No abstract

G T (2020) It's not just 'us' versus 'them': moving beyond binary perspectives on intergroup processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 31 (1). pp. 40-75.

This review examines the coloniality infused within the conduct and third reporting of experimental research in what is commonly referred to as the ‘Israeli‐Palestinian conflict’. Informed by a settler colonial framework and decolonial theory, our review measured the appearance of sociopolitical terms and critically analysed the reconciliation measures. We found that papers were three times more likely to describe the context through the framework of intractable conflict compared to occupation. Power asymmetry was often acknowledged and then flattened via, for instance, adjacent mentions of Israeli and Palestinian physical violence. Two‐thirds of the dependent variables were not related to material claims (e.g. land, settlements, or Palestinian refugees) but rather to the feelings and attitudes of Jewish Israelis and Palestinians. Of the dependent measures that did consider material issues, they nearly universally privileged conditions of the two‐state solution and compromises on refugees' right of return that would violate international law. The majority of the studies sampled Jewish–Israeli participants exclusively, and the majority of authors were affiliated with Israeli institutions. We argue that for social psychology to offer insights that coincide with the decolonization of historic Palestine, the discipline will have to begin by contextualizing its research within the material conditions and history that socially stratify the groups.

Since the launching of the Oslo peace process in 1993, the term ‘normalization’ has been used to characterize policies that aim to recognize the state of Israel and to establish ‘normal’ relations between Israelis and Palestinians. Whereas the Palestinian Authority has been supportive of normalization policies, numerous domestic and international critics have argued that these policies serve to perpetuate occupation and its consequences. We examine how Palestinians understand normalization, to what degree they support various forms of ‘normalizing’ relations with Israelis, and how contact with Israelis relates to support for normalization and motivation for revolutionary resistance against the occupation. Based on a cross-sectional survey conducted among an adult sample (N = 159) in the West Bank in 2016, we show that the understanding of normalization was multi-faceted, and that support for contact and collaboration across group lines (i.e., with Israelis) depended on the type of intergroup relations. On average, respondents were more supportive of relations within the political sphere, e.g. civilian policies and diplomatic coordination, than of interpersonal contact, cultural cooperation or security coordination. Support for most types of intergroup relations was related to decreased motivation for revolutionary resistance. In line with research on ‘sedative’ effects of positive intergroup contact in historically unequal societies, we found that past positive contact with Israelis was linked to decrease in Palestinians’ motivation for revolutionary resistance through increased support for interpersonal contact and security coordination as forms of normalization.

This article examines how Palestinians' intergroup contact experiences relate to their attitudes towards interactions with Israelis (i.e., normalization). We draw on four recent advances in intergroup contact literature. First, recent research indicates that positive contact can impede disadvantaged groups' motivation to challenge inequalities. Second, increased endorsement of normalization mediates this sedative effect of positive contact on motivation to resist in the West Bank. Third, negative contact has been related to increased motivation for social change. Fourth, institutions and societal norms shape the meaning of intergroup contact and its effect on intergroup relations. We hypothesize that negative experiences at checkpoints can act as reminders of institutionalized inequalities and thus attenuate sedative effects. Furthermore, we explore the contextual boundary conditions of such reminder effects. Analyses of cross‐sectional survey conducted among a representative sample (N = 1,000) in the West Bank including Jerusalem showed that (1) positive intergroup contact related to normalization endorsement (sedative effect), (2) negative intergroup contact related to decreased normalization endorsement (mobilizing effect), and (3) negative contact experiences (at checkpoints) canceled out the effect of positive contact (reminder effect), but only in Jerusalem. Results suggest that the impacts of intergroup contact need to be interpreted in light of institutionalized forms of group inequality and segregation.