(Im)moral Symbols and (Im)moral Deeds: Defensive Strategies for Coping with Historical Transgressions of Group Heroes and Villains

In two post-conflict societies (Serbia and Cyprus), the authors investigated how people cope with in-group historical transgression when heroes and villains relevant for their collective identity are made salient in it. The authors set the events in foundational periods for Serbian (Experiment 1) and Greek Cypriot (Experiment 2) ethnic identity—that is, historical representations of the Battle of Kosovo (1389) and the Liberation Struggle (1955–1959), respectively. In both experiments, a between-subjects design was used to manipulate group membership (in-group or out-group) and representation of the salient character (hero, villain, or neutral) in fictitious but historically plausible accounts of transgressions. In Experiment 1 (N = 225), the participants showed more moral disengagement in the case of in-group historical transgressions than in the case of identical transgressions by an out-group, while the in-group hero was rejected less than all the other historical characters. Social identification based on in-group superiority moderated both observed effects in such a manner that they were more pronounced for participants perceiving their ethnic group as superior. In Experiment 2 (N = 136), historical transgression involving the in-group hero provoked the most moral disengagement and the least rejection of the group deviant. In-group superiority and in-group importance as distinct modes of social identification moderated these effects in such a way that they were more pronounced for high-identifying individuals. Taken together, the experiments show that the in-group hero, as a highly valued ethnic symbol, is exempt from the black sheep effect and the sanctions of critically attached group members. The authors discuss the implications of in-group heroes for political and educational communication

Endorsing narratives under threat:maintaining perceived collective continuity through the protective power of ingroup narratives in Northern Ireland and Cyprus

In historically divided societies, narratives play an important role in understanding the maintenance and perception of identities and group status over time. Moving beyond the consequences of identity continuity perceptions, in this paper we were interested in the antecedents of perceived collective continuity, specifically the role of narratives and threat perceptions. We predicted that endorsement of ingroup narratives would be associated with higher perceived continuity through stronger perceptions of group threat. To test this hypothesis, we recruited participants from both majority and minority groups in Northern Ireland (N = 268) and in Cyprus (N = 413) to complete an online survey to examine their endorsement of ingroup and outgroup narratives, their perceptions of identity continuity and feelings of threat. We tested these predictions with path analyses. In line with our hypothesis, results demonstrate that, for both majority and minority groups, if group members feel threatened they are more likely to endorse their ingroup historical narrative as this helps them to maintain a sense of continuity of their ingroup identity. Findings are discussed in relation to the importance of considering narratives in intergroup relations

Current Views of Greek Cypriot Displaced Persons on Return and Property Restitution (summary)

This study was conducted by the University Centre for Field Studies of the University of Cyprus in Nicosia, Cyprus, through telephone interviews using the NIPO/CATI program. The phone survey used both land lines and mobile phone numbers and ran from 29 February 2016 to 22 March 2016. Participants came from both urban and rural areas in each district of the Republic of Cyprus (Greek Cypriot community). Eligible participants were over 18 years old with voting rights. The total sample included 1605 participants. The findings in this section are for the Greek Cypriot sample only. The questionnaire for this survey was prepared by Djordje Stefanovic of St Mary’sUniversity, Canada, Neophytos Loizides of the University of Kent, UK and Charis Psaltis, the University of Cyprus with the support of their institutions and funding for the survey from the Leverhulme Trust

Collective psychological ownership and reconciliation in territorial conflicts

Collective psychological ownership refers to people’s perception that an object, place, or idea belongs to their own group. We considered this concept in the context of territorial conflicts and proposed that (1) collective psychological ownership is distinct from place attachment, (2) higher ingroup identifiers are more likely to claim collective ownership and feel attached to the territory, yet (3) only ownership claims are related to lower support for reconciliation. These hypotheses were tested in two studies using structural equation modelling. Study 1 addressed the Kosovo conflict, based on Serbian participants living in Serbia (N = 264). We found that collective psychological ownership and place attachment were distinct. Moreover, higher Serbian identifiers had a stronger sense of collective ownership of Kosovo and were more attached to it. Those with stronger feelings of collective ownership supported reconciliation with Albanians less, while place attachment did not hinder reconciliation. Study 2 replicated these findings among a new sample of Serbs in Serbia (N = 173), among Serbs in Kosovo (N = 129), and in two other conflict settings: among Greek Cypriots in Cyprus (N = 135) and Jews in Israel (N = 109). Altogether, we provide evidence that collective psychological ownership can represent an obstacle to reconciliation in conflict regions

Transitional justice and acceptance of cohabitation in Cyprus

This article draws on the case of Cyprus to initiate a discussion on the acceptance of renewed cohabitation in post-conflict societies. Besides focusing on the two main communities on the island, the article also examines for the first time the views of the IDPs as well as the settler/migrant community. We identify variations in support for acceptance of renewed cohabitation across different population groups, looking at age, gender, income, refugee status, contact and past victimization within each group. In Study 1, we consider Greek Cypriot attitudes to the Turkish settler/migrant community and juxtapose those with attitudes to indigenous Turkish Cypriots. In Study 2, we compare Turkish Cypriots and settlers aiming to evaluate their attitudes towards Greek Cypriots. Contrary to the dominant narratives, individual victimization, except a tendency related to the IDP status, does not account for variations in acceptance of cohabitation; our findings suggest that those who support peace amnesties are more likely to demonstrate tolerance towards outgroup members while highlighting quality of intergroup contact as a key causal mechanism in mitigating inter-group intolerance

Internally Displaced Persons and the Cyprus Peace Process

The article focuses on the Greek Cypriot Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and their attitudes towards the island’s reunification talks. We utilize quantitative data from two representative sample surveys, conducted in 2016-2017, probing respondents on their views on territorial readjustments, property provisions and power-sharing. Contrary to findings in the literature, IDP status is associated with higher levels of support for a negotiated peace settlement. The article examines the impact of anticipated threats and economic opportunities accompanying a settlement and suggests a set of institutionalized mechanisms to incorporate the views of IDPs and other disadvantaged groups in future reunification talks

Incorporating Citizen Preferences into the Design of Effective Peace Settlements

This paper describes the use of conjoint survey experiments to identify citizen preferences with respect to a possible peace agreement in Cyprus and a border agreement in Northern Ireland. The recommendations offered in the conclusion emphasize the flexibility of the method and its transferability to other conflict settings. Results also suggest ways of reinvigorating stalled peace negotiations (Cyprus) or improving past deals (Good Friday Agreement/Brexit-Northern Ireland) and can help contending groups and mediators identify potential zones of agreement by revealing areas where contending groups’ preferences overlap or differ and where possible trade-offs exist that could lead to greater consensus. Conjoint experiment results can be presented in the form of visual opinion maps and incorporated into interactive software applications. Such applications allow policymakers and the public to examine the elements of peace settlement packages to assess their degree of support by different communities and to evaluate communities’ readiness for peace settlements. Conjoint survey analysis thus serves as a powerful tool for identifying citizen preferences in discrete postconflict situations

Citizens and Peace Mediations in Divided Societies: Identifying Zones of Agreement through a Conjoint Survey Experiment

How can areas of potential agreement be identified and endorsed by citizens in protracted conflicts? In an effort to answer this question, the article introduces a conjoint experiment across the ethnically and territorially split communities of Cyprus and tests a range of hypotheses about the structure of public opinion with respect to a future settlement. We test hypotheses on security and credible commitments, the legacy of past negotiations, as well as transitional justice mechanisms following United Nations plans to mediate the conflict between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we demonstrate that a zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) exists from a public opinion perspective. We specifically explore power-sharing in the context of security, provisions for the internally displaced, federal courts, and territorial readjustments and highlight their relative importance for public opinion interventions across conflict-ridden societies