Precursors of inter-group reconciliation among the youth in

Belfast and Vukovar (Croatia)

Ankica Kosic(please pronounce Ankiza or Anna)

University of Rome, Italy

• despite political solutions (e.g., Belfast Agreement of 1998; Andrew agreement, 2006), communities remained separated.

Culture of violence

“There are still many riots at interface areas – in summer 2006 it happened that 300 young people gathered and wanted to attack the other community.” (interview Intercomm)

Transcending the divide and the culture of violence among young

people

• Integrated education

• Inter-community work

Study in Belfast

Participants•320 students (139 boys and 181 girls) in high schools in Belfast. •M age = 17.77 years.

•Protestants (N = 128) •Catholics (N = 174).

Measures

Adolescents’ conflict management styles within family -8 items ( = 0.80)- adaptation of Kurdek’s CRSi (Kurdek, 1994)Examples: Trying to find solutions that are acceptable for both sides. Throwing insults and digs.

- Adolescents’ constructive conflict management styles

Parental communication styles with children – 7 items – Parental non constructive communication styles

Impact of the Troubles – 4 items ( = 0.82) whether they had any experience of sectarianism and the Troubles Example: Have you ever been intimidated because of your religion?

Have you ever been injured in a sectarian incident?

Feeling unsafe (e.g., walking outside the neighbourhood, wearing school uniform…) – 3 items ( = 0.82)

Index - Impact of the violence

•Cross-community contact: quantity– 5 items ( = 0.80)

•Integrated school

•Participation in cross-community projects

Feeling thermometer (1 = extremely unfavourable to 7 (extremely favourable)

Inter-group forgiveness – 7 items ( = 0.85)

Bogardus social distance scale - 5 items ( = 0.80) – higher scores indicate higher social acceptance

Instrumental co-operation

propensity towards collaboration and interest in improvement of inter-group relations Example: I am interested in the development of good relations and co-operation with the other community.

Index of reconciliation

Results

Table 1. Summary of Moderated Multiple Regression Analyses

(R2 = .39; F= 14.50)Reconciliation

Beta p

Adolescents’ constructive communication styles .17 .001

Parental non-constructive communication styles -.39 .001

Impact of violence .05 n.s.

Cross-community contact .16 n.s.

Integrated school .07 n.s.

Participation in Cross-community projects .11 .03

Adolescents’ constructive communicative styles x Impact of the violence .21 .001

Adolescents constructive communicative styles x Cross-community contact

.13 .005

Parental non-constructive communicative styles x Impact of the violence -.17 .001

Figure 1: Reconciliation as a function of adolescents constructive strategies in

conflict management within family and impact of violence.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low Impact of violence High Impact of violence

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

ble

Low Adolescents constructive strategies

High Adolescents constructive strategies

Figure 2: Reconciliation as a function adolescents constructive strategies in

conflict management within family and inter-group contact.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low Inter-group contact High Inter-group contact

Rec

onci

liatio

n

Low Adolescents constructive strategies

High Adolescents constructive strategies

Figure 3: Reconciliation as a function of parental non-constructive

communicative styles and impact of violence.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low Impact of violence High Impact of violence

Rec

onci

liatio

n

Low Parental nonconstructive styles

High Parental nonconstructive styles

Discussion

Constructive conflict resolution styles within family

more propensity toward reconciliation with the other community, even when

the youth do not feel safe in the context.

Croatia

In 1991 conflicts escalated in areas of Croatia populated by large numbers of Serbs.

•Vukovar was almost completely destroyed.

•about 2000 people were killed or wounded and over 500 ‘disappeared’ (Tanner, 1997).

Vukovar

• According to the 2001 census registered population was 31.670.

• Croats (57.5%) • Serbs (32.9%) • other minorities (6.28%).

• The process of social ‘polarisation’.

• separated shops and coffee bars…

• parallel institutions, such as local radio stations, sports clubs…

• children in schools and kindergartens have been separated into different buildings or classes.

Problems:

•people are still trying to find missing members of their families

•slow progress of justice

•poor economic situation

Study in Croatia

Participants 277 participants, students at the University in Vukovar and in secondary schools. • average age = 18.32 years

• 132 male and 145 female respondents

•Croats (N = 154) and Serbs (N = 106).

Measures •Adolescents conflict resolution styles within family - constructive

• Parental communication styles with children – non constructive

• Impact of the war

•Feeling unsafe

•Index – Impact of the violence

• Cross-community contact - quantity

• Participation in cross-community projects

Propensity toward reconciliation

Feeling thermometer

Inter-group forgiveness

Bogardus social distance scale

Instrumental co-operation

Index of reconciliation

Results

Table 2. Summary of Moderated Multiple Regression Analyses (R2 = .49; F= 18.02)

Reconciliation

Beta p

Adolescents constructive communication styles within family .31 .001

Parental non-constructive communication styles -.08 n.s.

Impact of violence .12 .03.

Cross-community contact .36 .001

Cross-community projects .06 n.s.

Adolescents constructive communication styles x Impact of the violence .23 .001

Adolescents constructive communication styles x Cross-community contact

.19 .001

Parental non-constructive communication styles x Impact of the violence -.15 .003

Figure 4: Reconciliation as a function of adolescents constructive strategies

in conflict management within family and impact of violence.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low Impact of violence High Impact of violence

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

ble

Low Adolescents constructive strategies

High Adolescents constructive strategies

Figure 5: Reconciliation as a function adolescents constructive strategies in

conflict management within family and inter-group contact.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low Inter-group contact High Inter-group contact

Rec

onci

liatio

n

Low Adolescents constructive strategies

High Adolescents constructive strategies

Figure 5: Reconciliation as a function of parental non-constructive

communicative styles and impact of violence.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low Impact of violence High Impact of violence

Rec

onci

liatio

n

Low Parental non-constructive styles

High Parental non-constructive styles

Conclusions

Constructive conflict resolution strategies within family

more propensity toward reconciliation with the other community, even when

the youth do not feel safe.

Thank you!