This research was supported by a Faculty Research Grant from the Committee on Research of the Academic Senate, University of California, Santa Cruz, and by fellowships from the National Academy of Education/Spencer Foundation and the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame. We greatly acknowledge the research assistance of Shirley Chen, Edgar Marroquin Esquivel, Cameron Goode, Jay Lykens, Emily Ma, Kathryn Pinzarrone, Elena Ricks, Ashley Starms and Eric Windell. We also thank Doug Bonett for statistical consultation.
1540-4560/asset/olbannerleft.jpg?v=1&s=9fe8eba9756ddf205c37f4422c93d133fafa3c95)
1540-4560/asset/olbannerright.jpg?v=1&s=8d58572d12d0565c1cec7b2ba9627973dd759215)
Original Article
Power in History: Contrasting Theoretical Approaches to Intergroup Dialogue
Article first published online: 11 JUN 2015
DOI: 10.1111/josi.12116
© 2015 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
Issue
Journal of Social Issues
Special Issue: Psychology, History and Social Justice: The Social Past in the Personal Present
Volume 71, Issue 2, pages 371–385, June 2015
Additional Information
How to Cite
Hammack, P. L. and Pilecki, A. (2015), Power in History: Contrasting Theoretical Approaches to Intergroup Dialogue. Journal of Social Issues, 71: 371–385. doi: 10.1111/josi.12116
Publication History
- Issue published online: 11 JUN 2015
- Article first published online: 11 JUN 2015
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Groups in conflict routinely use historical narrative to compete for status in intergroup encounters. This study examines power dynamics in conversations about history facilitated according to distinct social psychological theories. Israeli and Palestinian youth participating in an existing intergroup contact program were randomly assigned to either a (1) coexistence condition consistent with a prejudice reduction model in which the goal was to foster the construction of a common in-group identity, or (2) a confrontational condition consistent with a collective action model in which the goal was to raise awareness about identities and empower the low-status group. Dialogue facilitated in the coexistence condition reproduced power asymmetries, with a pattern of Jewish Israeli dominance. Dialogue facilitated in the confrontational condition suggested a pattern of Palestinian dominance, consistent with a collective action model. Findings are discussed in terms of theoretical approaches to intergroup contact and dialogue about history among groups in intractable conflict.
