Ex-combatants, war victims, and violence-affected community members are typically forced to live together as neighbors in post-conflict settings. Cases all over the world accumulate evidence on the fact that living together after war is a far from a harmonic endeavor, and individuals usually rely on contention mechanisms to keep on with their daily lives while in proximity of former and present-day antagonists. While decades-long academic research has unveiled a series of favorable conditions under which interactions might generate positive effects on intergroup dispositions, they usually prescribe focusing less on touching upon divisive issues, and more on emphasizing in potentially bonding commonalities. By means of a randomized controlled experiment with former war antagonists in Colombia, we set to explore whether avoidance or addressing of the most sensitive issues affecting intergroup relations yield better results in terms of attitude change under favorable conditions. Experimental effects show that perspective-giving protocols are capable of containing polarization tendencies in intergroup discussions even when participants are incentivized to directly address their co-existence problems, while qualitative analysis points out at silences and other avoidance mechanisms as the participants’ key strategies to contain conflict when contentious topics flare up during discussions.
AikenNT (2010) Learning to live together: Transitional justice and intergroup reconciliation in Northern Ireland. The International Journal of Transitional Justice4: 166–188.
2.
AllportGW (1979) The Nature of Prejudice. Reading: Basic Books.
3.
BrounéusK (2012) The Trauma of truth telling: Effects of witnessing in the Rwandan Gacaca courts on psychological health. Journal of Conflict Resolution54(3): 408–437.
4.
BarisioneM (2012). Framing a deliberation. Deliberative democracy and the challenge of framing processes. Journal of Public Deliberation8(1): 2.
5.
BloomfieldD (2006) On Good Terms: Clarifying Reconciliation. Berlin: Bergh of Research Center.
6.
BohmanJ (2009) Epistemic value and deliberative democracy. The Good Society18(2): 28–34.
7.
BrounéusK (2003) Reconciliation: Theory and Practice for Development Cooperation. Stockholm: Sida.
8.
BruneauEGSaxeR (2012) The power of being heard: The benefits of “perspective-giving” in the context of intergroup conflict. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology48(4): 855–866.
9.
ChapmanARvan der MerweH (2008) Reflections on the South African experience. In: ChapmanARMerweH (eds) Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa: Did the TRC Deliver?Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 280–300.
10.
ClarkJN (2012) Reconciliation via truth? A study of South Africa’s TRC. Journal of Human Rights11(2): 189–209.
11.
ClarkJN (2013) Reconciliation through remembrance? War memorials and the victims of Vukovar. International Journal of Transitional Justice7(1): 116–135.
12.
EastmondMSelimovicJM (2012) Silence as possibility in postwar everyday life. The International Journal of Transitional Justice6: 502–524.
13.
GellmanM (2008) No justice, no peace? National reconciliation and local conflict resolution in Cambodia. Asian Perspective32(2): 37–57.
14.
GibsonJL (2004) Does truth lead to reconciliation? Testing the causal assumptions of the South African truth and reconciliation process. American Journal of Political Science48(2): 201–217.
15.
GoetschelLHagmannT (2009) Civilian peacebuilding: Peace by bureaucratic means?Conflict, Security and Development9(1): 55–73.
16.
GuelkeA (2012) Politics in Deeply Divided Societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
17.
HaiderH (2009) (Re)imagining coexistence: Striving for sustainable return, reintegration and reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. International Journal of Transitional Justice3(1): 91–113.
18.
HalperinE (2011) Emotional barriers to peace: Emotions and public opinion of Jewish Israelis about the peace process in the Middle East. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology17(1): 22–45.
19.
HaywardK (2014) Deliberative democracy in Northern Ireland: Opportunities and challenges for consensus in a consociational system. In: UgarrizaJECaluwaertsD (eds) Democratic Deliberation in Deeply Divided Societies (Selection and Editorial Matte). London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 11–34.
20.
ImmlerNL (2012) “Too little, too late”? Compensation and family memory: Negotiating Austria’s Holocaust past. Memory Studies5(3): 270–281.
21.
KayangaraPRimeBPaezD, et al. (2014) Trust, individual guilt, collective guilt and dispositions toward reconciliation among Rwandan survivors and prisoners before and after their participation in postgenocide Gacaca Courts in Rwanda. Journal of Social and Political Psychology2(1): 401–416.
22.
LindellMBächigerAGrönlund HerneK, et al. (2016) What drives the polarisation and moderation of opinions? Evidence from a Finnish citizen deliberation experiment on immigration. European Journal of Political Research56(1): 2–45.
23.
LuskinRC (2003) The heavenly public: What would the ideal citizenry be like? In: MacKuenMBRabinowitzG (eds) Electoral Democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 238–261.
24.
MacGintyR (2014) Everyday peace: Bottom-up and local agency in conflict-affected societies. Security Dialogue45(6): 548–564.
25.
MaddisonS (2014) When deliberation remains out of reach: The role of agonistic engagement in divided societies en democratic deliberation. In: UgarrizaJECaluwaertsD (eds) Democratic Deliberation in Deeply Divided Societies (Selection and Editorial Matte). London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 189–205.
26.
MeierhenrichJ (2008) Varieties of reconciliation. Law and Social Inquiry33(1): 195–231.
27.
MendelbergT (2002) The deliberative citizen: Theory and evidence. In: Delli CarpiniMXHuddyLShapiroRY (eds) Political Decision-Making, Deliberation and Participation. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 151–193.
28.
MendeloffD (2004) Truth-seeking, truth-telling and post-conflict peacebuilding: Curb the enthusiasm?International Studies Review6: 355–380.
29.
MutzDC (2006) Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30.
NadlerA (2012) Intergroup reconciliation: Definitions, processes, and future directions. In: LindaRTroppL (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Intergroup Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 291–308.
31.
NadlerALiviatanI (2006) Intergroup reconciliation: Effects of adversary’s expressions of empathy, responsibility, and recipients’ trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin32(4): 459–470.
32.
NalepaM (2010) Skeletons in the Closet: Transitional Justice in Post-Communist Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
NeffJ (2005) Honoring the Civil War Dead: Commemoration and the Problem of Reconciliation. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
34.
NussioERettbergAUgarrizaJE (2015) Victims, non-victims and their opinions on transitional justice: Findings from the Colombian case. The International Journal of Transitional Justice9(2): 336–354.
35.
O’FlynnI (2010) Deliberative democracy, the public interest and the consociational model. Political Studies58: 572–589.
36.
O’FlynnI (2006) Deliberative Democracy and Divided Societies. New York.
37.
PettigrewTFTroppLR (2006) A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology90(5): 751–783.
38.
PrietoJD (2012) Together after war while the war goes on: Victims, ex-combatants and communities in three Colombian cities. International Journal of Transitional Justice6(3): 525–546.
39.
ReiterA (2020) Measuring the success (or failure) of transitional justice. In: SimićO (ed.) An Introduction to Transitional Justice. Second Edition. New York: Routledge, 291–310.
40.
RettbergAUgarrizaJE (2016) Reconciliation: A comprehensive framework for empirical analysis. Security Dialogue47: 1–24.
41.
RigneyA (2012) Reconciliation and remembering: (How) does it work?Memory Studies5(3): 251–258.
42.
RobbenACGM (2012) From dirty war to genocide: Argentina’s resistance to national reconciliation. Memory Studies5(3): 305–315.
43.
SagySAKaplanandAS (2002) Interpretations of the past and expectations for the future among Israeli and Palestinian youth. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry72: 26–38.
44.
ShnabelNNadlerA (2008) A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology94(1): 116–132.
45.
ShnabelNNadlerACanetti-NisimD, et al. (2008) The role of acceptance and empowerment in promoting reconciliation from the perspective of the needs-based model. Social Issues and Policy Review2(1): 159–186.
46.
SimanTovIShnabelNHalabiS (2015) Winning the victim status can open conflicting groups to reconciliation: Evidence from the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict. European Journal of Social Psychology45(2): 139–145.
47.
SlothuusRde VreeseCH (2010) Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. The Journal of Politics72(3): 630–645.
48.
SprengRNMcKinnonMCMarRA, et al. (2009) The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of Personality Assessment91(1): 62–71.
49.
SteinerJ (2012) The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy. Empirical Research and Normative Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
SteinerJBächtigerASpörndliM, et al. (2004) Deliberative Politics in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.
StoverEWeinsteinH (2004) My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
SunsteinCR (2002) The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy10: 175–195.
53.
TamTHewstoneMKenworhyJB, et al. (2008) Post conflict reconciliation: Intergroup forgiveness and implicit biases in Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Issues64(2): 303–320.
54.
TroppL (2012) The Oxford Handbook of Intergroup Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
55.
TroppLRMazziottaAWrightSC (2017) Recent developments in intergroup contact research: Affective processes, group status, and contact valence. In: SibleyCGBarlowFK (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 463–480.
56.
UgarrizaJENussioE (2017) The effect of perspective-giving on post-conflict reconciliation. An experimental approach. Political Psychology38: 3–19.
57.
UgarrizaJE (2016) When war adversaries talk: The experimental effect of engagement rules on postconflict deliberation. Latin American Politics & Society58(3): 77–98.
58.
UgarrizaJECaluwaertsD (2014) Democratic Deliberation in Deeply Divided Societies (Selection and Editorial Matte). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
59.
UgarrizaJENussioE (2016a) The effect of perspective-giving on post-conflict reconciliation. An experimental approach. Political Psychology38(1): 3–19.
60.
UgarrizaJENussioE (2016b) There is No Pill for Deliberation. Explaining Discourse Quality in Post-Conflict Communities. Swiss Political Science Review22: 1–22.
61.
UgarrizaJETrujilloN (2020) The ironic effect of deliberation: What we can (and cannot) expect in deeply divided societies. Acta Politica55: 221–241.
62.
VorauerJDSasakiS (2009) Helpful only in the abstract?Psychological Science20: 191–197.
63.
VrbeticM (2013) International criminal justice and post-conflict reconciliation in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Working together or at cross-purposes? In: International studies association annual convention, San Francisco, CA, 3–6April.
64.
WrightSCAronAMcLaughlin-VolpeT, et al. (1997) The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology73(1): 73–90.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
