Antecedents of the attitude towards inter-group reconciliation in a setting of armed conflict

  1. Mónica Alzate 1
  2. José Manuel Sabucedo 1
  3. Mar Durán 1
  1. 1 Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
    info

    Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

    Santiago de Compostela, España

    ROR https://ror.org/030eybx10

Journal:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Year of publication: 2013

Volume: 25

Issue: 1

Pages: 61-66

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Psicothema

Abstract

Background: The concept of Reconciliation as applied to inter-group conflict has come into use only recently. Throughout the history of Psychology, Reconciliation was mostly understood at the individual and inter-personal level. Method: In the present study we shall analyse the roles played by trust, negotiating attitude, legitimacy and ethnocentric attitude over the attitude towards social reconciliation. To this end we studied a group of 188 Colombian civilians living under conditions of real socio-political conflict. Results: A path analysis was performed using the statistical program AMOS whose fit indexes indicate a good fit of the model and a variance of .36. The results show that the variables of trust, negotiating attitude and legitimacy have a significant and positive effect on the reconciliation variable, and significant negative effect on the ethnocentric attitude variable. Conclusions: This study contributes to the integration of a number of variables that facilitate process of social reconciliation, as it explicitly deals with some of the perceptions, attitudes and beliefs which could change the course of a confrontation.

Bibliographic References

  • Alzate, M., Durán, M., & Sabucedo, J.M (2009). Población civil y transformación constructiva de un conflicto armado interno: aplicación al caso colombiano [Civilian population and constructive transformation of an internal armed conflict: An application to the colombian case]. Universitas Psychologica, 8, 703-720.
  • Bar-Siman-Tov, Y. (2004). Dialectics between stable Peace and Reconciliation. In Y. Bar-Siman-Tov (Ed.), From conflict resolution to reconciliation (pp. 61-80). USA: Oxford University Press.
  • Bar-Tal, D. (1990). Causes and consequences of delegitimization: Models of conflict and ethnocentrism. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 65-81.
  • Bar-Tal, D., & Bennink, G. (2004). The Nature of reconciliation as an outcome and as a process. In Y. Bar-Siman-Tov (Ed.), From conflict resolution to reconciliation (pp. 11-38). USA: Oxford University Press.
  • Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
  • Blunch, N. (2010). Introduction to structural equation modelling using SPSS and AMOS. Los Angeles: Sage.
  • Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Borja, H., Barreto, I., Alzate, M., Sabucedo, J.M., & López, W. (2009). Creencias sobre el adversario, violencia política y proceso de paz [Beliefs about the adversary, political violence and peace processes]. Psicothema, 21, 622-627.
  • Borja, H., Barreto, I., Sabucedo, J.M., & López, W. (2008). Construcción del discurso deslegitimador del adversario: gobierno y paramilitarismo en Colombia [Building a discourse to delegitimize the opponent: Government and paramilitarism in Colombia]. Universitas Psychologica, 7, 571-583.
  • Brewer, M. (2007). The importance of being "we": Human nature and intergroup relations. American Psychologist, 62, 728-738.
  • Burton, J.W. (1969). Conflict and communication: The use of controlled communication. London: Macmillan.
  • Davidson, J.A., McElwee, G., & Hannan, G. (2004). Trust and power as determinants of conflict resolution strategy and outcome satisfaction. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 10, 275-292.
  • Fisas, V. (2004). Procesos de paz y negociación en conflictos armados [Peace processes and negotiation in armed conflcts]. Barcelona: Paidós.
  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
  • Jose, P.E. (2004). MedGraph-I: A programme to graphically depict mediation among three variables. The internet version. http://www.vuw.ac.nz/psyc/staff/paul-jose/files/helpcentre/help1_intro.php.
  • Kelman, H. (2005). Building trust among enemies: The central challenge for international conflict resolution. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 639-650.
  • Kelman, H. (2008). Reconciliation from a social-psychological perspective. In A. Nadler, T. Malloy & J.D. Fisher (Eds.), The social Psychology of Intergroup Reconciliation (pp. 15-32). USA: Oxford University Press.
  • Kinzel, R., & Fisher, R.J. (1993). Ethnocentrism, group cohesion and constituent pressure on negotiators in intergroup conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 4, 323-336.
  • Levine, R.A., & Campbell, D.T. (1972). Etnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes and group behaviour. New York: Wiley.
  • Lewicki, R., & Wiethoff, C. (2000). Trust, trust development, and trust repair. In M. Deutsch & P. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 86-107). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  • Long, W., & Brecke, P. (2003). War and reconciliation: Reason and emotion in conflict Resolution. London: Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.
  • Maoz, I. (2004). Social-Cognitive Mechanisms in Reconciliation. In Y. Bar-Siman-Tov (Ed.), From conflict resolution to reconciliation (pp. 225-237). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Mukashema, I., & Mullet, E. (2010). Current mental health and reconciliation sentiment of victims of genocide against Tutsi in Rwanda. Revista de Psicología Social, 25, 27-34.
  • Nadler, A., & Liviatan, I. (2006). Intergroup reconciliation: Effects of adversary's expressions of empathy, responsability, and recipients' trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 459-470.
  • Noor, M., Brown, R.J., González, R., Manzi, J., & Lewis, C. (2008). On positive psychological outcomes: What helps groups with a history of conflict to forgive and reconcile with other? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 819-832.
  • Noor, M., Brown, R.J., & Prentice, G. (2008). Precursors and mediators of intergroup reconciliation in Northern Ireland: A new model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 481-495.
  • Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights -OHCHR-(2011). Sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Colombia. Informe anual A /HRC/16/22 [About human rights situation in Colombia. Annual Inform]. Retrieved on July 2011. http://www.hchr.org.co/documentoseinformes/informes/altocomisionado/informes.php3?cod=14&cat=11.
  • Osgood, C.E. (1962). An alternative to war and surrender. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  • Peco, M., & Peral, L. (2006). El conflicto en Colombia [The conflict in Colombia]. España: Ministerio de Defensa de España e Instituto de Estudios Internacionales y Europeos "Francisco de Vitoria".
  • Presidencia de la República-Ministerio de Defensa Nacional (2003). Política de Defensa y Seguridad Democrática [Defence Policy and Democratic Security]. Retrieved on July 2011. www.presidencia.gov.co/seguridad_democratica.pdf.
  • Rohuana, N.N. (2004). Identity and power in the reconciliation of national conflict. In A.H. Eagly, R.M. Baron & V.L. Hamilton (Eds.), The social psychology of group identity and social conflict. Theory, application and practice (pp. 173-187). Washington: American Psychological Association.
  • Sabucedo, J.M., Rodríguez, M., & López, W. (2000). Movilización social contra la violencia política: sus determinantes [Social mobilization against political violence: Its determinants]. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 32, 345-359.
  • Salamanca, M. (2008). Un ajedrez del conflicto armado colombiano [A chess of the colombian armed conflict]. In F. Gómez-Isa (Dir.), Colombia en su laberinto. Una mirada al conflicto [Colombia in his labyrinth. A look at conflict] (pp. 17-50). Madrid: Catarata.
  • Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., Whithe, B.J., Hood, W.R., & Sherif, Carolyn W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation. The robbers cave experiment. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma.
  • Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Perpetrators need acceptance and victims need empowerment to reconcile. In M. Mukulincer & P. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions and behavior. The better angels of our nature (pp. 409-429). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2010). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 116-132.
  • Spears, R. (2008). Social identity, legitimacy and intergroup conflict: The rocky road to reconciliation. In A. Nadler, T. Malloy & J.D. Fisher (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 319-344). USA: Oxford University Press.
  • Staub, E. (2005). Constructive rather than harmful forgiveness, reconciliation, and ways to promote them after genocide and mass killing. In E.L. Worthington (Ed.), Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 443-459). New York: Routledge.
  • United Nations Development Program-UNDP-(2010). Informe sobre Desarrollo Humano 2010. La verdadera riqueza de las naciones: caminos al desarrollo humano [Human develop report. The real wealth of nations: Paths to human development] Retrieved on July 2011. http://hdr.undp.org/es/informes/mundial/idh2010/.
  • United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees -UNHCR-(2011). Desplazamiento interno en Colombia [Internal displacement in Colombia]. Retrieved on July 2011, for http://www.acnur.org/t3/operaciones/situacion-colombia/desplazamiento-interno-en-colombia/
Data source: Dialnet