Talking to a (Segregation) Wall: Intergroup Contact and Attitudes Toward Normalization Among Palestinians From the Occupied Territories

Abstract

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.

Meta-analysis of the “ironic” effects of intergroup contact.

“…7We did not consider whether, in certain conditions, positive contact might increase support for social change in disadvantaged groups because only few studies measured the relevant moderator variables and because our analyses relied on correlation matrices, which are not enough to estimate interaction effects. For the latter reason, we also did not consider whether positive and negative contact might interact in their effects on support for social change (see Albzour et al, 2022). …”

“…This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.6 Published research includes only three longitudinal studies(Koschate et al, 2012;Reimer et al, 2017;Tropp et al, 2012), all of which conflated within-person change and between-person stability(Hamaker et al, 2015), two experimental studies with a no-contact control condition(Becker et al, 2013;Droogendyk et al, 2016), and two intervention studies(Reimer et al, 2021;Shani & Boehnke, 2017).7 We did not consider whether, in certain conditions, positive contact might increase support for social change in disadvantaged groups because only few studies measured the relevant moderator variables and because our analyses relied on correlation matrices, which are not enough to estimate interaction effects. For the latter reason, we also did not consider whether positive and negative contact might interact in their effects on support for social change (seeAlbzour et al, 2022). "IRONIC" EFFECTS META-ANALYSIS…”

How does the geography of surveillance affect collective action?

“…Whether people will tend to support cooperative or confrontational actions not only depends on their personal experience and psychological motivations-the predominant focus of previous studies (see Van Zomeren et al, 2008)-but also on the broader environment in which they are embedded. In particular, it may be difficult to advocate for "cooperative" actions as truly cooperative (i.e., between equal partners working for a common goal), when living in the shadow of occupation and territorial dispossession (see Albzour et al, 2023).…”

How Does the Geography of Surveillance Affect Collective Action?

“…In particular, it may be difficult to advocate for 'cooperative' actions as truly cooperative (i.e. between equal partners working for a common goal), when living in the proximity of overtly visible, chronic reminders of military occupation and territorial dispossession (see Albzour et al, 2022).…”

“…Various Israeli and Palestinian civil society organizations have also undertaken cooperative actions to promote peace through joint activities and dialogue (Maoz, 2004). However, with the failure of the peace process, the second intifada, and the expansion of Israeli settlements, cooperative actions have become increasingly criticized as perpetuating inequalities and the status quo, and its supporters increasingly marginalized within Palestinian society (Albzour et al, 2022). In parallel, more confrontational forms of actions have gained popularity, particularly in the form of local and international movements calling for the boycott of Israel (Albzour et al, 2022).…”