Is there contact at all? Intergroup interaction in planned contact interventions between Jews and Arabs in Israel

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

26 (2002) 185–197

Is there contact at all? Intergroup interactionin planned contact interventions between Jews

and Arabs in Israel

Ifat Maoz*

Department of Communication, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, 91905 Jerusalem, Israel

Abstract

In the past few decades, planned intergroup contact interventions play an important role in

attempts at conflict management and peace building. The present research raises a

fundamental question regarding these interventions of ‘‘is there contact at all?’’ Based on

previous research and observations, we claim that the occurrence of intergroup interactions in

planned contact interventions between groups in conflict can subject to marked variability.

Thus, this study’s goal is to construct and apply a measure assessing the extent of intergroup

interaction in such interventions. The data was collected through observations of planned

encounters between Jews and Arabs that were conducted in Israel in 1999–2000. The findings

show variability in the extent of intergroup interaction in the investigated programs. While the

majority of these encounters (Some 65% of them) were characterized by a high extent of

intergroup interaction, some 20% of them contained a medium level of interaction and some

15% a low level one. The findings further indicate that programs targeted at high school

students and adults were characterized by higher levels of intergroup interaction while

programs targeted at preschool to fourth grade children and especially programs targeted at

fifth to ninth graders included a lower extent of such interaction. Theoretical and practical

implication of these findings are discussed. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the past few decades, planned intergroup contact interventions play animportant role in attempts at conflict management and peace building. Theseinterventions are often based on theoretical premises of the contact theory according

*Corresponding author. Fax: +972-2-582-70-69.

E-mail address: [email protected] (I. Maoz).

0147-1767/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 1 4 7 - 1 7 6 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 4 6 - 3

to which constructive or guided contact can improve intergroup relations (Allport,1954). Critical discussions of this theory tend to claim that ‘‘contact is not enough’’(Bargal, 1990; Brewer, 1996; Hewstone & Brown, 1986). While acknowledging theimportance of the contact theory, these discussions raise and address several majorquestions such as what are the required conditions for constructive contact and whatare the intervening variables through which contact is assumed to improveintergroup relations (Hewstone & Brown, 1986; Pettigrew, 1998).

The present research raises another fundamental question of ‘‘is there contact atall?’’ Based on previous research in desegregated settings that has recorded apreference for ingroup interaction over intergroup one, as well as on observations ofplanned encounters, we claim that the occurrence of intergroup interactions inplanned contact interventions between groups in conflict, can be subject to markedvariability, and therefore should not be treated as a given. Thus, this study’s goal isto construct and apply a measure assessing the extent of intergroup interaction insuch interventions. This is done in the context of planned encounters between Jewsand Arabs that were conducted in Israel on 1999–2000.

2. Theoretical background

In the past few decades, planned intergroup contact interventions play animportant role in attempts at conflict management, reconciliation and peace building(Kelman, 1999; Bar-Tal, 2000). Examples of different forms or practices of suchinterventions, organized to help cope with living in a conflict or living in theaftermath of conflict, can be found in Northern Ireland and between Greek andTurkish Cypriots (Saunders, 1999). In the Jewish–Arab or the Israeli–Palestinianconflict, encounters or dialogues are conducted between Jews and Arabs in Israel,and lately, between Israeli Jews and Palestinians from the West Bank and GazaMaoz, 2000c). Since the beginning of the 1980s’, more than a hundred interventionsof planned contact between Jews and Palestinians can be easily counted each year.These range from one-time single meetings to long-term continuous series ofmeetings, from pre-school children shared activities through youth encounters todialogues between university students, university professors and other professionals(Maoz, 1997, in press).

The present research deals with such intergroup encounters, between Jewish andArab citizens of Israel, which have the general goal of reducing hostility andincreasing understanding between the two nationalities. Interventions designed toimprove relations between groups in conflict often rely on social psychologicalcontact theory (Allport, 1954; Amir, 1976). According to this theory, intergroupcontact can, under certain conditions, be effective in reducing hostility and prejudice,and creating more positive attitudes between the groups. The primary conditionsgiven by the researchers for effective intergroup contact are: (a) equal status of bothgroups in the contact situation; (b) ongoing personal interaction between individualsfrom both groups; (c) cooperation in a situation of mutual dependence, in whichmembers of both groups work together toward a common goal; (d) institutional

I. Maoz / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 185–197186

supportFconsensus among the authorities and the relevant institutions aboutnorms that support equality.

Many studies were conducted both in Israel and abroad to investigate thepredictive ability of the contact hypothesis (for some studies and reviews, see Amir,1976; Cook, 1984; Pettigrew, 1998). Most of this research compares the attitudes ofparticipants before and after intergroup contact, in an attempt to determine ifcontact that meets the conditions defined above is indeed effective in improvingintergroup relations (Bar & Bargal, 1995; Gaertner, Davido, & Bachman, 1996;Horenczyk & Bekerman, 1997; Wood & Soleitner, 1996).

Yet critical discussions of this theory tend to claim that ‘‘contact is not enough’’(Bargal, 1990; Brewer, 1996; Hewstone & Brown, 1986). While acknowledging theimportance of the contact theory, these discussions address several major issuesregarding the (too) simple casual connection presented between intergroup contactand improving intergroup relations. One such issue concerns the required conditionsneeded for constructive contact. Researchers disagree between them on whatconditions are actually necessary for an effective contact and which just add up to atoo lengthy ‘‘laundry list’’ (Pettigrew, 1998). Another crucial issue concerns theunderlying mediating processes through which contact is assumed to improveintergroup relations (Bargal, 1990; Bargal & Bar, 1992; Bar-On, 1999; Pettigrew,1998; Ross, 2000; Salomon, 2000). Finally, scholars point out that micro-levelcontact interventions cannot be expected, by themselves, to improve relationsbetween groups, as such improvement often requires or is dependent on structuralchanges at the macro-societal level (Hewstone & Brown, 1986; McCauley, in press;Pettigrew, 1998).

While much discussion has been dedicated to these crucial problems of the contacttheory, another fundamental question of: ‘‘is there contact at all?’’ (Or morespecifically, to what extent do planned encounter interventions intended to improveintergroup relations actually include intergroup contact in them) merited lessattention both in academic and practice oriented discussions.

Research shows that in desegregated and ethnically mixed settings such as schools,universities, neighborhoods, building complexes, etc., contact within the same ethnicgroup is more frequent than intergroup contact (Hewstone & Brown, 1986; Wagner& Machleit, 1986; Schofield, 1986; Taylor, Dube, & Bellerose, 1986). Furthermore,there are studies that indicate that in such settings group members often intentionallyavoid intergroup contact, even when such contact receives institutional support, andwhen possible, use various strategies to resegregate themselves by the original ethnicgroups (Rogers, Hennigan, Bowman, & Miller, 1984; Taylor et al., 1986; Schofield,1986).

These phenomena has been defined by Taylor et al. (1986) as illusory intergroupcontact, where individuals subtly bias their contact toward members of the ingroupsuch that intergroup interaction is more illusory than real. Examples of such illusorycontact can be found in studies on desegregated schools that shows that many ofthem foster much less intergroup contact than one can expect and demonstrate atendency toward resegregation that scholars and policymakers did not adequatelyforesee (Schofield, 1986; Taylor et al., 1986). In the American context, evidence

I. Maoz / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26 (2002) 185–197 187

shows that white and black children in such schools do often voluntarily resegregatethemselves in a variety of situations from eating lunch to participating inextracurricular activities (Schofield, 1986).

Several reasons can be suggested as underlying these phenomena includingexpectations of intergroup differences in norms and roles (Landis, Hope, & Day,1984), the motivation to avoid conflict and confrontation (in case of existing tensionsbetween the groups) (Taylor et al, 1986), and finally, in line with theories of aversiveracism, the desire to avoid the uncomfortable feelings that can rise in contact withstigmatized others (Stephan & Stephan, 1996).

The tendency to avoid intergroup contact and the motives that underlie it can beassumed to be also relevant to planned encounter interventions between groups inconflict, and result in variability in the extent to which such interventions actuallyinclude intergroup interaction. Nevertheless, most studies that deal with plannedencounter interventions, treat them as situations of full contact, and do not assessthe extent of intergroup interaction within them.

On the basis of the previously cited literature as well as observations of plannedintergroup encounters, the present study claims that the occurrence of intergroupinteraction in the encounter interventions between groups in conflict can be subjectto marked variability and, therefore, should not be taken as for granted. To addressthis variability, the study constructs and applies a continuous measure that refers tothe extent or quantity of intergroup interaction in the encounter.

3. The present study

3.1. Overview

The approach that was constructed and applied in this study focuses on evaluationof the extent of the intergroup interaction in planned encounter interventions.Previous approaches assessed the effectiveness of contact interventions primarily bymeasuring attitude change based on the assumption that when two groups areplaced in the same room, interaction occurs which qualifies as intergroupcontact. The approach presented here, on the other hand, is based on manyobservations of encounter activity, as well as on research on resegregation andillusory contact in desegregated settings (Taylor et al., 1986). This approach assertsthat the fact that members of two groups are located near each other for some periodof time in the framework of an intervention labeled ‘encounter’ or ‘dialogue’ doesnot necessarily mean that substantial contact actually takes place between them, thatcould improve or change their relations. In some cases, activities that are defined asencounters contain little or no actual contact between the two participating groups.Participants mainly interact within their own groups or do not interact at all(Schofield, 1986).

The possible variation in the degree to which there is contact in the contactsituation, elicits the need to define and measure this variable, before or in parallel tomeasuring its effects (Taylor et al., 1986). Thus, the present approach treats the


extent of intergroup contact as a variable that qualifies encounter programs andenables to differentiate between them, and not as an a priori, given, fixed attribute ofevery program that does not need measuring.

3.2. The extent of intergroup interaction measure

We present here a fundamental measure of intergroup interaction that relates tothe extent or intensity of the intergroup contact in the encounter1 (was it observed inpart or nearly all the meeting? Did it include the majority of participants or only afew of them?).

This criterion is based on the assumption that, for an intergroup encounter to beeffective in changing mutual relations, it must include some degree of actualinteraction between members of both groups. The underlying premise is that it isunreasonable to expect that an encounter with no interchange between thegroupsFwhere, for example, each group interacts only among itselfFwould haveany impact on rapprochement between the groups.

To measure this criterion, we constructed a five point numerical scale in which ‘1’represents the absence of such interaction and ‘5’ represents high degree ofinteraction (among most participants during most of the encounter) (see appendix).

4. The research population

The research population consists of 46 encounter programs between Jews andArabs that took place in Israel in the years 1999–20002. These encounter programsincluded a series of intergroup meetings that were usually held once in every 3 to5 weeks. They generally extended from 3–4 months to a year, were facilitatedby a Jewish and an Arab facilitator, and conducted in the framework of educationaland communal institutions and organizations. The encounter programs weretargeted at different age groups, beginning with preschool children throughelementary and high school students and ending with adults (mostly teachers andstudents of teacher education). The programs included different kinds of activitiesthe most prevalent ones being social activities (games, etc.), arts (drawing, drama,etc.) and dialogue.

5. Research methods

For each encounter program, one intergroup meeting was observed and rated onthe numerical scale described before, assessing the degree to which there wasintergroup interaction between Jews and Arabs in the encounter. The rating was

1For other measures of intergroup contact and interaction see Steinberg and Bar-On, 2002; Maoz,

2000b; Maoz, in press; and McCauley, Plummer, Moskalenko, and Mordkoff (in press).2These programs were funded by the Abraham Fund that supports a major part of Jewish–Arab

encounter programs in Israel.


accompanied by verbal rationale and details. The observers also recorded factualbackground data about the encounter, such as where and when it took place,number of participants attending of each nationality and their age and provided abrief written description of major contents, processes and dynamics that wereobserved in the meeting.

The author and three members of the evaluation team (these included one Arabevaluator, one Jewish evaluator and another Jewish evaluator that participated inpart of the research) conducted the observations. Reliability among evaluators wasAlpha Cronbach=0.89. A statistical analysis of the overall ratings was performedusing the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) data analysis program.

6. Findings

The data analysis examined the distribution of the extent of intergroup interactionamong the studied Jewish–Arab encounter programs. In addition, we examined ifthere are differences between programs targeted at various age groups in the extentof intergroup interaction in them. Table 1 below presents the ratings on the measureof the extent of intergroup interaction by the target age group of the program. In theintergroup interaction measure ratings, ‘1’ and ‘2’ were combined and ratings ‘4’ and‘5’ were combined resulting in the three following levels of this measure: 1=very lowto low extent of intergroup interaction. 2=Medium extent of intergroup interaction,3=high to very high extent of intergroup interaction.

The data in Table 1 show variability in the extent of intergroup interaction in theinvestigated encounter programs. While the majority of programs (approximately65%) were rated as having ‘high’ to ‘very high’ extent of intergroup interaction

Table 1

Rating of the extent of intergroup interaction by age group

Number % of

row and column

Age group

Preschool through

4th grade

Grades 5–9 Grades 10–12 Adults Total row

Rating of

intergroup

interaction

1 2 5 7

Very low to low 28.6 71.4 F F 15.2

22.2 29.4

2 1 5 1 2 9

Medium 11.1 55.6 11.1 22.2 19.6

11.1 29.4 12.5 16.7

3 6 7 7 10 30

High to very high 20.0 23.3 23.3 33.3 65.2

66.7 41.2 87.5 83.3

Total column 9 17 8 12 46

19.6 37.0 17.4 26.1 100.0


between the Jewish and Arab participants, one fifth of the activities (about 20%)were characterized as having a ‘medium’ level of intergroup interaction and a smallerproportion (15%) was rated as having ‘low’ or ‘very low’ intergroup interaction.

The data analysis further indicated a difference between the target age groups inthe extent of intergroup interaction that was found as marginally significant(w2(6)=12.35, po0:054). The above table shows that, generally, programs targetedat the two lower age groups were characterized by a lower extent of intergroupinteraction than the programs targeted at high school students and adults. Morespecifically, ratings of very low to low intergroup interaction were found only inthe age groups of preschool through 4th grade and 5th–9th grade, with most of thelow extent ratings (71% of them) appearing in programs targeted at 5th–9thgrade students. The large majority of programs in the two remaining categories of10th–12th grade and adults were rated as including a high to very high extent ofintergroup interaction, with one third of the total number of programs that includedhigh to very high extent of intergroup interaction being programs targeted at adults.

7. Conclusion

The results of this study show variability in the extent of intergroup interaction inthe investigated encounter programs. The majority of the encounters (some 65% ofthem) were characterized by a high to very high extent of intergroup interaction.Results of previous research in concerning self-reported spontaneous contact with anout-group in ethnically mixed or desegregated settings, has indicated a linearcorrelation between the extent or frequency of such contact, the degree of its positivevalence, and between decreased intergroup prejudice (Wagner & Machleit, 1986).This can suggest that the present study’s results may be indicative of the possibleeffectiveness of the majority of the examined encounters (especially those targeted atadults and at high school students) in reducing intergroup tension and prejudice.However, this possibility has to be tested in future research that will combineinteraction measures with measures of short and long term attitude change.

At the same time, in approximately 20% of the programs a medium extent ofintergroup interaction was found, and 15% of the programs (all targeted at theyounger age groups of preschoolers to 9th graders), included a low extent ofintergroup interaction. The discrepancy in the latter cases between the intention ofthe planners of the encounters3 and what actually happened in practice in terms ofthe extent of intergroup interaction, may reflect that Jewish and Arab participants(especially the younger ones) were not always highly motivated to have actualinteraction with those from the other nationality.

Thus, also the descriptive data from the observations revealed a marked variabilityespecially in the extent of intergroup interaction between Jewish and Arab childrenin the encounters. On the one extreme there were cases of mixed (Jewish and Arab)

3This intention was expressed in project proposals, plans and in interviews with these planners as

generating and sustaining intergroup interaction and contact between Jews and Arabs.


pairs of friends or mixed small groups that spent together most of their time in themeetings, and also the free time before and after the meetings and during breaks.Some of these relationships lasted throughout the encounter process and includedcontacts outside the encounter activity. On the other extreme, there were (fewer)cases in which even when the activity was structured by its planners and organizersto create involvement between Jewish and Arab participants (e.g. by using devicessuch as dividing the participants into mixed pairs or mixed small groups thatperform joint tasks), some participants did not act accordingly and continued towork alone or interact only with those from their own nationality throughout mostor all of the meeting (see Schofield, 1986, for similar phenomena recorded in thecontext of relations between White and African-American school students in theUSA).

The findings pointing to the variability in the extent to which intergroup contactinterventions actually contain intergroup interaction in them (a variability that wasmore pronounced in the younger age groups but was also evident in the older ones)have important theoretical and practical implications. First, on the theoretical andmethodological level, these findings imply that when measuring the results of contactinterventions, one should also measure the magnitude of the independent variablei.e. the extent of intergroup interaction that has actually occurred in the encounter(Taylor et al., 1986). It seems that at least in real life interventions withethnonational groups in conflict, this variable could not be simply assumed to havetwo levels of full contact for the intervention condition and zero contact for thecontrol group. The often loose structure of such interventions (Maoz, 2000a)coupled with the complex dynamics of relations between groups in conflict canresult, as the findings of the present study show, in a marked variability in the extentto which contact interventions actually include intergroup contact.

On the practical level of conducting encounter interventions, our findings point toa need to increase the degree to which encounters (especially those targeted atchildren) are designed to create involvement among the participants, or add moremechanisms for preparing the participants for interaction, or for helping themovercome their concerns about the encounter (Maoz, in press). For example, moreuni-national preparation can be done (in which members of one nationality meetseparately with a facilitator of their own nationality) to prepare the participants for ajoint meeting, or help them process feelings or events that take place during the jointencounter.

It seems that in some cases, the organizers and facilitators of encounter programsare not aware of the extent to which the activity should be structured so thatintergroup interaction will actually take place. In some activities that we observed,the mechanisms and devices for fostering interaction between the Jews and Arabsseemed insufficient, perhaps because the organizers and/or facilitators believed thatinteraction would occur spontaneously. The results of the present research indicatethat especially in encounters involving younger age groups, this is not always thecase. Thus, organizers and facilitators of encounters should structure activities to alarger extent around the dimension of intergroup interaction if they want to have anactual encounter between both groups. It seems that the fact that participants from


two nationalities are sitting together in the same space does not necessarily create orentail significant interaction between them (Schofield, 1986; Taylor et al., 1986).

The pronounced difficulties found in this study, in intergroup interaction betweenthe younger age groups, can be explained in several ways. The first explanationconcerns the contents or types of activities targeted at the different age groups. Whileprograms targeted at the younger age groups mainly contain social activities (likeplaying games in groups) and arts and crafts activities (like drawing), programstargeted at high school students and adults mostly focus on intergroup dialogue(Maoz, in press). It may be that the former types of activities are less effective increating intergroup interaction or at least, demand more effort in order to createsuch an interaction.

Second, it may be that for the older age groups the participation in the encounteris more voluntary and, therefore, youth and adults that arrive to these encounters arethose that are from the outset more motivated to interact with the other group. Incontrast, younger children may have less choice regarding their participation and,therefore, some of the children arriving to these meetings may have a lowermotivation to interact with the other group.

Finally, it may be that the cognitive and emotional capabilities of younger childrenmake it more difficult for them to cope with interaction with the outgroup and thetensions and complexities this interaction may involve (Stephan & Stephan, 2001).

Clearly, further research is needed in order to examine the above explanations andto address the more general question of the effectiveness and desirability ofintergroup contact interventions involving younger children.

The present study focused on a very specific and fundamental measure of theextent or quantity of intergroup interaction in the encounter. In evaluating contactinterventions, also other aspects of the interaction should be taken into considera-tion in order to achieve a fuller picture of the encounter process. Such aspects are, forexample, the quality or contents of the interaction (see Bar-On, 1999; Steinberg &Bar-On, 2002), which together with more quantitative or structural measures of theinteraction (see also McCauley et al., in press) could enable to assess the degree towhich the contact in question can be regarded as meaningful, constructive or optimalin building relations between the sides. However, it is suggested here that assessingthe basic properties of contact, such as its extent, is an essential first step inevaluation of contact interventions, especially when these are conducted betweengroups in realistic ethnonational conflict.

Bar-Tal (2001) claims that societies involved in intractable conflict, such as theJewish–Arab conflict, tend to be dominated by a collective fear orientation thatfocuses on the negative and threatening intentions of the other group. A history ofintergroup fear, prejudice and hostility can create a tendency among members ofboth groups to delegitimize and avoid contact with each other that may beexperienced as stressful or threatening (Bar-Tal, 2001). This tendency may be evenmore emphasized in times of crisis in the relations between the groups such as thecurrent crisis in the relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel that has reached itspeak in October 2000 and has continued since. Under the present circumstancesof increased fear and deepened mistrust between the sides, the very existence


(or recreation) of intergroup contact that can help mitigate the fear and humanizethe other (Kelman, 1999) becomes crucial in the attempts to re-build the delicate webof the relations between the sides.

Acknowledgements

This study is based on a larger research project invited and supported by theAbraham Fund. I thank the Abraham Fund for the generous support that enabledconducting the research. I also thank the members of the research team: SummerJaber, Rona Refaeli and Keren Wasserman for their help.

Appendix A. Key to the ratings of intergroup interaction (mixing)

The degree of mixingFintergroup interaction between Jewish and Arabparticipants during the activityFis generally rated according to the followingnumerical scale shown in Table 2

Separate rating scales were created for non-dialogue and dialogue activity.

A.1. GeneralFnon-dialogue activity

Rating intergroup interaction during the activity relates to mixing that actuallytakes place between Jewish and Arab participants during the formal encounter. Thisinteraction can be initiated by the facilitators, and affected or dictated by the activityand its structure, or a spontaneous initiative of the participants during the encounter.In either case, the emphasis is on the degree to which participants interact. It is notsufficient that the activity was planned to create interaction; intergroup mixing mustactually take place. (If the facilitators instruct the children to sit in mixed Jewish–Arab groups but the children switch places during the activity and create uni-national groups, one must relate to the actual interaction, and not what was plannedby the facilitators.)

The rating of intergroup interaction reflects the ratio of interacting participants tototal participants, and the proportion of time spent interacting out of the total time

Table 2

The degree of intergroup interaction between Jewish and Arab participants

1 2 3 4 5

Very low

intergroup

interaction

Little intergroup

interaction; (Little

mixing, except for one

or two components/

instances of mixing)

Medium intergroup

interaction

High intergroup

interaction; (Maximum

mixing, except for

one or two components/

instances of not mixing)

Very high

intergroup

interaction


of the encounter (again, regardless of whether the interaction was spontaneous or theresult of planning by the teachers or facilitators).

The following rating options relate to intergroup interaction during non-dialogueactivity:

Rating 1: No intergroup interaction at any time or part of the activity between anyparticipants.

Rating 2: One or two brief interactions between one pair of participantsFJewishand ArabFor all the participants. OR: One or two mixed pairs of participantsbriefly engage in interaction once or twice, or interact throughout the encounter.

Rating 3: Interaction of 14to all the participants takes place 1

4to almost 1

2the

activity time. OR: Interaction of 14to almost 1

2the participants takes place 1

4to all the

activity time.Rating 4: Interaction of 1

2to all the participants takes place 1

2to almost 3

4of the

activity time. OR: Interaction of 12to almost 3

4of the participants takes place 1

4to all

the activity time.Rating 5: Interaction of 3

4to all the participants takes place 3

4to the entire time of

the activity.Example: As part of the activity, there were four sub-activities of equal duration:

FirstFa warm-up game, which caused ongoing interaction between the participantsof both nationalities and mixed seating; secondFgetting acquainted exercises inmixed pairs of Jewish and Arab participants; thirdFpresentation of museumobjects to the entire group, during which there is no interaction between participantsfrom both nationalities; and fourthFa workshop in mixed work groups. Sinceintergroup interaction did take place between most to all of the participants in threeout of the four activities (about 75% of the activity time), this would receive a ratingof ‘4’.

A.2. Intergroup interaction during dialogue activities

The following scale relates specifically to intergroup interaction based on dialogue.Ratings are based on the relative time devoted to dialogue between nationalitiesout of the total activity time, as well as the ratio of participants who take partin it.

Intergroup dialogue is defined as a situation in which verbal exchanges take placebetween members of the two groups. This contrasts with a situation in which there isongoing silence or the members of each nationality only take part in internal, privateconversations on subjects that are not necessarily relevant for the encounter.

The following rating options relate to intergroup interaction during dialogueactivity:

Rating 1: No intergroup interaction at all (other than dialogue within the samegroup or silence).

Rating 2: Exchanges take place between one mixed pair of participants once ortwice during the encounter or for the duration of the encounter. OR: Intergroupdialogue takes place once or twice briefly between one mixed pair or up to all theparticipants.


Rating 3: Intergroup dialogue takes place between 14and almost 1

2the time of the

encounter among 14to all the participants. OR: Intergroup dialogue takes place

between 14to all the time of the encounter among 1

4to all of the participants.

Rating 4: Between 12and almost 3

4of the time of the activity includes intergroup

dialogue, in which 12to all the participants take part

Rating 5: Between 34and all the activity time includes intergroup dialogue in which

12to all the participants take part.

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Amir, Y. (1976). The role of inter-group contact in change of prejudice and ethic relations. In P. A. Katz

(Ed.), Towards the elimination of racism (pp. 245–308). New York: Pergamon.

Bar, H., & Bargal, D. (1995). Living with the conflict: Encounters between Jewish and Palestinian Israeli

youth. Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies.(in Hebrew).

Bargal, D. (1990). Contact is not enoughFThe contribution of Lewinian theory to inter-group workshops

involving Palestinian and Jewish youth in Israel. International Journal of Group Tensions, 20, 179–192.

Bargal, D., & Bar, H. (1992). A Lewinian approach to intergroup workshops for Arab–Palestinians and

Jewish youth. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 139–154.

Bar-On, D. (1999). The ‘others’ within usFA socio-psychological perspective on changes in Israeli identity.

Jerusalem: Bialik Press.(in Hebrew).

Bar-Tal, D. (2000). From intractable conflict through conflict resolution to reconciliation: Psychological

analysis. Political Psychology, 21, 351–365.

Bar-Tal, D. (2001). Why does fear override hope in societies engulfed by intractable conflict, as it does in

the Israeli society. Political Psychology, 22, 601–627.

Brewer, M. (1996). When contact is not enough: Social identity and intergroup cooperation. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 291–303.

Cook, S. W. (1984). Cooperative interaction in multiethnic contexts. In N. Miller, & M. Brewer (Eds.),

Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation. New York: Academic Press.

Gaertner, S. L., Davido, J. F., & Bachman, B. A. (1996). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The induction

of a common ingroup identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 271–290.

Hewstone, M., & Brown, B. (1986). Contact is not enough: an intergroup perspective on the ‘contact

hypothesis’. In M. Hewstone, & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters. New

York: Basil Blackwell.

Horenczyk, G., & Bekerman, Z. (1997). The effects of intercultural acquaintance and structured

intergroup interaction on ingroup, outgroup, and reflected ingroup stereotypes. International Journal

of Intercultural Relations, 21, 71–83.

Kelman, H. (1999). Transforming the relationship between former enemies: A social–psychological

analysis. In R. Rothstein (Ed.), After the peace: Resistance & reconciliation (pp. 193–205). London:

Lynne Rienner.

Landis, D., Hope, R. O., & Day, H. R. (1984). Training for desegregation in the military. In N. Miller,

& M. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation. New York: Academic Press.

Maoz, I. (1997). A decade of structured educational encounters between Jews and Arabs in Israel. In D. S.

Halperin (Ed.), To live together: Shaping new attitudes to peace through education (pp. 47–56). Geneva:

Geneva University and Paris, UNESCO International Bureau of Education.

Maoz, I. (2000a). Power relations in inter-group encounters: A case study of Jewish–Arab encounters in

Israel. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(4), 259–277.

Maoz, I. (2000b). Multiple conflicts and competing agendas: A framework for conceptualizing structured

encounters between groups in conflictFthe case of a coexistence project of Jews and Palestinians in

Israel. Journal of Peace Psychology, 6(2), 135–156.


Maoz, I. (2000c). An experiment in peace: Processes and effects in reconciliation aimed workshops of

Israeli and Palestinians youth. Journal of Peace Research, 37(6), 721–736.

Maoz, I. (in press). Conceptual mapping and evaluation of peace education programs conducted in 1999–

2000: The case of education for coexistence through intergroup encounters between Jews and Arabs in

Israel. In: G. Salomon, & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles and practices around

the world. Mahwah, NJ: Larry Erlbaum Associates.

McCauley, C. (in press). Head-first versus feet-first in peace education. In: G. Salomon, & B. Nevo (Eds.),

Peace education: The concept, principles and practices around the world. Mahwah, NJ: Larry Erlbaum

Associates.

McCauley, C., Plummer, M., Moskalenko, S., & Mordkoff, T. (in press). The exposure index: A measure

of intergroup contact. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Inter-group contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85.

Rogers, M., Hennigan, K., Bowman, C., & Miller, N. (1984). Intergroup acceptance in classrooms and

playground settings. In N. Miller, & M. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of

desegregation. New York: Academic Press.

Ross, M. (2000). ‘Good-enough’ isn’t so bad: Thinking about success and failure in ethnic conflict

management. Journal of Peace Psychology, 6(1), 27–47.

Salomon, G. (2000). Not every treatment of conflict is education for peace. Panim, 15, 40–46 ((in

Hebrew).).

Saunders, H. (1999). A public peace process: Sustained dialogue to transform racial and ethnic conflicts. New

York: St Martin’s Press.

Schofield, J. (1986). Black–White contact in desegregated schools. In M. Hewstone, & R. Brown (Eds.),

Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. (1996). Predicting prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,

20, 409–426.

Steinberg, S., & Bar-On, D. (2002). An analysis of the group process between Jews and Palestinians using a

typology of discourse classification. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(2), 197–212.

Stephan, W.G., & Stephan, C.W. (2001). Improving intergroup relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taylor, D., Dube, L., & Bellerose, J. (1986). Intergroup contact in Quebec. In M. Hewstone, & R. Brown

(Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Wagner, U., & Machleit, U. (1986). ‘Gastarbeiter’ in the Federal Republic of Germany: Contact between

Germans and migrant populations. In M. Hewstone, & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in

intergroup encounters. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Wood, P. B., & Soleitner, N. (1996). The effect of childhood interracial contact on adult antiblack

prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 1–17.


Documents

Is there contact at all? Intergroup interaction in planned contact interventions between Jews and Arabs in Israel