Intergroup reconciliation or social reconstruction: Measuring community

recovery after war

Dinka Čorkalo Biruški & Dean AjdukovićDepartment of Psychology

University of Zagrebdcorkalo@ffzg.hr

Reconciliation

• Recently one of the most popular, but also most controversial issues in psychology of intergroup relations

• It implies transformation of group relations from hurting, aversive and hostile into positive, trustful, mutually interdependent, cooperative and forgiving in order to achieve an enduring peace and stable community

What are the controversies?

1. Interpersonal vs. intergroup level of analysis

2. Personal victimisation vs. ingroup victim/perpetrator membership

3. Definition of the core concepts of forgiveness and apology

4. Meaning of the concept itself

Controversy over the level of analysis

• Research done on the interpersonal level is applied to the level of groups and intergroup relations

• In an intergroup conflict the victim-perpetrator relationship is not an one-on-one encounter: the victimization is usually massive, and perpetrators are many

Controversy over personal experiences vs. ingroup victim/perpetrator membership

• The members of victimized group and the members of perpetrating group are symbolically connected with the victims/perpetrators even if they have not personally suffered an injury (victim group membership) nor is the personal responsibility assumed (perpetrator group membership)

Controversy over forgiveness and apology

• Forgiveness is at its core an intra-personal experience, a personal struggle of making decision to put behind the wrong-doing that has been done and move on with no intent of getting even or for revenge

• Through the act of reconciliation one tries to repair the relationship with a single and concrete person who did something wrong to us; we act interpersonally

Controversy over forgiveness and apology

• However, who is entitled to ask for forgiveness on behalf of the perpetrator group and consequently who is entitled to grant it on behalf of the victim group?

• No matter how controversial this question is we have observed many formal apologies being done in the name of a perpetrating group.

Willy Brandt’s “silent apology”, December 1970, Warsaw

During his visit to Warsaw West German Chancellor Willy Brandt spontaneously dropped to his knees before the memorial of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943, which was perceived as a profound act of apology and remorse.

Pope John Paul II, March, 2000, Rome

Pope John Paul II issued an apology for misdeeds of his church over the last 2000 years. “We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.”

Angela Merkel, September 2009, Gdansk

German Chancellor Angela Merkel commemorates the German invasion in Poland in 1939.

“ Here at the Westerplatte, as the Chancellor of Germany, I commemorate all Poles who were subjected to unspeakable suffering due to the crimes of the German occupiers. ….

There are no words that could even come close to describing the suffering of this war and the Holocaust. I bow my head before the victims.”

Vladimir Putin, September 2009, Gdansk

• I want you to know that Russia has always respected the courage and heroism of Polish people, Polish men and officers who were the first to stand up against Nazism in 1939.

• As for history and the events that preceded the tragedy, I think we should leave them above all - at least now - to professionals.

Controversy over forgiveness and apology

• Recent research challenged a notion on effectives of apology in promoting forgiveness (Philpot & Hornsey, 2008) in intergroup relations

• Even if apology is given and forgiveness is granted, there is no guarantee that reconciliation will occur

• Even in interpersonal relationships, after forgiveness happened “one or both parties may find that they continue to monitor one another’s actions carefully, interact in an unnatural manner or find it difficult to recover pretransgression level of trust” (Rusbult et all, 1998)

Controversy over meaning

• What is the core meaning of reconciliation?• Some authors emphasize that reconciliation implies

“resumption of pretransgression relationship status” (Rusbult et al, 1998)

• It implies peace and harmony, some form of amity or even friendship that has been restored

• It is hardly achievable even in interpersonal relations, and almost impossible at the group level among “changed communities and psychologically changed individuals” (Ajduković, 2003)

• We forget that reconciliation also means to accept something unpleasant, to consent with something reluctantly, unwillingly and with hesitation

Social reconstruction

• The concept more appropriate for describing the processes that happen in communities after a severe conflict

• It implies re-construction instead of resumption, relationship renewal and repair in deeply changed circumstances instead of recommencement

• These processes are group oriented and determined by what happened between the groups in conflict, not only among individuals

• Although individuals interact, it is the ingroup and intergroup dynamics within a given social context that determines pace, intensity and nature of such interactions (limited and superficial vs. open and cordial)

Process of social reconstruction (Čorkalo Biruški & Ajduković, 2009)

1. Formal relations - representatives of adversary groups

2. Individual interpersonal relations - grass-root level among people in the community

3. Awareness of mutual interdependence among members of different groups - respect for the various needs and interests of other groups

4. Developing feelings of safety and trust through multitude of cumulative positive experiences resulting from interdependence

5. Reconciliation can happen at the end of the process or may not be reached ever - it is a matter of individual decision of each group member and their socioemotional capacity to put the past to the rest

Social reconstruction

Following Nadler’s distinction of instrumental and socioemotional reconciliation, we refer to the social reconstruction process as a multifacet construct including the following dimensions:

1. Instrumental or intergroup cooperation 2. Intergroup trust3. Intergroup empathy4. Intergroup need for apology 5. Intergroup forgiveness

The latter four facets together reflect the socioemotional dimension of social reconstruction

Aim of the study

• To develop an instrument for measuring a tendency for social reconstruction (SoRS), i. e. the tendency to re-establish relations with the “other side”, based on cooperation, mutual trust and interdependence

Development of the instrument

• 50 items were developed, describing 5 facets of the SR

• Response format: Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)

Social context of the study

• The city of Vukovar (Eastern Croatia) is in the Croatian collective memory a symbol of the Homeland war (1991-1995) and Croatian suffering.

• The city was reintegrated after six years of Serbian occupation:• During this period most of the non-Serbian

population had to flee • The region suffered tremendous destruction,

massive losses, atrocities and traumatization during the war

• In 1997 the return and repatriation of the displaced population started

Pilot study

• May 2008• 70 Croats and 80 Serbs in the city of Vukovar• Age 18-35 years 41% male; 59 % female

Item analysis

• Based on the item analysis we retained 21 items: 5 items describing intergroup cooperation and the rest of the items describing four socioemotional facets of post conflict intergroup relations

• Five 5 subscales were formed named according to the apriori division of the items:1. Intergroup cooperation

2. Intergroup (mis)strust

3. Intergroup empathy

4. Intergroup need for apology

5. Intergroup (un)forgiveness

Intergroup Cooperation

• (5 items retained, α = 0.91; α = 0.91; α = 0.66)

I believe that working on the common goals is the best way to restore trust between Croats and Serbs.

I am not ready to cooperate with members of other group, even if my group would ask me to do so.

Intergroup (Mis)Trust

• 4 items retained, α = 0.81; α = 0.83; α = 0.74

I do not trust the members of the other group.

I think that trust between Croats and Serbs has been lost forever.

Intergroup Empathy

• 6 items retained, α = 0.92; α = 0.92; α = 0.66

I believe that the other side also suffered in the war.

I sympathize with people on the other side who have lost someone.

Need for Apology from Outgroup

• 3 items retained (α = 0.59; α = 0.61; α = 0.57)

I wish the other side shows remorse for our victims.

For better relations between Croats and Serbs it would be enough if their representatives pay tribute to our victims.

Intergroup (Un)Forgiveness

• 3 items retained (α = 0.67; α = 0.65; α = 0.59)

Only those who have lost someone are entitled to say if it’s alright for Croats and Serbs to start to cooperate.

I do believe in applying the principle of “an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth”.

Main study

• The third wave of the longitudinal study on social reconstruction processes (2000; 2002; 2008), city of Vukovar

• July 2008• N=333 participants; 210 (63%) Croats and 123

(37%) Serbs• Age 18-70 years 36 % male; 64 % female

Factor analysis of 21 items of the SoRS

• The originally intended structure of 5 components has not been reproduced on the new sample, i. e. five subscales of social reconstruction did not prove to be reliable in the samples of Croats and Serbs

• However, internal consistency of all 21 items showed that the concept of social reconstruction was measured reliably

Internal consistency of the 21-items scale

Pilot study Vukovar

Main study

Vukovar

Croats .94

.93

.83

.82

Serbs .80

.72

.72

.58

Total .93

.92

.87

.84

PCA with varimax rotation revealed two underlying dimensions

Variance explained: 43,1 % in Croatian and 28,9% in Serbian sample)

1. Component (cooperation and empathy): 11 items describing cooperation and empathy formed an internally consistent subscale (α=0.90)

2. Component (trust and forgiveness): 10 items describing a tendency for approaching the outgroup in an more socioemotional way formed an internally consistent subscale (α=0.80)

These two dimensions are correlated moderately (.54; p<0.01), implying that there is a general underlying construct dealing with the willingness to restore relations with the outgroup

Why cooperation and empathy go together?

• Both are fundamentals of general prosocial behavior, i.e. of general orientation towards the other

• We assume we encompassed more “cognitive” aspects of empathy that allow an individual to empathize for another’s life conditions (Hoffman) and take the perspective of the other (suffering) person

• It is possible to engage cognitively in empathizing with hardships of the other side, while having no or only little affective engagement that would imply strong feelings for another person’s suffering and identifying with the person (affective aspect of empathy)

Scale validity indicators

• Construct validity: differences between groups

• Convergent validity: correlation with some other measures of intergroup relations

Indicators of construct validity of the SR_21 scale

• There is a consensus in the Croatian society that Croats were the victims, both individually and as a collective.

• Although both groups were heavily traumatized, Croats were traumatized more; they experienced: • more traumatic events (5.59 vs. 3.55; p<0.001; • more stressful events (7.49 vs. 6.75; p<0.02; • and in general more war-related events (13.08 vs. 10.31;

p<0.001).• While Croats are entitled to feel victimized, the status of Serbs

is different – they are stigmatized as those who caused the Croat suffering in 1991

• In the mainstream narrative on the Homeland war there is no room for two victims and consequently no public space for Serbs to share their story on victimization

• For all these reasons we expect that Croats show lower scores on social reconstruction measures, compared to Serbs.

** **

Differences in social reconstruction scores between Croats and Serbs: Indicators of construct validity

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Pilot SR_21 Main studySR_21

Pilot coop. Main study coop. Pilot socem. Main study

Croats

Serb

** ** ** **

** **

Differences in social reconstruction scores between high and low traumatized persons: an indicator of construct validity

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

SR_21 Cooperation Socio-emoc.

Low

High

****

**

Some indicators of convergent validity of the SR_21 scale

• Correlations with other measures of readiness to establish relations with the other group• Closer relations with the former Yugoslav

republics: r=.52, p<0.001• Should Croats and Serbs reconcile: r=.62,

p<0.001• Social distance towards the outgroup: r=-.69,

p<0.001

Conclusions

• SoRS_21 scale seems to be a promising instrument for measuring a tendency to re-establish different aspects of social relations with former adversary group after a severe conflict: both the cooperation and the socioemotional aspects

• Further research in different settings and with different samples is needed in order to validate the instrument for use in post-conflict settings

Ethnic differences in readiness for various aspect of social reconstruction

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

SoRS Cooperation Mistrust Empathy Forgiveness Apology

Croats

Serbs

** **

**

****

*

Internal consistency of the 21-items scale

Pilot study Vukovar

Main study

Vukovar

Croats .94 .83

Serbs .80 .72

Total sample .93 .87

• Pope John Paul II issued an apology for errors of his church over the last 2000 years.