewstone et al., 2004). We believe that for the NorthernIrish peace process to be successful in the long run, forgiveness needs to be the


starting point (Borris & Diehl, 1998) from which reconciliation may follow (seeEnright, Freedman & Rique, 1998).

Experience of The Troubles

Our second study revealed the powerful moderating role of measures of howclosely “affected” by the conflict our respondents were (experience of The Trou-bles and the neighborhood violence index). Our subjective measure of experienceof The Troubles revealed less forgiveness and trust among those who had sufferedmost; yet, there are some grounds for optimism, in that contact with friends wassignificantly correlated with forgiveness in both subgroups. Relatedly, levels oftrust and forgiveness were lower among respondents living in areas that had expe-rienced high levels of sectarian violence. For this measure, however, the contactresults were more pessimistic: those who had suffered most reported less contactwith outgroup friends.

Hayes and McAllister (2002) propose that exposure to violence is one of thereasons for the intractability of the conflict. First, so many people have been victimsof violence. Hayes and McAllister state that by 1998 about one in seven of the adultpopulation reported direct experience of violence; one in five had had a familymember or close relative injured or killed, and more than half personally knewsomeone who had been injured or killed. Second, in both communities exposure toviolence is associated with public support for paramilitary groups; thus violencebreeds violence.

Our results provide yet another reason to stop the violence, because it encour-ages 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 contributionto a better understanding of, and hopefully, ultimately resolution of, intergroupconflict. Moreover, our work exemplifies the feasibility of providing a frameworkin which social-psychological theory can be both applied to help one understanda conflict situation, and used prescriptively to reduce conflict. We have focusedon the potential for cross-community contact to improve intergroup relations inNorthern Ireland, and we firmly believe that in this and in other deeply segre-gated societies, contact is an essential part of any solution. However, we have alsoshown that contact can be effective in promoting improved intergroup relationsin a much broader sense than merely improving outgroup attitudes. Positive ex-perience of cross-community contact also translates into better ways of dealingwith the past (greater forgiveness) and more positive strategies for dealing with thefuture (greater trust). In the terms used by Senator George Mitchell (who chaired


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 ofmind sets” in the long-running conflict in Northern Ireland, and potentially inmany 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 empathy-

induced 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 amongchurchgoers 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 internationalpeacekeeping. In H. Langholtz, (Ed.), The psychology of peacekeeping (pp. 207–222). NewYork: Praeger.

Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of socialcapital. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 999–1023.

Brown, R. J., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. A. (1986). Explaining intergroupdifferentiation 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: AcademicPress.

Cairns, E. (1982). Intergroup conflict in Northern Ireland. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity andintergroup 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 intergroupbehaviour. 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 PeacePsychology, 7, 131–142.

Darby, J., Murray, D., Batts, D., Dunn, S., Farren, S., & Harris, J. (1977). Education and communityin 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 ofWisconsin 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.


Hagendoorn, L., & Nekuee, S. (Eds.). (1999). Education and racism: A cross-national inventory ofpositive effects of education on ethnic tolerance. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Hamberger, J. (1998). Changing intergroup perceptions: A multi-methodological approach. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, Cardiff University, UK.

Hamberger, J., & Hewstone, M. (1997). Inter-ethnic contact as a predictor of blatant and subtle prej-udice: 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 andparamilitarism in Northern Ireland. Political Studies, 49, 901–922.

Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the contacthypothesis. 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 forgivenessand 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). Intergroupcontact 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 andsegregation. In G. Robinson, D. Heenan, A. M. Gray, & K. Thompson (Eds.), Social attitudesin 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 andSocial 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 de-

segregated 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 closerelationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336.

McGlynn, C., Niens, U., Cairns, E. & Hewstone, M. (2004). Moving out of conflict: The contributionof 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. PeaceReview, 14, 285–290.

McLernon, F., Cairns, E., Lewis, C. A., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Memories of recent conflict andforgiveness in Northern Ireland. In E. Cairns & M. Roe (Eds.), The role of memory in ethnicconflict (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 Dia-

logue, 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.


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 NorthernIreland conflict (pp. 123–140). Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing.

Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. (2004). Effects of direct and indirect cross-groupfriendships on judgments of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediating roleof 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.), Contactand conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 169–195). Oxford: Blackwell.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and SocialPsychological 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 reviewof social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 241–273). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice?: Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination. ‘The ClaremontSymposium 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 ofPersonality and Social Psychology.

Phinney, J. S., Ferguson, D. L., & Tate, J. D. (1997). Intergroup attitudes among ethnic minorityadolescents: 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: Uni-versity of Ulster Press.

Postmes, T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2002). Influence of long-term racial environmental compositionon 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. Break-well & E. Lyons (Eds.), Changing European identities (pp. 123–143). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Wagner, U., & Zick, A. (1995). Formal education and ethnic prejudice. European Journal of SocialPsychology, 25, 41–56.

Whyte, J. (1990). Interpreting Northern Ireland. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

MILES HEWSTONE is Professor of Social Psychology and Fellow of New Col-lege, Oxford University. He has published widely on the topics of attribution the-ory, social cognition, stereotyping, and intergroup relations. His current researchfocuses on the reduction of intergroup conflict. He is co-founding editor of theEuropean Review of Social Psychology, and a former editor of the British Journalof Social Psychology. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and an HonoraryFellow of the British Psychological Society.

ED CAIRNS is Professor of Psychology in the School of Psychology at the Uni-versity of Ulster in Coleraine, Northern Ireland. He is a fellow of the BritishPsychological Society and former President of the Division of Peace Psychologyof the American Psychological Association. Most of his work has investigated the


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 ofPadua, Italy. His research interests are prejudice reduction, perceptions of groupvariability, the antecedents of ingroup bias and, more broadly, the motivational andcognitive processes related to the dynamics between personal and social identity.

JUERGEN HAMBERGER obtained his Diploma in Social Sciences from theUniversity of Mannheim, and his PhD in Social Psychology from the Universityof Cardiff. He is now working in research in the private sector.

ULRIKE NIENS obtained her Diploma in Psychology at the Free University ofBerlin, 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 citizenshipeducation and democracy. Her research interests focus on peace education andconflict studies and include identity, reconciliation, and social change.

Documents

Intergroup Contact, Forgiveness, and Experience of “The