See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258145651

Introduction: Conflicts and social psychology.

Chapter · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

13 2,074

1 author:

Daniel Bar-Tal
Tel Aviv University
299 PUBLICATIONS   8,884 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Trust in Arabic-speaking Islam View project

Political socialization of young children in intractable conflicts: Conception and evidence View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Bar-Tal on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Introduction
Conflicts and Social Psychology*
Daniel Bar-Tal

C
onflicts are defined as situations in which two or more parties perceive
that their goals and/or interests are in direct contradiction with one
another and decide to act on the basis of this perception. This definition
suggests two conditions for eruption of the conflict: identification of the contra-
diction and the decision to act on this basis. Accordingly, it is not enough that each
of the parties will identify the contradiction in goals and/or interests: In order for
a conflict to erupt, it is necessary that at least one party will decide to act upon
this contradiction and bring it into the light, at least in a verbal expression. This
means that conflicts may erupt also when in the first stage only one side perceives
that its goals and/or interests are in direct contradiction with the goals or interests
of another party and decides to act on the basis of this perception. Such a move
causes the other side to note the contradiction and act as well, leading to the surge
of the conflict.
Conflicts are inseparable and significant part of human life on every level of
interaction; there are interpersonal conflicts, intragroup, intergroup, interorgani-
zational, intrasocietal, and interethnic as well as international conflicts and even
intercivilization conflicts—to note the most salient ones as we move from the micro
to mega conflicts (Galtung, 2004). They take place constantly and continuously
because it is unavoidable that human beings will not have disagreements over
goals, interests, values, and/or beliefs. It is just simply natural that people, as indi-
viduals and groups, who differ in aspects such as belief systems that include aspira-
tions, values, goals, needs, as well as in ways of socialization, cultural environments,
or political and economic systems will have conflicts over almost every tangible or
nontangible element of desire.
In this vein it is necessary to say that not all the conflicts have negative meaning
and are negative in their nature. Conflicts are also necessary for enabling progress
and innovation as human beings come with new ideas or inventions that contradict
old stagnated dogmas, values, habits, or practices. Conflicts also erupt to abolish
­various types of immorality that human beings practice such as discrimination,
injustice, inequality, exploitation, occupation, and even ethnic cleansing and geno-
cide. Often only through conflicts groups can achieve what they deserve according
to international laws or moral codes of the international community. This is so
because very rarely groups willingly provide to other groups with what these groups

* I would like to express gratitude to Shai Fuxman, Nimrod Goren, Dana Guy, Dennis Kahn, Shiri
Landman, Rafi Nets-Zehngut, Amiram Raviv, Nimord Rosler, Ofer Shinar, and Doron Tsur, who
reviewed the earlier draft of the chapter and provided valuable comments.

RT21506_Intro.indd 1 8/19/2010 12:33:30 PM

 2 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

ought to have according to these laws and codes. Many of the attempts to correct
injustice are then met with strong resistance and rejection which lead to serious
conflicts. Moreover, there is need to note that conflicts differ in their symmetrical–
asymmetrical dimension on various parameters. The two distinguished parameters
refer to the military–economic–political might that the sides in conflict have and to
the level and extent of violation of moral codes that the sides in conflict practice.
On both parameters there might be differences between the rival sides. In general,
it can be said that those are not the conflicts themselves which necessarily reflect
the ugly side of the humane species, but some of their causes and some of the ways
they are managed.

Macro Level Conflicts

The present volume focuses on particular types of conflicts—macro level conflicts
that involve societies and with this focus the volume will analyze mostly serious
and harsh conflicts in which society members participate. A society denotes a
large, unique and stable social system with established boundaries that differenti-
ates it from other societies. It consists of collective of people, who have at least
some ­feeling of belonging, share societal beliefs, experience solidarity, coordinate
to at least some extent of activities and have a sense of common identity. Using
Giddens’s (1984) terminology, societies are “social systems which ‘stand out’ in
bas-relief from a background of a range of other systemic relationships in which
they are embedded. They stand out because definite structural principles serve to
produce a specifiable overall ‘clustering of institutions’ across time and space” (p.
164). These social collectives endure, evolving a tradition, culture, collective
memory, belief systems, social structures, and institutions (Griswold, 1994). Those
are binding and integrating elements that unite differing groups into one society
(Hoebel, 1960).
Many of the macro societal conflicts involve ethnic societies. Ethnic societies
or groups refer to collectives, whose membership is determined on the basis of
perceived common past, common culture, common language and common destiny.
It means that ethnicity is based also on perception and awareness of shared char-
acteristics, as well as cognized differences from other groups (Anderson, 1991;
Barth, 1969; Brubaker, 2004; Connor, 1994; Geertz, 1973).
The reference to the macro level conflicts indicates that they involve society
members as being part of collectives, as a result of their identification with the
­collective and an emergence of the collective identity (David & Bar-Tal, 2009).
This implies that in times of a conflict, members of a society in many cases, sharing
with each other feelings, beliefs, values and norms, act in coordinated ways. That
is, macro level conflicts concern collective goals and interests such as rights, terri-
tories, self-determinations, resources, prestige, values, ideologies, and so on—both
tangible and nontangible societal commodities that individuals as members of a
society value, desire, aspire, or need for their collective entity. As a result, society
members mind, care, are emotionally involved, and participate in conflicts as
members of their collective. These conflicts also involve individual interests and
goals, but central preoccupation concerns the well-being of the society. Moreover,

RT21506_Intro.indd 2 8/19/2010 12:33:30 PM

 Introduction 3

society members are aware that this preoccupation is shared by other members
who also identify with the collective (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe,
2004). With this awareness, society members do not have to experience the conflict
directly in order to feel that they are part of it. As members of a society they are
exposed to the events of the conflict via various channels of communication and
societal institutions and thus become vicarious participants of all aspects of the
conflict through the process of identification with their society.
The care and concern for the well being of the society or even direct participa-
tion does not mean that all society members must agree with the way the conflict is
managed. Some of them may not even support the goals of the conflict. They may
disagree on various issues related to conflict and carry out debates and activities
that reflect these disagreements. These disagreements may even lead to deep schism
reflecting intrasocietal conflicts that may evolve at any phase of the macro inter­
societal conflict.

Socio-psychological Perspective
The analysis of the macro level intergroup conflicts involves many different per-
spectives such as, for example, historical, political, sociological, economic, or cul-
tural ones. Each of these perspectives offers different concepts, theoretical
frameworks, models or even ways of collecting data that provide unique outlooks
and emphases. Thus, the historical perspective focuses on the historiography of the
outbreak of the conflict and its continuation, attempting to describe the course of
the events in most accurate way; or the political perspective tries to elucidate the
role of political systems and dynamics in conflicts.
However, it seems to me that first of all there is a need to recognize that those
are human beings who initiate conflicts, take part in them, manage them, some-
times peacefully resolve them and even may reconcile. Human beings perceive,
evaluate, infer and act. These human psychological behaviors* are integral parts of
conflicts’ interactions as human beings are the only actors on the conflict stage. As
noted, those are human beings who decide to disseminate the idea about the neces-
sity of conflicts, to mobilize societies’ members to participate in them, to socialize
their children to continue them, to carry them violently, or to reject their peaceful
resolution (see Chapter 1).
Mobilization is a necessary condition for carrying out a successful macro level
intergroup conflict. Mobilization is an act of deliberate recruitment of society
members to be involved in the causes of the conflict. It can be seen as a kind of
persuasion process with the goal of convincing group members to support the
conflict and ­participate in it actively. The necessary basic precondition for mobili-
zation is that individuals who are society members will greatly identify with their
group, in general, and specifically with the posed conflict’s goals of their society
(Simon & Klandermans, 2001; see also Chapter 5). Moreover, mobilization means
not only that individuals identify with the group and accept the goals related to

* The term behavior is used in the most general psychological way to refer to perception, cognition,
experiencing affect and emotions and acting.

RT21506_Intro.indd 3 8/19/2010 12:33:30 PM

 4 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

conflicts, but also approve the direction of the actions that the group takes and are
ready to carry some kind of action themselves on behalf of the group which often
involves killing the rival and at the same time, readiness to be killed (Klandermans,
1988). This process is carried through messages that include beliefs which are
relevant, concrete, appeal to the social identity, negate the present situation as
unacceptable, note important cherished values are threatening and arouse strong
emotions. It is clear that harsh and violent conflicts cannot evolve and gain
strength without the participation of at least some of the group members in
­conflict, which is manifested by their total devotion and readiness to sacrifice
their lives (Bar-Tal & Staub, 1997).
In view of the premises stated above, the study of conflicts cannot take place
without the contribution of the field social psychology. More explicitly, social
psycho­logy provides the core knowledge that is necessary to form the founda-
tions for the understanding of the conflicts’ dynamics and their peace making.
Socio-psychological perspective does not try to describe what the “real” course
of the conflict was, but rather to analyze what people think and feel in this situ-
ation, as this is extremely important for the understanding of why they act in the
particular way. Krech, Crutchfield, and Ballachey (1962) rightly noted years ago
that “man acts upon his ideas, his irrational acts no less than his rational acts are
guided by what he thinks, what he believes, what he anticipates. However bizarre
the behavior of men, tribes, or nations may appear to an outsider, to the men, to
the tribes, to the nations their behavior makes sense in terms of their own world
views” (p. 17).
This means that people behave in a conflict according to their psychological
repertoire which includes not only those beliefs, attitudes, emotions, and intentions
of behaviors acquired in the course of the conflict, but also according to the ones
that were acquired over a long period of time in different contexts, before the con-
flict erupted. Various past experiences and acquired knowledge also have determi-
native influence on the manner in which a collective acts in a conflict situation.
Thus the socio-psychological approach tries to reveal these thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors that are underlying the evolvement and maintenance of the conflict as
well as later its eventual resolution and reconciliation. Thus, also a possibility of
peace building must also be initiated in human minds first. This idea should then
be propagated and adopted by the same human beings who were engaged in initi-
ating and maintaining the conflict.

Study of Conflicts in Social Psychology

In view of the above presented premises about intergroup conflicts it is not surpris-
ing that the founding fathers of social psychology realized that their study should
be one of its main endeavors (Deutsch, 1980). One research direction of the early
seeds of studies of conflict is summarized by Murphy, Murphy, and Newcomb
(1937) in their textbook of social psychology. On one hand, empirical studies
focused on individual cooperation and competition in the framework of task
­performance. On the other hand, in the first half of the twentieth century, the
study of conflict was an integral part of the study of prejudice, as prejudice was

RT21506_Intro.indd 4 8/19/2010 12:33:30 PM

 Introduction 5

viewed as one of the salient indications of intergroup conflict and violence (Cantril,
1941; Harding, Kutner, Proshansky, & Chein, 1954; Newcomb, 1950). However,
this state changed with time. Presently, the study of prejudice is omitting deeper
analysis of conflicts and their resolution (Stephan, 1985).
In the mid-twentieth century, when the modern social psychology evolved, the
study of conflicts was part of the main stream. Kurt Lewin believed that conflicts
are inseparable part of human behavior and social psychologists can illuminate
various aspects of this phenomenon. The edited volume Resolving Social Conflicts
(Lewin, 1948) presented and analyzed different types of conflicts ranging from
intrapersonal to intergroup using socio-psychological conceptual framework. Based
on Lewin’s theory, Deutsch, one of the pioneers of modern social psycho­logy,
began to develop a theory of cooperation and competition, which has served as a
basic conception for the study of a conflict (Deutsch, 1949a, 1949b). During this
period, the knowledge about conflicts began to crystallize and the classical text-
book Theory and Problems of Social Psychology by Krech and Crutchfield (1948)
already devoted two chapters to conflicts: one regarding industrial conflict and the
other about international tension.
The classical studies by Sherif and his colleagues about conflict and coopera-
tion are undoubtedly the most compelling examples of seminal contributions to the
understanding of how conflicts evolve and how they can be resolved (Sherif, 1966;
Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961). The so-called “Robber Cave experi-
ments” provided experimental real life opportunity to observe first the formation
of two groups, then the emergence of a conflict between them and its various
implications and finally ways of resolving this conflict peacefully via setting a series
of super-ordinate goals. Approximately at the same time the paradigm of simulat-
ing conflicts as games was imported from game theory to social psychology allow-
ing for the use of experimental method in the investigation of various hypotheses
in intergroup conflicts and their resolution (Deutsch, 1958; Kelley et  al., 1970;
Rapoport, 1960). This paradigm enabled precise measures of outcomes, easy
manipulation of various situations and strict control of variables (Pruitt & Kimmel,
1977). The most popular paradigm was the prisoners dilemma, but with time other
paradigms were invented including trucking game by Deutsch and Krauss (1960)
that allowed to study mixed motive conflicts.
The very early work by Klineberg (1950) was signaling the growing preoccupa-
tion with international conflicts by social psychologists . In the 1960s, a clear trend
in this direction emerged in social psychology. The edited book by Kelman (1965),
as well as books written by Stagner (1967) and White (1970), offered a social
­psychological perspective to the analysis of large scale intersocietal conflicts, high-
lighting issues such as intergroup perceptions, violence, leadership, or negotiation.
The seminal contribution of Tajfel (1979, 1982) on social identity also has direct
implication for intergroup conflicts, suggesting not only a crucial mechanism for
group formation and functioning, but also a determinative element that leads to
intergroup differentiation as well as to conflicts.
From the present perspective, it is possible to say that although the theme of
studying conflict never achieved a longstanding primary place as did the studies
of prejudice or conformity, it succeeded to establish itself as a legitimate part of

RT21506_Intro.indd 5 8/19/2010 12:33:30 PM

 6 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

the social psychology. A number of textbooks included this topic in their agenda
(Myers, 1993; Raven & Rubin, 1976; Saks & Krupat, 1988) and a number of lead-
ing social psychologists such as Morton Deutsch, Herbert Kelman, late Jeffrey
Rubin, late Ralph White, or Dean Pruitt to name only a few, devoted their entire
career to studying this topic. For years social psychologists have played the major
role in developing and establishing peace psychology and political psychology
which have been preoccupied with the study of conflicts and peace making. In
1990 division 48 within the American Psychological Association (APA) namely
the Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict and Violence was established. Few
years later the society began to publish a journal Peace and Conflict: Journal of
Peace Psychology.
Today there is a growing interest in the social psychology of a conflict and many
of the younger generation of social psychologists concentrate on various aspects of
this area. Throughout the recent years, books, chapters, and journal articles, have
been published and many papers have been presented in social psychology confer-
ences on various aspects of conflicts and peace making (Vollhardt & Bilali, 2008).
Also several “small meetings” of the European Social Psychology Association were
organized about the social psychology of conflicts and their resolution and several
issues of Journal of Social Issues and Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
were devoted to this theme as well. A few years ago a second edition of the hand-
book about conflict resolution (Deutsch, Coleman, & Marcus, 2006) was published
by social psychologists and recently a few important collections have appeared
providing impetus to the psychological study of conflict and peace building (de
Rivera, 2009; Fitzduff & Stout, 2006).
The present book is taking a social psychological perspective to the analysis of
conflicts. It mainly focuses on the socio-psychological foundations and dynamics of
harsh and destructive intergroup conflicts (but not only), illuminating their erup-
tion, management, resolution, and peace making.

Destructive Conflicts
There are different types of societal conflicts, which may be classified in various
ways. One of the more meaningful classification focuses on their severity and
­longevity. In fact this dimension represents the level of destructiveness of the
­conflicts. Different terms were used to describe the two opposing poles of this
dimension on which it is possible to locate the various intergroup conflicts—though
they may dynamically move on this dimension with time. The concepts of tractable
and intractable conflicts* will be used. Thus, on the one pole of this dimension are
found tractable conflicts which are over goals of low importance and last for a short
period of time, during which the parties in dispute view them as solvable and are
interested to resolve them quickly through negotiation. In addition, the involved
societies avoid violence, do not mobilize society members to support their cause,
and recognize and take into account mutual interests, goals and needs, and view

* The term intractable became popular in recent years among social scientists (Coleman, 2000, 2003;
Lewicki, Gray, & Elliot, 2003 and http://www.crinfo.org).

RT21506_Intro.indd 6 8/19/2010 12:33:30 PM

 Introduction 7

their conflict as being of mixed motive nature. Some of the conflicts between allied
states such as France and Germany or Britain and United States are examples of
this type of conflicts.
On the other pole are found intractable conflicts. These conflicts are over
­perceived important goals; they involve great animosity and vicious cycles of vio-
lence; are prolonged because neither side can win and therefore are perceived as
unsolvable and self-perpetuating; at the same time both sides are not interested in
compromising and resolving them in a peaceful way; in contrast, each side mobi-
lizes society members to participate in them and is focusing only on own needs and
goals (see also different characterizations of intractable conflicts, Azar, 1990;
Burton, 1987; Deutsch, 1985; Huth & Russett, 1993; Kriesberg, Northrup, &
Thorson, 1989; Mitchell, 1981; Mor & Maoz, 1999). The interethnic conflicts
between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, between Chechens and
Russians in Chechnya, between Tamils and Singhalese in Sri Lanka, between
Turks and Kurds in Turkey, between Moslems and Hindus in India’s Kashmir and
in the Middle East, between Jews and Palestinians provide or provided in different
periods prototypical examples of intractable conflicts. This type of long-lasting,
severe and violent conflicts have serious implications for the societies involved,
their individual members as well as for the whole world community. Therefore,
understanding the foundations and dynamics of intractable conflicts is of special
challenge for social scientists, including social psychologists. Many chapters of this
book focus especially on this type of conflicts.
The present characterization of conflict’s intractability is based on Kriesberg’s
characteristics (Kriesberg, 1993, 1998). He suggested the following four necessary
characterizing features:

1. Intractable conflicts are violent involving physical violence in which soci-

ety members are killed and wounded in either wars, small-scale military
engagements or terrorist attacks.
2. They are perceived as unsolvable because society members involved in
intractable conflict do not perceive the possibility of resolving the conflict
peacefully.
3. They demand extensive investment as the engaged parties make vast
material (i.e., military, technological, and economic) and psychological
investments in order to cope successfully with the situation.
4. They are protracted as they persist for a long time, at least a generation.
Their long duration implies that the parties in conflict have had many
confrontational experiences and as a result they have accumulated ani-
mosity and hostility.

In addition to these features, Bar-Tal (1998a, 2007a) proposed to add three

necessary characteristics that further elaborate the nature of intractable conflicts.

5. Intractable conflicts are total as they are perceived to be about essential

and basic goals, needs and/or values that are regarded as indispensable for
the group’s existence and/or survival.

RT21506_Intro.indd 7 8/19/2010 12:33:30 PM

 8 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

6. They are perceived as being of zero sum nature, without compromises

and with adherence to all the original goals. In addition, parties engaged
in intractable conflict perceive any loss suffered by the other side as their
own gain, and conversely, any gains of the other side as their own loss.
7. They are central because they occupy a central place in the lives of the
individual group members and the group as a whole. Members of the
society are involved constantly and continuously with the conflict.

To conclude this characterization, some of the above described essential

f­ eatures of intractable conflict are purely psychological such as the manner the
conflict is perceived as being existential, irresolvable, and of a zero sum nature.
Other features are associated with different realms of personal and collective
experiences. Even level of violence or extent of investment in the conflict is evalu-
ated subjectively. Only the characteristic of longevity is absolutely an objective one.
This does not mean that evaluation of intractability is imagined. People evaluate
conflicts on the basis of their experiences and provided information and there is
not doubt that conflicts differ in their severity and thus in the clearness of the situ-
ation. Wars or high level violence provide unequivocal basis for the evaluation of
the severity of the conflict. But there are also situations and lasting conditions that
are not as clear and then society members are dependent more on supplied infor-
mation and acquired knowledge in their judgment.
All the six features (except longevity) may evolve with time and each of them
has its own pace of development. Once all of them appear, the state of intractabil-
ity begins and each characteristic adds to this chronic and harsh reality. It is pos-
sible to assume that violence plays a major role in characterizing the severity of
the conflict and that it is difficult to evaluate the contribution of each of the other
elements to its level of intractability. Nevertheless appearance of the six character-
istics without longevity may lead to a very severe, intense and vicious conflict with
very heavy losses as the bitter memory of War World II teaches us. The feature of
longevity adds a particular element of accumulation of hostility over a long period
of time and evolvement because of the continuing violence, which anchors the
conflict in system beliefs. It also indicates the inability to bring the conflict to an
end either by force through a military victory or by a peaceful resolution. Thus only
when all the seven features emerge in their extreme form, typical nature of intrac-
table conflicts emerges. In reality, intractable conflicts differ in terms of the inten-
sity with which each of the seven features occurs. Moreover, intractable conflicts
fluctuate, as they may deescalate and then escalate again. Thus, over time each of
the seven features may vary in its intensity.
One of the most salient signs of conflict escalation takes place when a party or
parties resort to violence (see Chapter 7). In many cases the use of violence is per-
ceived as necessary part to achieve the goals either by one or both sides to the
conflict (Brubaker & Laitin, 1998; Opotow, 2006). In conflicts that are over exis-
tential goals related to the social identity of the group and which are viewed as of
zero sum nature, the use of violence is almost inevitable as the contentions are of
such a large scale that very rarely they are satisfied with good will when they

RT21506_Intro.indd 8 8/19/2010 12:33:30 PM

 Introduction 9

emerge. Violence also erupts often in conflicts in which one party is not recognized
as a legitimate side to contentions, when there is a great disparity of power and
when one side believes that it can ignore the demands of the other side and then
the other side feels the need to demonstrate its determination; when there are no
institutionalized ways to deal with the grievances, and/or when a party believes
that using violence is the best way to achieve its goals.
In most of the cases the beginning of violence by one side immediately evokes
violent response from the other side to the conflict. From this point onwards the
acts of violence become a part of the conflict and the meaning of initiation and
retribution for specific acts is lost. Once the violence erupts it immediately changes
the nature of the conflict because it involves harm to society members. Physical
violence includes all forms of harm inflicted on human beings beginning with
destruction, injuring through torturing, raping, murdering, and can at times leads
up to mass killing, ethnic cleansing and even genocide. Physical harm is usually
accompanied by symbolic violence such as humiliation or discrimination. The
harm is often not only inflicted on military forces but also on civilians (Chapter 8).
The harm violates codes of moral behavior, involves group members, gives rise to
a sense of collective victimhood, arouses strong emotional reactions, leads to dele-
gitimization of the rival and eventually escalates the conflict (Bar-Tal, 2003). Also,
particularly important in the context of interethnic conflict is the fact that although
individuals perform violent acts, the violence is initiated and carried out within the
social system. That is, the societal–political system provides the rationales and the
justifications for the violence, mobilizes group members to carry it out, trains indi-
viduals to perform violent acts and then glorifies the violent acts and those who
perform them.
As noted before, parties involved in intractable conflict cannot win and do not
perceive a possibility of resolving it peacefully, instead they continue the confron-
tation for many decades until intractability is eventually overturned, that is, either
one side wins eventually, or both sides finally decide to resolve it peacefully. In any
event in interethnic conflicts it is very difficult to win it militarily and therefore
they continue through decades and centuries until sometimes both sides turn to
peaceful resolution (Sandole, Byrne, Sandole-Staroste, & Senehi, 2009; Worchel,
1999). Even when one side conquers the territory and even when establishes a
cooperative regime to own wishes, the conflict may erupt again until the basic
needs and goals of the conquered group are satisfied (see, e.g., the conflicts in
Chechnya, Rwanda, Middle East, or Sri Lanka). In a few cases interethnic conflicts
ended with ethnic cleansing or even a genocide (e.g., the case of Aborigines in
Australia). Of crucial importance for the continuation of intractable conflict and
lack of its peaceful resolution are the shared beliefs of the rival societies’ members
suggesting—that they have the human and material resources to continue the con-
flict, that their goals are sacred and therefore cannot be compromised, that the
other side cannot be trusted and/or that time is on their side which means to them
that they can improve their situation with time, and may even win the conflict.
When even one of these beliefs is hegemonic it greatly inhibits an achievement of
peaceful settlement of the conflict.

RT21506_Intro.indd 9 8/19/2010 12:33:30 PM

 10 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

Conceptual Framework
My own academic work over the last 25 years focuses entirely on the study of con-
flicts, their resolution, and also in general on peace building. Specifically, I focused
on the development of conceptual framework that elaborates the process and the
contents of the repertoire that maintains prototypic intractable conflicts. On the
basis of this conceptual framework I later developed a conception for analyzing
peace building and reconciliation. This line of thoughts served as a scheme for the
planning and organization of the present edited book. It provided the rational for
the holistic, coherent and systematic structure of the chapters and therefore will be
described in details.

Challenges of Intractable Conflicts

On the basis of the previously described characteristics of intractable conflicts, it is
assumed that this type of conflicts inflict severe negative experiences such as
threat, stress, pain, exhaustion, grief, traumas, misery, hardship, and cost, both in
human and material terms on the involved in them societies (Cairns, 1996; de
Jong, 2002; Robben & Suarez, 2000). This situation is chronic, as it persists for a
long time. Thus, members must adapt to the conditions in both, their individual
and collective lives (Hobfoll & deVries, 1995; Shalev, Yehuda, & McFarlane, 2000).
I would like to suggest that from a psychological perspective, in order to adapt to
the harsh conditions of the intractable conflict, three basic challenges must be met
(Bar-Tal, 2007a, 2007b, manuscript in preparation; Bar-Tal & Salomon, 2006).
First, it is necessary to develop ways to satisfy needs that are usually deprived
during intractable conflicts, like, for example, psychological needs of knowing,
mastery over the destiny, safety, positive identity, and so on (Burton, 1990; Staub,
2003; Tajfel, 1982). Second, it is necessary to learn to cope with the chronic stress,
fears, and other negative psychological phenomena that accompany intractable
conflict situations. Third, adaptation to the conflict requires development of psy-
chological conditions that will be conducive to successfully withstanding the rival
group, that is, to attempts to win the conflict or, at least, not to lose it.
Thus my primary proposition is that to meet the above described challenges,
societies in intractable conflict develop a specific socio-psychological repertoire
that includes shared beliefs, attitudes, motivations, and emotions* (Chapter 2). It
eventually turns into a socio-psychological infrastructure, which means that the
shared repertoire gradually crystallizes into a well organized system of societal
beliefs,† attitudes and emotions and penetrates into institutions and communica-
tion channels’ of the society. As this socio-psychological infrastructure plays a
determinative role in intractable conflict, it will now be described and analyzed,

* This idea is based on conceptual and empirical literature which suggests that successful coping with
threatening and stressful conditions requires construction of a meaningful world view (Antonovsky,
1987; Frankl, 1963; Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Taylor, 1983).
† Societal beliefs are cognitions shared by society members on topics and issues that are of special

concern for their society and contribute to their sense of uniqueness (Bar-Tal, 2000).

RT21506_Intro.indd 10 8/19/2010 12:33:30 PM

 Introduction 11

especially referring to its adaptive roles in meeting the psychological challenges

that have to be met in the context of intractable conflict.

Socio-psychological Infrastructure in Intractable Conflicts

My suggestion is that the socio-psychological infrastructure in intractable conflict
consists of three elements: collective memories (Chapter 4), ethos of conflicts and
collective emotional orientation (Chapter 3). These elements have mutual inter­
relations and maintain each other, as well as mutually effect the development of
each of them, yet there is a merit in analyzing them separately.

Collective Memory of Conflict  Collective memory is defined as represen-

tations of the past remembered by society members as the history of the conflict
(Kansteiner, 2002). It presents a coherent and meaningful socially constructed
­narrative that has some basis in actual events (Cairns & Roe, 2003; Halbwachs,
1992; Liu & Hilton, 2005), but is biased, selective and distorted in ways that meets
the present needs of the society. During the conflict, collective memory focuses on
at least four of the following themes:

It justifies the outbreak of the conflict and the course of its development.
It presents own society in a positive light (Baumeister & Gastings, 1997).
It describes the rival society in delegitimizing ways (Bar-Tal, 1990; Oren &
Bar-Tal, 2007).
It portrays own society as the victim of the opponent (Bar-Tal, Chernyak-
Hai, Schori, & Gundar, 2009; Mack, 1990; Volkan, 1997).

All these themes appear in the description of the history of the conflict.
It follows that opposing groups in a conflict will often entertain contradictory
and selective historical collective memories of the same events. By selectively
including, or excluding, certain historical events and processes from the collective
memory and by characterizing positively the in-group and very negatively the out-
group, a group views itself and its historical experiences in unique and exclusive
ways (Baumeister & Gastings, 1997; Irwin-Zarecka, 1994). Collective memory
­provides a black and white picture, which enables parsimonious, fast, unequivocal,
and simple understanding of the “history” of the conflict.

Ethos of Conflict  During prolonged intractable conflict, in addition to the

narrative of collective memory, societies involved develop also a particular ethos—
ethos of conflict (Bar-Tal, 1998, 2000a). Ethos is defined as the configuration of
shared central societal beliefs that provide a particular dominant orientation to a
society at present and for the future (Bar-Tal, 2000a). Ethos of conflict which
evolves through the long years of confrontations supplies the epistemic basis for
the hegemonic orientation of the society, provides a clear picture of the conflict, its
goals, its conditions, requirements, images of the own group and of the rival. It
indicates the direction and goals for individual and societal behavior, gives mean-
ing to the societal life, imparts legitimacy to the social system, and explains and
justifies leaders’ decisions.

RT21506_Intro.indd 11 8/19/2010 12:33:31 PM

 12 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

It is proposed that ethos of conflict consists of eight themes of societal beliefs

(Bar-Tal, 1998, 2007a, 2007b; Rouhana & Bar-Tal, 1998).* It includes the
following:

Societal beliefs about the justness of own goals, which outline the goals in
conflict, indicate their crucial importance and provide their justifications
and rationales.
Societal beliefs about security refer to the importance of personal safety and
national survival, and outline the conditions for their achievement.
Societal beliefs of positive collective self-image concern the ethnocentric
tendency to attribute positive traits, values and behavior to own society.
Societal beliefs of own victimization concern collective self-presentation as a
victim.
Societal beliefs of delegitimizing the opponent concern beliefs which deny
the adversary’s humanity.
Societal beliefs of patriotism generate attachment to the country and society,
by propagating loyalty, love, care, and sacrifice.
Societal beliefs of unity refer to the importance of ignoring internal conflicts
and disagreements during intractable conflict in order to unite the forces
in the face of the external threat.
Societal beliefs of peace refer to peace in general and amorphic terms as the
ultimate desire of the society.

Ethos of conflict together with the collective memory constitutes the ideological
epistemic basis of the conflict and complements each other with similar contents.
But while the collective memory provides the narrative of the history of the conflict,
ethos of conflict enlightens the present and future orientation of the society. In
addition to the epistemic–cognitive basis which is constructed with societal beliefs,
the socio-psychological infrastructure includes collective emotional orientation.

Collective Emotional Orientation  Societies may develop characteristic

collective emotional orientations, with an emphasis on one, or a number of particu-
lar emotions (Bar-Tal, Halperin, & de Rivera, 2007; Barbalet, 1998; Kemper, 1990;
Mackie & Smith, 2002).† Societies involved in intractable conflict, tend to be domi-
nated by a number of collective emotional orientations. The most notable is the
collective orientation of fear, but in addition, they may be dominated by hatred,
humiliation and anger, as well as guilt, shame, or pride (Bar-Tal, 2001; Halperin,
2008; Petersen, 2002; Scheff, 1994).

* The proposed eight themes of the ethos were found in the public opinions of the Israeli Jewish soci-
ety between 1967 and 2000 and served as their organizing scheme (Oren, 2005). They were also
found to be central motifs in the Israeli school textbooks (Bar-Tal, 1998a, 1998b). Finally, recently
they were extensively analyzed as providing foundations for the culture of conflict in the Israeli
society (Bar-Tal, 2007b).
† Collective emotional orientation refers to the characterizing tendency of a society to express a par-

ticular emotion. That it, the emotion and the beliefs that evoke a particular emotion are widely
shared by society members and appear frequently in the society’s public discourse, cultural prod-
ucts, and educational materials (Bar-Tal, 2001).

RT21506_Intro.indd 12 8/19/2010 12:33:31 PM

 Introduction 13

Functions  As indicated, the above described infrastructure of collective mem-

ory, ethos of conflict and emotional collective emotional orientations fulfills impor-
tant functions in meeting the delineated challenges that are facing societies
engaged in intractable conflicts. This is especially observable when the conflict is
in its climax and no signs of possible peace process appear (Burton, 1990; Staub &
Bar-Tal, 2003). First, it provides a meaningful and coherent picture of the conflict
to society members (Antonovsky, 1987; Frankl, 1963; Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Taylor,
1983). Second, it serves to justify the acts of the in-group toward the enemy, includ-
ing violence and destruction (Apter, 1997; Jost & Major, 2001). Third, it prepares
the society members to be ready for threatening and violent acts of the enemy, as
well as for difficult life conditions (Antonovsky, 1987; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Fourth, it has the function of motivating for solidarity, mobilization, and action
(Bar-Tal & Staub, 1997). Finally, it creates a sense of differentiation and superiority
(Sandole, 1999; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).

Consequences  The socio-psychological infrastructure, which evolves in the

context of intractable conflict and is characterized with the above described fea-
tures, has serious consequences. The societal beliefs of the infrastructure often are
rigid and turn into a kind of ideological conflict supporting beliefs (Chapter 6). The
socio-psychological infrastructure with these beliefs and the emotions affects the
way information is handled through selective, biasing and distorting way, serving
as a barrier to peaceful resolution of the conflict (Chapter 9). Specifically, on the
psychological level, socio-psychological infrastructure affects the way incoming
information is anticipated, selectively attended to, encoded, interpreted, recalled
and acted upon (Bar-Tal & Geva, 1986). It becomes a prism through which society
members construe their reality, collect new information, interpret their experi-
ences and then make decisions about their course of action. That is to say, socio-
psychological infrastructure tends to “close minds” and stimulate tunnel vision
which excludes incongruent information and alternative approaches to the conflict
(Jervis, 1976; Vertzberger, 1990; White, 1970). It is proposed that on the basis of
the socio-psychological infrastructure the involved societies form a stable view of
the violent intractable conflict, while the continuous stream of negative informa-
tion and experiences validate and reinforce it. This negative repertoire is thus indi-
vidually stored, frozen and continuously accessible. We can say that those are not
the disagreements themselves over the goals that are crucial in any analysis of
intergroup conflicts but the social psychological repertoire that includes hostility,
hatred, fear, resentment, anger, delegitimization, mistrust, and more that leads to
tragic consequences.
Obviously society members differ in the extensity and intensity of sharing the
described infrastructure. It depends on various factors such as the level of the
perceived threat to the society, unity of goals, strong leadership, availability of
communication channels for mobilization, held collective memory about past dan-
gers, and so on. In some societies a hegemonic consensual repertoire of conflict
develops, while in the others there may be serious disagreements and schism about
conflict goals and about other themes related to the conflict. Also, the extensity
and intensity of sharing the infrastructure changes through the time of conflict.

RT21506_Intro.indd 13 8/19/2010 12:33:31 PM

 14 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

Societies may begin the conflict with consensual agreement which later may
­dissipate and lead to schism in the society and also conflicts may begin with a dis-
agreement but later with the appearance of a real threat society members may rally
under the patriotic umbrella of unity.

Evolvement of Culture of Conflict

In view of the above described processes societies that live under prolonged expe-
riences of intractable conflict with the dominant socio-psychological infrastructure
evolve a culture of conflict (Bar-Tal, 2010). A culture of conflict develops when
societies saliently integrate into their culture tangible and intangible symbols
of  conflict which are created to communicate a particular meaning about the
­prolonged and continuous experiences of living in the context of conflict (Geertz,
1973; Ross, 1998). These symbols of conflict become hegemonic elements in the
culture of societies involved in intractable conflict. They provide a dominant
­meaning about the present reality, about the past, and about future goals, and
serve as guides for practice-all as a reflection of the conflict. Moreover, with time,
the beliefs of collective memory and ethos of conflict serve as content’s basis for
the formation of social identity of both societies (Ashmore, Jussim, & Wilder, 2001;
Cash; 1996; Oren, Bar-Tal, & David, 2004; Ross, 2001; Worchel, 1999; see also
Chapter 5).
Culture of conflict indicates that the socio-psychological infrastructure goes
beyond the institutions and communication channels’ of the society to become part
of the stable political, societal, cultural, and educational context in which society
members live and thus turns dominant repertoire (Ross, 1993). In essence, culture
of conflict encompasses all the domains of individual and collective life (Kimmel,
2006). Specifically, the repertoire of culture of conflict is not only widely shared by
society members but also appears to be dominant in public discourse via societal
channels of mass communication. Moreover, it is often used for justification and
explanation of decisions, policies and courses of actions taken by the leaders. In
addition socio-psychological infrastructure is expressed in cultural products such
as literary books, TV programs, films, theater plays, visual arts, monuments, and
other products. It is also expressed in institutional ceremonies, commemorations,
memorials, and so on. Finally, the socio-psychological infrastructure appears in
the school textbooks, is used by teachers and appears prominently even in higher
education. The latter building block is of special importance because the beliefs
presented in the educational textbooks reach all of the younger generation (Bar-
Tal, 2007b for an extensive analysis of the Israeli Jewish society as an example).
On one hand the culture of conflict implies that the repertoire of conflict is widely
disseminated, imparting its hegemonic views while on the other hand, it reflects
the reality as viewed by the society.

Obstacles to Resolve Conflicts Peacefully

In effect, culture of conflict with the described particular repertoire that emerges
in times of conflict serves as a major factor for the continuation of the conflict and

RT21506_Intro.indd 14 8/19/2010 12:33:31 PM

 Introduction 15

a barrier for resolving it; in fact it is part of the vicious cycle of the intractable
­conflict. Considering that this process occurs simultaneously to the two parties in
the conflict (what is called a mirror image), it is obvious how the vicious cycle of
violence operates (Sandole, 1999). As the conflict evolves, each of the opponents
develops the described culture of conflict with the repertoire, which initially ful-
fills important functional roles, on both the individual and collective levels. With
time, however, this repertoire comes to serve as the major motivating, justifying,
and rationalizing factor of the conflict. Any negative actions taken by each side
toward the rival then serve as information validating the existing negative socio-
psychological repertoire and in turn magnify the motivation and readiness to
engage in conflict. With the tuning toward the evilness of the rival, the behaviors
of each side confirm the held negative socio-psychological repertoire and justify
harming the opponent. Both societies practice moral disengagement, moral enti-
tlement, and self-focusing, blocking any empathy, accountability, and responsibility
toward the suffering of the rival and the performed perpetration by own group. In
this situation it is extremely difficult to change the minds of the involved society
members to resolve the conflict peacefully.*
Observation of the serious, harsh, and violent conflicts indicates that it is much
easier to mobilize society members to participate in them than to persuade them
to embark on the road of peace making. Society members can be mobilized with
much enthusiasm to support even violent conflicts, in which many human lives are
lost, within days; but it takes years to persuade them to stop the bloodshed and
suffering in order to settle the conflict via negotiation that requires compromises.
There are several reasons for this asymmetry. At least few of the reasons that
are somewhat related are as follows:

1. Evolutionary psychology tells that human beings are more tuned to threats
than to peaceful signs (Bigelow, 1969; Ross, 1991; van der Dennen &
Falger, 1990). The instinct for survival in times of threat is strong and very
basic (Duntley, 2005). People do not take risks and therefore cope with
perceived threats with speed and determination in order to avert possible
harm (Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006; Stephan & Renfro, 2002). This
tendency reflects adaptive behavior since negative information, especially
related to threats, may require immediate functional reactions to the
new  situation (Fox, 1992; Gil-White, 2001), including aggression (Eibl-
Eibesfeldt, 1979).
2. High fear, which dominates society members engaged in intractable con-
flict, usually overcomes hope because is processed unconsciously and

* It should be noted that intergroup conflicts of a macro scale are not necessarily symmetrical on
various dimensions. Of special importance for the understanding asymmetrical conflicts is the
level of military-economic power. Such an asymmetry has a great influence on the way the conflict
is managed. These asymmetries have to be taken into consideration in the analysis of conflicts.
Nevertheless the present conception and many of the chapters focus on the psychological forces
that operate independently of the asymmetry, though it is well recognized that the asymmetry has
an effect also on socio-psychological processes and dynamics (Aggestam, 2002; Rouhana, 2004;
Rouhana & Fiske, 1995).

RT21506_Intro.indd 15 8/19/2010 12:33:31 PM

 16 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

evokes simple feelings, while hope needed for peace is always based on
conscious piecemeal cognitive activity (Lake & Rothchild, 1998; Petersen,
2002). In addition, whereas fear is activated automatically, without effort
and cognitive control, hope always relies on thinking and requires various
intellectual skills (Jarymowicz & Bar-Tal, 2006). On the behavioral level,
fear may lead to defensive and/or aggressive behaviors, often already used
in the past as it is based on memorized patterns of reactions (Eibl-
Eibesfeldt & Sutterlin, 1990), while hope requires conceiving new behav-
iors to achieve the desired, positively valued goal and attempts to realize
it (Snyder, 2000). In this human programming people are guided by high
fear which inhibits a rise and development of hope that is one of the con-
ditions for driving society members toward peace making.
3. Negative information about potential harm has more weight than positive
information about peace opportunities. This proposition is based on con-
siderable evidence in psychology to the effect that negative events and
information tend to be more closely attended and are better remembered,
and that they strongly impact evaluation, judgment, and action tendencies
(see reviews by Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994; Christianson, 1992; Lau,
1982; Peeters & Czapinski, 1990; and studies by Ito, Larsen, Smith, &
Cacioppo, 1998; Wagenaar & Groeneweg, 1990). This negativity bias is an
inherent characteristic of the negative motivational system, which operates
automatically at the evaluative-categorization stage. It is also structured to
respond more intensely than the positive motivational system to compara-
ble levels of motivational activation (Cacioppo & Gardner, 1999).
4. Finally, social psychological theory of terror management (Pyszczynski,
Greenberg, & Solomon, 1997; Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 1991)
proposes that innate anxiety of annihilation, combined with the human
knowledge of inevitable death, creates an ever-present potential for terror.
One of terror management theory’s central propositions, strongly sup-
ported by research (Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997), is that
conditions in which mortality is made salient, which characterize many
negative threatening contexts, arouse the potential for terror and the
immediate need to protect against it. In other words conditions of height-
ened mortality salience lead to a desire to bolster beliefs in the need to
defend and select behaviors that uphold those beliefs, as well as a readi-
ness to reject and even annihilate outsiders who are viewed as threatening
the society.

Once collectives rally to engage in conflict and then continue it for a long period
of time, additional reasons may explain the dogmatic adherence of the society
members to repertoire that maintains conflict and is resistant to alternative infor-
mation. Some of those several reasons explaining this tendency are as follows:

1. Intractable conflicts often concern protected values that needed to be

compromised in order to reach a peace agreement. Protected (or sacred)
values are perceived by members of societies involved in conflicts as

RT21506_Intro.indd 16 8/19/2010 12:33:31 PM

 Introduction 17

f­ undamental for defining their identities, world views and ideologies, and
thus they become protected against any trade-offs or compromise (Baron
& Spranca, 1997; Fiske & Tetlock, 1997). Giving up on these values implies
for them moral bankruptcy, and even the thought about their compromise
stimulates a strong psychological response in the form of moral outrage
(Tetlock, 2003; Tetlock, Kristel, Elson, Green, & Lerner, 2000).
Protected (or sacred) values may be abstract (e.g., human rights,
­justice, etc.), or may be symbolized in a tangible asset, such as a holy site
(Skitka, 2002). In other cases, they are associated with a specific policy
that is perceived as reflecting the protected value (e.g., building Jewish
settlements in the West Bank). Since protected values are nonnegotiable
by definition, if the core issues of an intergroup dispute are perceived by
the parties as protected values, the conflict will be stubborn and difficult
to solve (Landman, in press).
2. Intractable conflicts lead to the evolvement of culture of conflict that
­penetrates to every societal institution and channel of communication
(Bar-Tal, 2010; Ross, 1998). It appears, for example, in public discourse,
cultural products, educational material and channels of mass communica-
tion. It is very difficult to change cultures in general and especially culture
of conflict as it is well entrenched and supported by the conditions of con-
flict. Dominance of this culture serves as an inhibiting environment that
discourages evolvement of alterative ideas that advance peace making.
3. Many of the intractable conflicts are viewed as being related to collective
identity (Kelman, 1999a). According to Rothman (1997), these conflicts
are “deeply rooted in the underlying human needs and values that together
constitute people’s social identities,” (p. 6). In times of intractable conflict
the generic features of collective identity become conducive to the man-
agement of the societal mission (David & Bar-Tal, 2009). Also, societal
beliefs of ethos of conflict and collective memory offer contents par excel-
lence that imbue social identity with meaning, which maintains the con-
flict (Barthel, 1996; Cairns, Lewis, Mumcu, & Waddell, 1998; Gillis,
1994; Oren, Bar-Tal, & David, 2004). The challenges of introducing new
beliefs that support peace making provide threat to the well established
foundations of the collective identity. Any change of these contents is slow
and requires an establishment of secure new foundations for the new
emerging identity.
4. The intractable conflicts are supported by ideological conflict supporting
beliefs that are frozen because of structural and motivational factors and
serve as socio-psychological barriers to peace making (Bar-Tal, Halperin,
& Oren, in press; Cash, 1996). Rigidity structures imply that they are
resistant to change, being organized in a coherent manner with little com-
plexity and great differentiation from alternative beliefs (Tetlock, 1989;
Rokeach, 1960). The motivational force that contributes to the freezing is
a specific closure need (Kruglanski, 1989, 2004), which motivates society
members to view the held conflict supporting beliefs as being truthful and
valid because they fulfill for them various needs. It is thus extremely

RT21506_Intro.indd 17 8/19/2010 12:33:31 PM

 18 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

­ ifficult to overcome these barriers, as at least segments of society mem-

d
bers are well entrenched in them.
5. Societies involved in intractable conflict exert great efforts to assure that
society members would adhere to the dominant conflict supporting reper-
toire and ignore alternative information. In other words, the society con-
structs mechanisms to guarantee that the themes of collective memory
and the ethos of conflict, as well as collective emotions, will be main-
tained and alternative knowledge about possibilities of peace making will
not penetrate into the social sphere and even when penetrates would be
rejected (Bar-Tal, 2008; Horowitz, 2000; Kelman, 2007). Examples of
such mechanism are control of the mass media, censorship on informa-
tion, delegitimization of alternative information and its sources, closure
of archives, and so on.
6. Individuals as well as collectives learn through the years of the protracted
conflict how to deal with the situations and conditions of violent confron-
tations and how to adapt to it. They live with the feeling that the conflict
context is meaningful, unambiguous and predictable. Peace making
requires changes of well established ways of coping and adaptation. Such
changes arouse uncertainty, unpredictability, and ambiguity. Thus society
members prefer to continue the known, certain and predictable instead
of moving into unknown that causes stress and threat (Mitzen, 2006).
7. Parties engaged in an intractable conflict make vast material (i.e., military,
technological, and economic) investments in order to cope successfully
with the situation. These investments include mobilization of society
members, training the military, development of military industries, acqui-
sition of weapons, and development of supportive infrastructure in all
spheres of collective life (Mintz, 1983). They eventually constitute obsta-
cles to peace making because they provide a particular lines of develop-
ments, rationale, organizational frameworks, human staff, budgets,
resources, and systems that by their nature know only to continue the
course of conflict for which they were established. The investments then
provide a rational to continue the situation of conflict (Koistinen, 1980).
8. There is no doubt that in every intractable conflict there are segments in
the involved society that profit from the continuation of the conflict. Those
are investors in the military–industrial complex, military personnel who
gain status and prestige, sectors that profit in the conflict territories or
gain other resources, and so on (Zertal & Eldar, 2007). These sectors
become the agents of conflict during its management and spoilers of the
peace process when this possibility appears.
9. Societies engaged in intractable conflict suffer heavy human losses. These
losses eventually often constitute an obstacle to peace making. The ulti-
mate sacrifice by society members may lead often to object to any peace
move that results in compromise because the feeling is that the sacrifice
was in vain as the collective gave up its goals. In a similar line, peace set-
tlement that appears, as was possible in the past, also raises a feeling that
it was possible to avoid the sacrifice. Both views lead the families who

RT21506_Intro.indd 18 8/19/2010 12:33:31 PM

 Introduction 19

lost their dearest to object to needed compromises in conflict settlement

(Bar-Tal, 2007b).
10. Finally leaders who lead to intractable conflicts, using coherent and well
elaborated justification, have later great difficulty to change their mind
and persuade the same audience in the need of peace making. On the
individual level the leaders face a cognitive dissonance between attitudes,
beliefs and actions during the conflict and those needed to lead a peace
process (Bar-Siman-Tov, 1996). On the social level, their previous political
and ideological commitments, as well as the leaders’ fears from potential
political and electoral criticism furthers enhance their tendency to avoid
major changes in policy (Auerbach, 1980; Janis & Mann, 1977). In societ-
ies engulfed by intractable conflict the prospective dissonance may lead to
loss of public support and legitimacy, and even to perceiving the leader as
a traitor (Bar-Siman-Tov, 1996; Kelman & Fisher, 2003). Therefore, many
scholars consider leadership change as a precondition for shift in policy
toward peacemaking (Bennett, 1997; King, 1997; Licklider, 1993).

In spite of the delineated list of obstacles, conflicts do not only outbreak and are
managed, but also some are resolved (see Chapter 10). Groups sometimes find
ways to resolve the contradiction between their goals and other group goals
(Sandole, Byrne, Sandole-Staroste, & Senehi, 2009).
All this does not mean that all the conflicts are similar. On contrary, they are
different, involving parties with different level of responsibility, of justified conten-
tions, or of used violence. But almost all of them require peace making process in
order to end them.* The next section elaborates this process.

Embarking on the Road of Peace Building

Embarking on the road of peace building begins when at least a number of society
members begin to think that the conflict should be resolved peacefully and also
begin to act to realize this idea. Once such an idea emerges and is propagated by
society members, a long process of moving the society to resolve the conflict peace-
fully begins. There are various terms to describe these processes (Galtung, 1975;
Rouhana, 2004). Peace building process can be defined as continuous exerted
efforts by society members, society’s institutions, agents, channels of communica-
tions and the international community to realize full lasting peaceful relations
with the past rival within the framework of culture of peace. Peace building thus
includes all the acts that are done to facilitate the achievement of this goal that is
reflected in reconciliation (de Rivera, 2009; Lederach, 1997). Peace making in
contrast focuses only the acts toward reaching an official settlement of the conflict
which is a formal agreement between the rival sides to end the confrontation

* There is the hidden assumption in this chapter and other chapters that it is desirable to solve inter-
group conflicts peacefully. In general this assumption is well accepted but I do recognize that this
assumption may not apply to very few conflicts that require a complete victory in accordance to
moral standards. One such clear example is the violent conflict of the World War II because the evil-
ness of the Nazi regime required a full victory to stop it.

RT21506_Intro.indd 19 8/19/2010 12:33:31 PM

 20 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

(Zartman, 2007). Within the process of peace making, conflict resolution refers to
the negotiation process that takes place between decision-makers to reach its
­formal settlement.
In order to pave the route to the settlement of the conflict and later to the last-
ing peace, a new repertoire must be formed and disseminated among society mem-
bers. This repertoire should include ideas about the need to resolve the conflict
peacefully, about personalization and legitimization of the rival, changing goals
that fueled the conflict, cessation of violence, initiating compromises, optional
solutions for conflict resolution that could be accepted by both sides, building trust
and constructing beliefs that the agreement can be implemented, developing goals
about new peaceful relation with the rival, and eventually recognition in the need
to reconcile and construction of new climate which promotes the above presented
new ideas about peace making and building (Bar-Tal, 2009). These ideas have to be
adopted by society members who must be mobilized for the peace process, if it
would be successful. Thus in principle there is need to move the society from what
is known, well entrenched in the minds of society members and well practiced for
many years to new ideas that portray unknown, uncertain and unpredictable future
that is dependent on the delegitimized rival. The above described change there-
fore constitutes long, complex, and nonlinear process, which does not necessarily
end with the new peace supporting repertoire or with peaceful conflict settlement
(see Chapter 13).

Peace Making
According to the classic conception offered by Lewin (1947) every process of
c­ ognitive change, in individuals and groups, requires unfreezing. Hence a pre­
condition for the acceptance and internalization of any alternative content about
the conflict or peace building depends on the ability to destabilize the rigid struc-
ture of the socio-psychological repertoire about the conflict that dominates the
involved societies.
This endeavor is especially challenging because in many of the conflict situa-
tions, this process begins with a minority who needs also to have courage in order
to present the alternative ideas to society members. This minority is often viewed
by the great majority of the society members at best as naive and detached from
reality, but more often as traitors, who harm the patriotic cause and hinder the
group cause. Nevertheless the emergence of this minority is not only important for
the own society but also for the rival group as well. It may ignite a similar process
in the other group or reinforce it. With time, this small minority may gain support
and its persistence may serve as a basis for a movement and a change of the context
that eventually will open the possibilities to launch an effective campaign for
resolving the conflict peacefully.
Peace making requires support of formal leaders for its realization and indeed
some of the leaders may join the process of peace making in its early phase trying
to initiate conflict resolution. In most of the cases, peace making involves, on one
hand, bottom-up processes in which groups, grass roots, and civil society members
support the ideas of peace building and act to disseminate them also among ­leaders.

RT21506_Intro.indd 20 8/19/2010 12:33:31 PM

 Introduction 21

On the other hand, it also needs top-down processes in which emerging leaders
join efforts and begin to persuade the society members in the necessity of peaceful
settlement of the conflict and begin to carry it out.
Peace making process must get also a support from the elites and institutions
of the society and eventually must be shared by at least a substantial portion of
society (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2004; Knox & Quirk, 2000; Weiner, 1998). Of special
importance is the role of mass media and other societal channels of communica-
tion and institutions that can first buttress the formation of peace orientation, and
next transmit and disseminate the new system of beliefs among the society mem-
bers. The presentation of new beliefs which provide the goals, plans, information,
images, considerations, arguments, and justifications for peace building subscribes
to the principles of persuasion. These new beliefs should form a new prism for
understanding the reality and processing new information. In any event these new
alternative ideas must be spread, be legitimized and eventually institutionalized in
the society if peace making process is to succeed (Bar-Tal, Landman, Magal, &
Rosler, 2009 conception).
Unfreezing process may be facilitated in many of the cases with changes in the
context which signal to society members a need to reevaluate the held repertoire that
fueled the continuation of the conflict. A few of the possible changes to be noted are:
First, the context may change as a result of accumulation of conflict experience like
fatigue, vast human and property losses, continuous stalemate and lack of effective
governance. Second, it may change as a result of major events like the outbreak of a
war, dramatic peace gesture or extreme violent events. Third, this may happen as a
consequence of conciliatory and trust-building actions by the rival, which lead to
perceived change regarding the opponents’ character, intentions, and goals. Fourth,
change may take place because of internal events or processes unrelated to conflict
(recession, hunger, appearance of a new enemy) that indirectly create the motivation
to reassess the centrality and importance of the conflict. Fifth, a third powerful party
may change the context by an intervention. This intervention can take various forms
such as mediation, providing incentives, persuasion, bombing, sending troops or
even economic boycott. Sixth, coming to power of new leaders, who are less commit-
ted to the ideology of conflict and thus can develop new approaches to the conflict
and create a new context. In addition, arriving of a new generation which has a dif-
ferent look at the conflict and its implications may create a new context. Finally, a
need to reevaluate the situation may be the result of more global geopolitical
­processes and events that are not directly related to the conflict (collapse of a super-
power and international climate), but may eventually affect the parties.
Obviously, embarking on the road of peace depends in fact mostly on the societ-
ies involved in the severe and harsh conflict. A number of contributions tried to
elucidate the conditions of ripeness that may facilitate peacemaking process and
reaching conflict settlement. For example, Zartman (2000)—proposed if the (two)
parties to a conflict (a) perceive themselves to be in a hurting stalemate and (b)
perceive the possibility of a negotiated solution (a way out), the conflict is ripe for
resolution (i.e., for negotiations toward resolution to begin)” (pp. 228–229). On the
basis of the prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), it was also proposed that
societies may begin negotiations for peaceful settlement of the conflict when society

RT21506_Intro.indd 21 8/19/2010 12:33:31 PM

 22 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

members realize that the loses resulting form the continuation of the conflict exceed
significantly the losses that a society may incur as a consequence of the compro-
mises and outcomes of peaceful settlement of the conflict (Bar-Tal & Halperin,
2009). It seems that the great majority of society members are usually mobilized to
support the peace process on the basis of self-utilitarian considerations. Only a very
small minority approach and weigh the situation from moral perspective.
Eventually, conflicts may de-escalate and move toward their peaceful resolution
when society members are demobilized from supporting the goals of the conflict
and are mobilized for its peaceful resolution (Gidron, Katz, & Hasenfeld, 2002). But
without determination and persistence of peace forces which actively act, peace
cannot be achieved because it is not enough just to want peace. Almost everyone on
this earth cherishes the value of peace and wants to live under its wings. But this is
not so simple—peace making requires parting from far-fetching and ideal dreams,
descending to concrete steps of pragmatism and transforming the psychological
repertoire that served for many years as a compass for continuing the conflict. Even
goals that are underlined by justice and moral values have to be eventually compro-
mised with practical considerations if peace making process is to succeed.
This process is complex. The psychological roots of conflict are not easily elimi-
nated. The collective memories of the conflict and ethos of conflict are well orga-
nized in the memory system are automatically activated when threats, real or
symbolic, are perceived. Thus, the orientation for peace needs not only to inhibit
the automatic activation of thoughts associated with conflict, but also to replace
them with new beliefs and behaviors. These new beliefs must be attended, compre-
hended, accepted and practiced, before they can serve as an alternative to the
automatically activated repertoire of conflict.
This challenge meets many obstacles because although during the peace
­making process the conflict may stop being intractable, it still continues to exist
and still may have violent expressions such as terror attacks on civilians, military
encounters, aggressive rhetoric, or agitation. Hostile and aggressive acts do not
stop at once, but usually continue for years, even after achieving formal agreement
to settle it. When signs of conflict still occur, this is a challenging task because not
only the conflict repertoire becomes accessible, but also these signs are used by
spoilers of the peace making process who wait for these types of events and know
how to inflame the animosity, fear and hatred. In such a situation the reaction of
leaders and the media to the threatening cues is crucial. When they frame the
events in support of the conflict orientation, then peace process has very low
chances to evolve. But, when in contrast, the leaders and media on both sides
explicitly condemn the acts and their perpetrators, when they minimize their
importance, reassure the public, and repeat their commitment to peace goals, then
the chances are high that the peace making process will survive and gain momen-
tum and reach the stage of conflict settlement.

Conflict Settlement
Ending the conflict resolution process with settlement is a turning point in the
relation between the rival parties engaged in intractable conflict. This point in

RT21506_Intro.indd 22 8/19/2010 12:33:31 PM

 Introduction 23

most of the cases is reached after a long process of persuading society members to
support it and mostly when the leaders decide to take the determinative decision
to settle the conflict peacefully. It refers to a political process through which the
parties in conflict eliminate the perceived incompatibility between their goals and
interests, and establish a new situation of perceived compatibility (Burton, 1990;
Deutsch, 1973; Fisher, 1990; Kriesberg, 1992). It usually ends with an agreement,
negotiated by the representatives of the two opposing groups, which outlines the
details of the settlement that allows viewing the goals as not being contradictory
(see Chapter 11). Conflict resolution can be seen also as a psychological process,
since it requires that the negotiators will change their beliefs regarding own
goals, and/or other group’s goals and/or the extent of contradiction between
these two sets of goals, and/or the conditions of the political environment, and/
or the situation of the own group and/or the situation of the adversary group
­(Bar-Tal, Kruglanski, & Klar, 1989; Bercovitch, 1995; Burton, 1987, 1990; Fisher,
1990, 1997; Kelman, 1997; Kriesberg, 1992; Ross, 1993; Worchel, 1999).
An agreement of conflict settlement is a very important phase in the course of
the confrontational relations between the rivals. It formally indicates an end of the
conflict and specifies the terms of its settlement, which are based on uncertain and
ambiguous future benefits. In most of the cases they require to put aside dreams
and aspiration in order to accept the possible and practical present.
But it has to be clear that in order for the agreement to resolve the conflict will
contribute determinately to the peace building process and change the conflictive
relations there are a number of conditions:

It has to satisfactorily address the issues that stood at the core of the
conflict.
It has to satisfy the basic needs and goals of both parties.
It has to address the justice within practical limitations.
It has to provide observed changes in the conditions that benefit the
ex-rivals.
It has to create a basis for the emergence of the new psychological repertoire
that supports the peace making.
It has to signal a strategic decision that changes the nature of the relations
between the rival parties.
It has to provide foundations for new policies and new courses of actions
which strengthen the peaceful settlement of the conflict, and move the
involved societies on the road of peace building.

Nevertheless, peaceful settlement of the conflict does not have a unitary mean-
ing, as peace can take many different forms, ones is achieved. It can range from
cold peace that indicates lack of violent acts and minimal relations up to warm
peace that is geared toward major transformation of building completely new
peaceful relations (see the difference between negative and positive peace by
Galtung, 1969). In any event reaching a peaceful and satisfactory settlement of an
intractable conflict with the support of the rival societies is probably one of the
most impressive and significant achievements that human beings attain.

RT21506_Intro.indd 23 8/19/2010 12:33:32 PM

 24 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

Thus, it becomes apparent that reaching successfully conflict settlement is only

the first formal step in the peace process. Peace building does not end with peace
making (Cohr & Boehnke, 2008). Of special importance is the societal process of
reconciliation that requires change of the socio-psychological repertoire of culture
of conflict among society members that fed the conflict and served as a barrier to
the peace process. Moreover, it has become evident that even when the formal
peaceful settlement of the conflict is reached it may fall far short of establishing
genuine peaceful relations between the former adversaries. The repertoire that fed
the conflict does not change overnight even when the groups’ leaders resolve the
conflict peacefully and sign a peace agreement. What is needed is reconciliation
which does not take place unintentionally, but requires also reciprocal planned and
active efforts in order to overcome many obstacles and facilitate its solidification
(see Chapter 12).

Reconciliation
Students of reconciliation in the present decade agree that it concerns the forma-
tion or restoration of genuine peaceful relationships between societies that have
been involved in intractable conflict, after its formal resolution is achieved (Nadler,
Malloy, & Fisher, 2008). Reconciliation goes beyond the agenda of formal conflict
resolution to changing the motivations, goals, beliefs, attitudes, and emotions by
the great majority of the society members regarding the conflict, the nature of the
relationship between the parties, and the parties themselves (De Soto, 1999;
Kelman, 1999b; Lederach, 1997; Nadler, 2002; Rouhana, 2004; Shonholtz, 1998;
Wilmer, 1998).
There is not doubt that the first condition for reconciliation is legitimization,
personalization, humanization, and equalization of the rival (Bar-Tal & Teichman,
2005). This recognition allows viewing the rival as a legitimate partner to peace
and as human entity that deserves equal humane treatment. In addition reconcili-
ation requires viewing the conflict as solvable and recognizing that both sides have
legitimate contentions, goals, and needs and there is need to satisfy them in order
to solve the conflict and then establish peaceful relations. These basic changes
open the road for the process of reconciliation to progress.
On the general level, a number of definitional specifications have been ­proposed
by different writers. Thus, for example, Marrow (1999) pointed out that reconcili-
ation “is reestablishment of friendship that can inspire sufficient trust across the
traditional split” (p. 132). In emphasizing trust, he asserts that the basic thrust of
reconciliation is to be sensitive to other’s needs, the principal question being not
what they have to do, but what we have to do to promote the reconciliation process.
Lederach (1997) focused mainly on intrasocietal reconciliation and posits four
­elements of it which can also be extended to intersocietal conflicts, namely:

Truth, which requires open revelation of the past, including admission,

acknowledgment, and transparency.
Mercy, which requires acceptance, forgiveness, compassion, and healing for
building new relations.

RT21506_Intro.indd 24 8/19/2010 12:33:32 PM

 Introduction 25

Justice, which requires rectification, restitution, compensation, and social

restructuring
Peace, which underscores common future, cooperation, coordination, well
being, harmony, respect, institutionalized mechanisms for conflict resolu-
tion, and security for all the parties.

This view is similar to Long and Brecke (2003) model which suggests that rec-
onciliation is based on truth telling about the harm done by both parties, forgive-
ness which requires new view of both parties, giving up retribution and full justice
and building new positive relationship. Kriesberg (2004) added the following to
the list:

Regard, which includes mutual recognition of humanity and identity of the

societies.
Security which ensures that both society are safe from physical harm.

Kelman (1999b) presented elaborated components of reconciliation in what he

calls a “positive peace.” In this view, reconciliation consists of the following
components:

a. Solution of the conflict, which satisfies the fundamental needs of the par-
ties and fulfils their national aspiration.
b. Mutual acceptance and respect of the other group’s life and welfare.
c. Development of sense of security and dignity for each group.
d. Establishment of patterns of cooperative interactions in different spheres.
e. Institutionalization of conflict resolution mechanisms (Bar-Siman-Tov,
2004).

In a later paper, Kelman (2004) defined reconciliation as “the development of

working trust, the transformation of the relationship toward a partnership based
on reciprocity and mutual responsiveness, and an agreement that addresses both
parties’ basic needs” (p. 119). In his view reconciliation requires change of identity
via process of internalization.
As the process of reconciliation proceeds, there is wide agreement that the
­successful outcome requires the formation of a new common outlook of the past. It
is suggested that once there is a shared and acknowledged perception of the past,
both parties take a significant step toward achieving reconciliation. As Hayner
(1999) noted “where fundamentally different versions or continued denials about
such important and painful events still exist, reconciliation may be only super­
ficial” (p. 373). This is the place to note that a number of social psychologists in
recent years directed their lines of research exactly to this important observation
by studying such phenomena, guilt feelings, taking responsibility, or apologizing
(Branscombe & Doosje, 2004; Cehajic & Brown, 2008).
There is no doubt that only reconciliation can address the symptoms of the
asymmetrical conflicts in their different aspects: First it should deal with the
situation existing before the eruption of the conflict and during its course when

RT21506_Intro.indd 25 8/19/2010 12:33:32 PM

 26 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

on party carried various types of injustices as for example discrimination, exploi-

tation, or occupation. Then it should also deal with the way the conflict was man-
aged and thus refer to various unacceptable types of violence, especially against
the civilian population performed such as deportations, mass killing, collective
punishments, terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and even genocide. This means that
in  many cases reconciliation requires major restructuring of the relations as
well as the societies involved in order to carry this process. Those are necessary
political–economic–societal–cultural processes without which reconciliation
cannot succeed.

Socio-psychological Conditions for Reconciliation

On the socio-psychological level reconciliation has been suggested as an outcome
that requires mutual recognition and acceptance, invested interests and goals in
developing peaceful relations, mutual trust, positive attitudes as well as sensitivity
and consideration of the other party’s needs and interests (Bar-Tal, 2009). All these
elements of reconciliation apply to postconflict situations in which the two groups
build peaceful relations in two separate political entities—their states, as well as
to situations in which the two rival groups continue to live in one political entity.
But, this long process of peace building usually begins before the act of reaching
agreement on the peaceful resolution of the conflict. After violent and prolonged
conflict, reconciliation is probably the most complex and difficult challenge that
collectives can face.
The outlined changes can be carried on through coordinated efforts of the par-
ties that were engaged in intractable conflict and/or via process of self-collective
healing through which each party heals itself independently of the other party
(Nets-Zahngut, 2009). In view of the socio-psychological dynamics that dominated
the years of intractable conflict, reconciliation usually requires a defined policy,
planned initiatives, and wide variety of activities; all in order to convince the ­society
members in the necessity, utility, value, and feasibility of the peace process.
Eventually, reconciliation supports and solidifies the peace as a new form of inter-
group relations and serves as stable foundations for cooperative and friendly acts
that symbolize these relations.
With regard to knowledge, of special importance is changing the following
major themes of ethos of conflict and collective memory of conflict (Bar-Tal &
Bennink, 2004).
Societal beliefs about group’s goals. An important challenge for reconciliation
process is changing the societal beliefs regarding the justness of the goals that
underlay the outbreak and maintenance of the conflict. The new beliefs must pres-
ent new goals for the society that allow compromise and therefore lead to peaceful
conflict resolution.
Societal beliefs about the rival group. Additional crucial objective of reconcili-
ation is a change of the images of the adversary group. It is important to legitimize
and personalize its members.
Societal beliefs about the relationship with the past opponent. Reconciliation
needs to facilitate formation of new societal beliefs about the relations between the

RT21506_Intro.indd 26 8/19/2010 12:33:32 PM

 Introduction 27

two rival groups that emphasize the importance of new just, equal, cooperative,
and friendly relationships.
Societal beliefs about the history of the conflict. Reconciliation requires also a
change of collective memories that were dominating the engaged societies during
the conflict. There is need to revise these narratives that fueled the conflict into
outlook on the past that is synchronized with that of the former rival. Within this
theme, past injustices, immoral acts, or violent atrocities have to be addressed.
Societal beliefs about peace. Reconciliation requires forming new societal
beliefs that describe the multidimensional nature of peace, specify the conditions
and mechanisms for its achievement, realistically outline the benefits and costs of
achieving it, connote the meaning of living in peace, and especially emphasize the
conditions for its maintenance.
Reconciliation also requires construction of general positive affects and spe-
cific emotions about the peaceful relations with the past opponent. Positive affects
should accompany the described beliefs and indicate good feelings that the parties
have toward each other and toward the new relations. With regard to emotions,
reconciliation requires a change in the collective emotional orientations of high
level fear, anger, and hatred, which often dominate societies in intractable conflict.
Instead, there is need to develop at least emotional orientation of hope to establish
peaceful relations with the past rival, which reflects the desire for positive goals of
maintaining peaceful and cooperative relations with the other party. This emo-
tional orientation indicates positive outlook for the future, expectations of positive
events, without violence and hostilities.
The described changes in groups engaged in intractable conflict, in the frame-
work of reconciliation, is a very complicated, painful, threatening and full of resis-
tance and obstacles process. In order for such a process to succeed, there must be
a societal climate of openness and motivation to search and absorb new informa-
tion, which provides alternative perspective to the conflict. It has to be noted that
the process of reconciliation in which ethos of peace evolves is a political, social,
cultural, and educational process which involves all the societal institutions and
channels of communication (Gawerc, 2006). But, it is not a formal process that can
be fully controlled. It depends on a number of major factors.
First of all, it depends on successful conflict resolution, which terminates the
conflict formally and is expressed in signed agreement by both sides. This is a deter-
minative factor; without it, reconciliation cannot advance. Second, it depends on
the course of events and acts of the past rivals which reflect the desire to change the
conflictive relations into peaceful relations. Third, should be noted external sup-
portive conditions such as the peaceful international climate, pressure from influen-
tial allies, or rise of a new external common goal (e.g., threat), which may be
determinative in the acceleration of the reconciliation process. Fourth, the progress
of reconciliation depends on the strength of the opposition to the peace process
within the involved societies. Strong opposition of political parties and/or nonparlia-
mentary organizations, which have the support of the elite and/or the masses, may
impede the reconciliation process. Fifth, of great importance are the acts and deter-
mination of those parts in the engaged societies who support the reconciliation
process. Sixth, the success of reconciliation depends on the mobilization of the

RT21506_Intro.indd 27 8/19/2010 12:33:32 PM

 28 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

e­ ducational, societal, and cultural institutions for support of the reconciliation pro-
cess. Finally, the success of the reconciliation process depends also on the activities
of various organizations which promote the reconciliation among the in-group
members and initiate joint acts with the former adversary group.
It is assumed that the coming years, in the new millennium, we will witness a
major effort to study and practice reconciliation. This endeavor is necessary
because conflict resolution, especially in the cases of intractable conflicts, is only a
part of the reconciliation process. Without reconciliation, seeds of the conflict feed
the society members and conflict may outbreak again, as it happened in the past
e.g., in Bosnia or Rwanda). Reconciliation assures in more fundamental way that
the past rivals form peaceful relations and view themselves and each other in a way
that is functional to the completely new relations (as it happened in the French–
German case).

The Present Book

Although the present book deals with various types of conflict, it is skewed toward
harsh and intense intergroup conflicts of which the intractable conflicts are of the
extreme type. It also concentrates mostly on macro level conflicts and thus by and
large concerns destructive conflicts that do harm to societal life. Chapters of the
book trying to analyze various aspects of conflicts with the socio-psychological
perspective are organized according to the presented scheme in this introduction.
With this scheme the book describes a full cycle beginning with the outbreaks of
conflicts and finishing with their resolution and peace building through the recon-
ciliation process. It thus provides a holistic and comprehensive outlook on the
socio-psychological dynamics that characterize each stage and aspect of intractable
conflicts. Each chapter of the book systematically elucidates a particular part of
the chain of the cycle describing the theoretical frameworks and concepts, as well
as presenting empirical data that was accumulated through the years.
About two-third of the chapters are devoted to unveiling the outbreak of the
conflict, its escalation, and the factors that contribute to its maintenance. Chapter
1 explains why intergroup conflicts outbreak by discussing various reasons and
causes for their eruption. Chapter 2 discusses the perceptual-cognitive factors
involved in conflicts, since the assumption is that perceptions pay an important
role in the evolvement of intergroup conflicts and their maintenance. Chapter 3
elaborates on the nature and role of the emotions involved in intergroup conflicts
and their resolution. Chapter 4 examines the processes by which collective remem-
bering of conflict’s past affects the course of current conflicts. Chapter 5 explains
how the role identity and identification play a role in conflicts and describes
­identity-based conflicts. It focuses on the relationship between social identity and
outbreak, and on the maintenance of intergroup conflicts. Chapter 6 adds an
important element to the analysis of conflicts, which is an ideology that often
inflames them. Chapter 7 illuminates the evil phenomenon of violence in conflicts.
It analyses the reasons for the outbreak of violence, the factors that lead to the
continuation of the violence and the influence of violence on the development of
conflicts, their continuation and resolution. Chapter 8 has special relevancy to the

RT21506_Intro.indd 28 8/19/2010 12:33:32 PM

 Introduction 29

present situation that is sometimes labeled as an age of terror. Many of the conflicts
in the present times involve terrorism and the chapter attempts to unveil the rea-
sons for its evolvement. Chapter 9 describes the socio-psychological barriers that
hinder and inhibit peace making. Rest of the chapters concerns processes related
to peace building. Chapter 10 presents the process of conflict resolution and focuses
on various variables that facilitate or inhibit this process. Chapter 11 elaborates on
the processes of intergroup negotiation and mediation, since they constitute an
essential part of the peace making process. Chapter 12 questions the traditional
approach to the study of reconciliation and points out that in cases of asymmetry a
new perspective is needed. Finally, Chapter 13 specifies the various socio-psycho-
logical approaches and ways to building and maintaining peace including peace
culture.
These chapters present an opportunity to get acquainted with the central issues
that stand at the core of the discussion in the social psychology of conflict. They
may not be exhaustive, but uncover, even if partially, the state of accumulated
knowledge in this area. There is no doubt that they do not come to conclude, but
to instigate interest in one of the major topics that has a direct relevance to the well
being of the human species.

References
Aggestam, K. (2002). Mediating asymmetrical conflict. Mediterranean Politics, 7(1), 69–91.
Allport, G. W. (1960). Personality and social encounter. Boston: Beacon Press.
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nation-
alism. London: Verso.
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nation-
alism (rev. ed.). London: Verso.
Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and
stay well. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Anzulovic, B. (1999). Heavenly Serbia: From myth to genocide. New York: New York
University Press.
Apter, D. E. (Ed.). (1997). Legitimization of violence. New York: New York University Press.
Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for
collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological
Bulletin, 130, 80–114.
Ashmore, R. D., Jussim, L., & Wilder, D. (Eds.). (2001). Social identity, intergroup conflict,
and conflict reduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Auerbach, Y. (1980). Foreign policy decisions and attitude changes: Israel-Germany 1950–
1965. Unpublished dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
Azar, E. E. (1990). The management of protracted social conflict. Hampshire, UK: Dartmouth
Publishing.
Barbalet, J. M. (1998). Emotion, social theory, and social structure: A macrosociological
approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bargh, J. A. (2007). Social psychology and the unconsciousness: The automaticity of higher
mental processes. New York: Psychology Press.
Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 70(1), 1–16.
Bar-Siman-Tov, Y. (1996). The transition from war to peace: The complexity of
­decisionmaking—The Israeli case. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University (in Hebrew).

RT21506_Intro.indd 29 8/19/2010 12:33:32 PM

 30 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

Bar-Siman-Tov, Y. (Ed.). (2004). From conflict resolution to reconciliation. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
Bar-Tal, D. (1990). Israel-Palestinian conflict: A cognitive analysis. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 14, 7–29.
Bar-Tal, D. (1998a). Societal beliefs in times of intractable conflict: The Israeli case.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 9, 22–50.
Bar-Tal, D. (1998b). The rocky road toward peace: Societal beliefs functional to intractable
conflict in Israeli school textbooks. Journal of Peace Research, 35, 723–742.
Bar-Tal, D. (2000). Shared beliefs in a society: Social psychological analysis. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Bar-Tal, D. (2001).Why does fear override hope in societies engulfed by intractable conflict,
as it does in the Israeli society? Political Psychology, 22, 601–627.
Bar-Tal, D. (2003). Collective memory of physical violence: Its contribution to the culture
of violence. In E. Cairns & M. D. Roe (Eds.), The role of memory in ethnic conflict
(pp. 77–93). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bar-Tal, D. (2007a). Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American
Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1430–1453.
Bar-Tal, D. (2007b). Living with the conflict: Socio-psychological analysis of the Israeli–
Jewish society. Jerusalem: Carmel (in Hebrew).
Bar-Tal, D. (2009). Reconciliation as a foundation of culture of peace. In J. de Rivera (Ed.),
Handbook on building cultures for peace (pp. 363–377). New York: Springer.
Bar-Tal, D. (2010). Culture of conflict: Evolvement, institutionalization, and consequences.
In R. Schwarzer & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Personality, human development, and cul-
ture: International perspectives on psychological science (Vol. 2, pp. 183-198) New
York: Psychology Press.
Bar-Tal, D. (in press). Culture of conflict. In D. J. Christie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of peace
psychology. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bar-Tal, D. (in preparation). Intractable conflicts: Psychological foundations and dynamics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bar-Tal, D., & Bennink, G. (2004). The nature of reconciliation as an outcome and as a
process. In Y. Bar-Siman-Tov (Ed.), From conflict resolution to reconciliation
(pp. 11–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bar-Tal, D., Chernyak-Hai, L., Schori, N., & Gundar, A. (2009). A sense of self-perceived
collective victimhood in intractable conflicts. International Red Cross Review, 91,
229–277.
Bar-Tal, D., & Geva, N. (1986). A cognitive basis of international conflicts. In S. Worchel &
W. B. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 118–133).
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2009). Overcoming psychological barriers to peace process:
The influence of beliefs about losses. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial
motives, emotions and behaviors: The better angels of our nature (pp. 431–448).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Bar-Tal, D., Halperin, E., & Oren, N. (in press). Socio-psychological barriers to peace
­making: The case of the Israeli Jewish society. Social Issues and Policy Review.
Bar-Tal, D., Halperin, E., & de Rivera, J. (2007). Collective emotions in conflict situations:
Societal implications. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 441–460.
Bar-Tal, D., Kruglanski, A. W., & Klar, Y. (1989). Conflict termination: An epistemological
analysis of international cases. Political Psychology, 10, 233–255.
Bar-Tal, D., Landman, S., Magal, T., & Rosler, N. (2009). Societal-psychological dynamics of
peace-making process—A conceptual framework. Paper presented at the small meeting
of the European Association of Social Psychology about “Resolving societal conflicts and
building peace: Socio-psychological dynamics”. Jerusalem, September 7–10, 2009.

RT21506_Intro.indd 30 8/19/2010 12:33:32 PM

 Introduction 31

Bar-Tal, D., & Salomon, G. (2006). Israeli–Jewish narratives of the Israeli–Palestinian con-
flict: Evolution, contents, functions and consequences. In R. Rotberg (Ed.), Israeli
and Palestinian narratives of conflict: History’s double helix (pp. 19–46). Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Bar-Tal, D., & Staub, E. (Eds.). (1997). Patriotism in the life of individuals and nations.
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries. Boston: Little, Brown.
Barthel, D. (1996). Historic preservation: Collective memory and historical identity.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Butz, J. (2005). Roots of hate, violence and evil. In R. J. Sternberg
(Ed.), The psychology of hate (pp. 87–102). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Baumeister, R. F., & Gastings, S. (1997). Distortions of collective memory: How groups flat-
ter and deceive themselves. In J. W. Pennebaker, D. Paez, & B. Rimé (Eds.), Collective
memory of political events: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 277–293). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bennett, D. S. (1997). Democracy, regime change and rivalry termination. International
Interactions, 22(4), 369–397.
Bercovitch, J. (Ed.). (1995). Resolving international conflicts. Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner.
Bigelow, R. (1969). The dawn warriors: Man’s evolution towards peace. Boston: Little
Brown.
Branscombe, N. R., & Doosje, B. (Eds.). (2004). Collective guilt: International perspectives.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity without groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Brubaker, R., & Laitin, D. D. (1998). Ethnic and nationalist violence. Annual Review
Sociology, 24, 423–442.
Burton, J. W. (1987). Resolving deep-rooted conflict: A handbook. Lanham, MD: University
Press of America.
Burton, J. W. (Ed.). (1990). Conflict: Human needs theory. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative
space. A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative
substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 401–423.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 50,
191–214.
Cairns, E. (1996). Children in political violence. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Cairns, E., & Roe, M. D. (Eds.). (2003). The role of memory in ethnic conflict. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Cairns, E., Lewis, C. A., Mumcu, O., & Waddell, N. (1998). Memories of recent ethnic
conflict and their relationship to social identity. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace
Psychology, 4, 13–22.
Cantril, H. (1941). The psychology of social movements. New York: Wiley.
Cash, J. D. (1996). Identity, ideology and conflict: The structuration of politics in Northern
Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cehajic, S., & Brown, R. (2008). Not in my name: A social psychological study of anteced-
ents and consequences of acknowledgment of ingroup atrocities. Genocide Studies
and Prevention, 3, 195–211.
Christianson, S. A. (1992). Remembering emotional events: Potential mechanisms. In S. A.
Christianson (Ed.), The handbook of emotion and memory (pp. 307–340). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

RT21506_Intro.indd 31 8/19/2010 12:33:32 PM

 32 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

Cohr, J. C., & Boehnke, K. (2008). Social psychology and peace: Introductory overview.
Social Psychology, 39, 4–11.
Coleman, P. T. (2000). Intractable conflict. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The
handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 428–450). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Coleman, P. T. (2003). Characteristics of protracted, intractable conflict: Towards the devel-
opment of a metaframework—I. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology,
9(1), 1–37.
Connor, W. (1994). Ethnonationalism: The quest for understanding. Princeton: University
Press.
de Jong, J. (Ed.). (2002). Trauma, war, and violence: Public mental health in socio-cultural
context. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
David, O., & Bar-Tal, D. (2009). A socio-psychological conception of collective identity: The
case of national identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 354–379.
de Rivera, J. (Ed.). (2009). Handbook on building cultures for peace. New York: Springer.
De Soto, A. (1999). Reflections. In C.J. Arnson (Ed.), Comparative peace processes in Latin
America (pp. 385–387). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Deutsch, M. (1949a). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2,
129–153.
Deutsch, M. (1949b). An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition
upon group process. Human Relations, 2, 199–232.
Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21, 265–279.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Deutsch, M. (1980). Fifty years of conflict. In L. Festinger (Ed.), Retrospections on social
psychology (pp. 46–77). New York: Oxford University Press.
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social psychological perspective. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. C. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of conflict reso-
lution: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Deutsch, M., & Krauss, R. M. (1960). The effect of threat on interpersonal bargaining.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 181–189.
Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. M. (Eds.). (1996). Stress and human performance. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Duntley, J. D. (2005). Adaptation to dangers from humans. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The hand-
book of evolutionary psychology (pp. 224–249). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley& Sons.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1979). The biology of peace and war. New York: Viking.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I., & Sütterlin, C. (1990). Fear, defense and aggression in animals and man:
Some ethological perspectives. In P. F. Brain, S. Parmigiani, R. J. Blanchard, & D.
Mainardi (Eds.), Fear and defense (pp. 381–408). London: Harwood.
Fisher, R. J. (1990). The social psychology of intergroup and international conflict resolu-
tion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Fisher, R. J. (Ed.). (1997). Interactive conflict resolution. Syracuse: Syracuse University
Press.
Fiske, A. P., & Tetlock, P. E. (1997). Taboo trade-offs: Reactions to transactions that trans-
gress the spheres of justice. Political Psychology, 18(2), 255–297.
Fitzduff, M, C., & Stout, C. (Eds.). (2006). The psychology of war, conflict resolution and
peace (3 Vols.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Fox, R. (1992). Prejudice and the unfinished mind: A new look at an old failing. Psychological
Inquiry, 2, 137–152.
Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s search for meaning. New York: Washington Square Press.
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6,
167–101.

RT21506_Intro.indd 32 8/19/2010 12:33:32 PM

 Introduction 33

Galtung, J. (1975). Three approaches to peace: Peacekeeping, peacemaking and peace-

building. In J. Galtung (Ed.), Peace, war and defence—Essays in peace research
(pp. 282–304). Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers.
Galtung, J. (2004). Transcend and transform: An introduction to conflict work. London:
Pluto Press.
Gawerc, M. I. (2006). Peace building: Theoretical and concrete perspectives. Peace &
Change, 31, 435–478.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Gidron, B., Katz, S. N., & Hasenfeld, Y. (Eds.). (2002). Mobilizing for peace: Conflict resolu-
tion in Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestinian and South Africa. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Gillis, J. (1994). Memory and identity: The history of a relationship. In J. Gillis (Ed.),
Commemorations: The politics of national identity. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Gil-White, F. J. (2001). Are ethnic group biological “species” to the human brain? Essentialism
in our cognition of some critical categories. Current Anthropology, 42, 515–554.
Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Pyszczynski, T. (1997). Terror management theory of self-
esteem and cultural worldviews: Empirical assessment and conceptual refinements.
In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 61–139).
San Diego: Academic Press.
Griswold, W. (1994). Cultures and societies in a changing world. Thousands Oaks, CA:
Pine Forge Press.
Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Halperin, E. (2008). Group-based hatred in intractable conflict in Israel. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 52, 713–736.
Harding, J., Kutner, B., Proshansky, H., & Chein, I. (1954). Prejudice and ethnic relations.
In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Hayner, P. B. (1999). In pursuit of justice and reconciliation: Contributions of truth telling.
In C. J. Arnson (Ed.), Comparative peace processes in Latin America (pp. 363–383).
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hobfoll, S. E., & deVries, M. W. (Eds.). (1995). Extreme stress and communities: Impact
and intervention. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Hoebel, E. A. (1960). The nature of culture. In H. L. Shapiro (Ed.), Man, culture, and soci-
ety (pp. 168– 181). NY: Oxford University Press.
Horowitz, D. L. (2000). Ethnic groups in conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Huth, P., & Russett, B. (1993). General deterrence between enduring rivals: Testing three
competing models. American Political Science Review, 87, 61–72.
Irwin-Zarecka, I. (1994). Frames of remembrance: The dynamics of collective memory. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Ito, T. A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1998). Negative information weighs
more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 887–900.
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice,
and commitment. New York: The Free Press.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma.
New York: The Free Press.
Jarymowicz, M. (2008). Psychologiczne podstawy podmiotowości (The Self as a subject:
Psychological bases). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN ( in Polish).

RT21506_Intro.indd 33 8/19/2010 12:33:32 PM

 34 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

Jarymowicz, M., & Bar-Tal, D. (2006). The dominance of fear over hope in the life of indi-
viduals and collectives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 367–392.
Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Jost, J. T., & Major, B. (Eds.). (2001). The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives
on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tverski, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty:
Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kansteiner, W. (2002). Finding meaning in memory: Methodological critique of collective
memory studies. History and Theory, 41, 179–197.
Kelley, H. H. et  al. (1970). A comparative experimental study of negotiation behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 411–438.
Kelman, H. C. (Ed.). (1965). International behavior: A social psychological analysis.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kelman, H. C. (1997). Social-psychological dimensions of international conflict. In I. W.
Zartman & J. L. Rasmussen (Eds.), Peacemaking in international conflict: Methods and
techniques (pp. 191–237). Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Kelman, H. C. (1999a). The interdependence of Israeli and Palestinian identity: The role of
the other in existential conflicts. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 581–600.
Kelman, H. C. (1999b). Transforming the relationship between former enemies: A social-
psychological analysis. In R. L. Rothstein (Ed.), After the peace: Resistance and recon-
ciliation (pp. 193–205). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Kelman, H. C. (2004). Reconciliation as identity change: A social psychological perspective.
In Y. Bar-Siman-Tov (Ed.), From conflict resolution to reconciliation (pp. 111–124).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kelman, H. C. (2007). Social-psychological dimensions of international conflict. In I. W.
Zartman (Ed.), Peacemaking in international conflict: Methods and techniques (rev.
ed., pp. 61–107). Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Kelman, H. C., & Fisher, R. J. (2003). Conflict analysis and resolution. In D. O. Sears, L.
Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 315–353).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kemper, T. D. (Ed.). (1990). Research agendas in the sociology of emotions. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Kimmel, P. R. (2006). Culture and conflict In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus
(Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 625–
648). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
King, C. (1997). Ending civil wars. Adelphi Paper 308. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Klandermans, B. (1988). The formation and mobilization of consensus. In B. Klandermans,
H. Kriesi, & S. Tarrow (Eds.), From structure to action: Comparing social movement
research across cultures (Vol. 1, pp. 173–196). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Klineberg, O. (1950). Tensions affecting international understanding. New York: Social
Science Council Bulletin.
Knox, C., & Quirk, P. (2000). Peace building in Northern Ireland, Israel and South Africa:
Transition, transformation and reconciliation. London: Macmillan.
Koistinen, P. A. C. (1980). The military-industrial complex: A historical perspective.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Krech, D., & Crutchfield, R. S. (1948). Theory and problems of social psychology. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

RT21506_Intro.indd 34 8/19/2010 12:33:32 PM

 Introduction 35

Krech, D., Crutchfield, R. S., & Ballachey, E. L. (1962). Individual in society. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Kriesberg, L. (1992). International conflict resolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Kriesberg, L. (1993). Intractable conflicts. Peace Review, 5(4), 417–421.
Kriesberg, L. (1998). Intractable conflicts. In E. Weiner (Ed.), The handbook of interethnic
coexistence (pp. 332–342). New York: Continuum.
Krieberg, L. (2004). Comparing reconciliation actions within and between countries. In
Bar-Siman-Tov, Y. (Ed.), From conflict resolution to reconciliation (pp. 81–110).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kriesberg, L., Northup, T. A., & Thorson, S. J. (Eds.). (1989). Intractable conflicts and their
transformation. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational
bases. New York: Plenum.
Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). The psychology of closed mindedness. New York: Psychology Press.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
Lake, D. A., & Rothchild, D. (Eds.). (1998). The international spread of ethnic conflict:
Fear, diffusion, and escalation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Landman, S. (in press). Protected values as barriers to solving the Israeli–Palestinian
­conflict: A new perspective on the core issues of the conflict. In Y. Bar-Siman-Tov
(Ed.), Barriers to the resolution of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Jerusalem:
Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies (in Hebrew).
Lau, R. R. (1982). Negativity in political perception. Political Behavior, 4, 353–377.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies.
Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Lewicki, R., Gray, B., & Elliott, M. (Eds.). (2003). Making sense of intractable environmen-
tal conflicts: Frames and cases. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 5–41.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper & Row.
Licklider, R. (1993). What have we learned and where do we go from here? In R. Licklider
(Ed.), Stopping the killing: How civil wars end (pp. 303–322). New York: New York
University Press.
Liu, J. H., & Hilton, D. J. (2005). How the past weighs on the present: Social representa-
tions of history and their in identity politics. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44,
537–556.
Long, W. J., & Brecke, P. (2003). War and reconciliation: Reason and emotion in conflict
resolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mack, J. E. (1990). The psychodynamics of victimization among national groups in conflict.
In V. D. Volkan, D. A. Julius, & J. V. Montville (Eds.), The psychodynamics of interna-
tional relationships (pp. 119–129). Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (Eds.). (2002). From prejudice to intergroup emotions:
Differentiated reactions to social groups. Philadelphia, PA: Psychological Press.
Marrow, D. (1999). Seeking peace amid memories of war: Learning form the peace process
in Northern Ireland. In R. L. Rothstein (Ed.), After the peace: Resistance and recon-
ciliation (pp. 111–138). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Mintz, A. (1983). The military-industrial complex: The Israeli case. Journal of Strategic
Studies, 6(3), 103–127.
Mitchell, C. R. (1981). The structure of international conflict. London: Macmillan.
Mitzen, J. (2006). Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security
dilemma. European Journal of International Relations, 12, 341–370.

RT21506_Intro.indd 35 8/19/2010 12:33:32 PM

 36 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

Mor, B. D., & Maoz, Z. (1999). Learning and the evolution of enduring rivalries: A strategic
approach. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 17, 1–48.
Murphy, G., Murphy, L. B., & Newcomb, T. M. (1937). Experimental social psychology
(rev. ed.). New York: Harper and Brothers.
Myers, D. G. (1993). Social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nadler, A. (2002). Post resolution processes; instrumental and socio-emotional routes to
reconciliation. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, prin-
ciples and practice in the world (pp. 127–143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nadler, A., Malloy, T. E., & Fisher, J. D. (Eds.). (2008). The social psychology of intergroup
reconciliation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nets-Zahngut, R. (2009). The collective self healing process of the aftermath of intractable
conflicts. (Submitted for publication.)
Newcomb, T. M. (1950). Social psychology. New York: Holt-Dryden Books.
Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inferences: Strategies and shortcomings of social
judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Opotow, S. (2006). Aggression and violence. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus
(Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 509–
532). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Oren, N., & Bar-Tal, D. (2007). The detrimental dynamics of delegitimization in intractable
conflicts: The Israeli–Palestinian case. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
31, 111–126.
Oren, N., Bar-Tal, D., & David, O. (2004). Conflict, identity and ethos: The Israeli–
Palestinian case. In Y-T. Lee, C. R. McCauley, F. M. Moghaddam, & S. Worchel
(Eds.), Psychology of ethnic and cultural conflict (pp. 133–154). Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. (1990). Positive–negative asymmetry in evaluations: The dis-
tinction between affective and informational negativity effects. European Review of
Social Psychology, 1, 33–60.
Petersen, R. D. (2002). Understanding ethnic violence: Fear, hatred, and resentment in
twentieth-century Eastern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pruitt, D. G., & Kimmel, M. J. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, syn-
thesis, and suggestions for the future. Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 363–392.
Prunier, G. (1997). The Rwanda crisis: History of a genocide. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (1997). Why do we need what we need? A
terror management perspective on the roots of human motivation. Psychological
Inquiry, 8, 1–20.
Rapoport, A. (1960). Fights, games, and debates. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Raven, B. H., & Rubin, J. Z. (1976). Social psychology: People in groups. New York: John
Wiley.
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W. M., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup
attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10,
336–353.
Robben, A., & Suarez, O. M. M. (Eds.). (2000). Cultures under siege: Collective violence
and trauma. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.
Ross, M. H. (1991). The role of evolution in ethnocentric conflict and its management.
Journal of Social Issues, 47(3), 167–185.
Ross, M. H. (1993). The culture of conflict: Interpretation and interests in comparative
­perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ross, M. H. (1998). The cultural dynamics of ethnic conflict. In D. Jacquin, A. Oros, & M.
Verweij (Eds.), Culture in world politics (pp. 156–186). Houndmills: Macmillan.

RT21506_Intro.indd 36 8/19/2010 12:33:33 PM

 Introduction 37

Ross, M. H. (2001). Psychocultural interpretations and dramas: Identity dynamics in ethnic

conflict. Political Psychology, 22, 157–198.
Rothman, J. (1997). Resolving identity-based conflict in nations, organizations, and com-
munities. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Rouhana, N. N. (2004). Group identity and power asymmetry in reconciliation process: The
Israeli–Palestinian case. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 10, 33–52.
Rouhana, N., & Bar-Tal, D. (1998). Psychological dynamics of intractable conflicts: The
Israeli–Palestinian case. American Psychologist, 53, 761–770.
Rouhana, N., & Fiske, S. T. (1995). Perception of power, threat and conflict interest in
asymmetric intergroup conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 39, 49–81.
Saks, M. J., & Krupat, S. (1988). Social psychology and its applications. New York: Harper
& Row.
Sandole, D. (1999). Capturing the complexity of conflict: Dealing with violent ethnic con-
flicts of the Post-Cold War era. London: Pinter/Continuum.
Sandole, D. J. D., Byrne, S., Sandole-Staroste, I., & Senehi, J. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of
conflict analysis and resolution. New York: Routledge.
Scheff, T. J. (1994). Bloody revenge: Emotions, nationalism, and war. Boulder: Westview.
Scheff, T. J., & Retzinger, S. (1991). Emotion and violence: Shame/rage spirals in intermia-
ble conflicts. Lexington: Lexington Books.
Shalev, A. Y., Yehuda, R., & McFarlane, A. C. (Eds.). (2000). International handbook of
human response to trauma. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sherif, M. (1966). The common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and
cooperation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W., (1961). Intergroup
cooperation and competition: The Robber Cave experiment. Norman, OK: University
Book Exchange.
Shonholtz, R. (1998). Conflict resolution moves East: How the emerging democracies of
Central and Eastern Europe are facing interethnic conflict. In E. Weiner (Ed.), The
handbook of interethnic coexistence (pp. 359–368). New York: The Continuum
Publishing Company.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity. American Psychologist,
56, 319–331.
Skitka, L. J. (2002). Do the means justify the ends, or do the ends justify the means? A test
of the value protection model of justice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
28, 588–597.
Snyder, C. R. (Ed.). (2000b). Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, & applications. San
Diego: Academic Press.
Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (1991). A terror management theory of social
behavior: The psychological functions of self esteem and cultural worldviews. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances of experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 91–159). San
Diego: Academic Press.
Staal, M. A. (2004). Stress, cognition and human performance: A literature review and con-
ceptual framework. Hanover, MD: NASA, Center for Aerospace Information.
Stagner, R. (1967). Psychological aspects of international conflict. Belmont, CA: Brook/Cole.
Staub, E. (2003). The psychology of good and evil: The roots of benefiting and harming
other. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Staub, E., & Bar-Tal, D. (2003). Genocide, mass killing and intractable conflict: Roots,
­evolution, prevention and reconciliation. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.),
Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 710–751). New York: Oxford University
Press.

RT21506_Intro.indd 37 8/19/2010 12:33:33 PM

 38 Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution

Stephan, W. G. (1985). Intergroup relations. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook

of social psychology (Vol. III, pp. 599–658). New York: Addison-Wesley.
Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role of threat in intergroup relations. In D.
Mackie & E. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions (pp. 191–207).
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychol-
ogy of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Taylor, S. E. (1983). Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of cognitive adaptation.
American Psychologist, 38, 1161–1173.
Tetlock, P. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in
Cognitive Science, 7, 320–324.
Tetlock, P. E. (1989). Structure and function in political belief system. In A. R. Pratkanis,
S.  J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function
(pp. ­126–151). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., & Lerner, J. F. (2000). The psychol-
ogy of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base-rates, and heretical counter-
factuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 853–870.
Waganaar, W. A., & Goreneweg, J. (1990). The memory of concentration camp survivors.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 77–88.
van der Dennen, J., & Falger, V. (Eds.). (1990). Sociobiology and conflict: Evolutionary
perspective on competition, cooperation, violence and warfare. London: Chapman &
Hall.
Vertzberger, Y. (1990). The world in their minds: Information processing, cognition and
perception in foreign policy decision making. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Volkan, V. (1997). Bloodlines: From ethnic pride to ethnic terrorism. New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux.
Vollhardt, J. K., & Bilali, R. (2008). Social psychology’s contribution to the psychological
study of peace: A review. Social Psychology, 39, 12–25.
Weiner, E. (Ed.). (1998). The handbook of interethnic coexistence. New York: The Continuum
Publishing Company.
White, R. K. (1970). Nobody wanted war: Misperception in Vietnam and other wars. Garden
City, NY: Anchor Books.
Wilmer, F. (1998). The social construction of conflict and reconciliation in the former
Yugoslavia. Social Justice: A Journal of Crime, Conflict & World Order, 25(4),
90–113.
Worchel, S. (1999). Written in blood: Ethnic identity and the struggle for human harmony.
New York: Worth.
Zartman, I. W. (2000). Ripeness: The hurting stalemate and beyond. In P. C. Stern & D.
Druckman (Eds.), International conflict resolution after the cold war (pp. 225–250).
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Zartman, I. W. (Ed.). (2007). Peacemaking in international conflict: Methods and techniques
(rev. ed.). Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Zertal, I., & Eldar, A. (2007). Lords of the land: The settlers and the State of Israel, 1967–
2007. New York: Nation Books.

RT21506_Intro.indd
View publication stats 38 8/19/2010 12:33:33 PM