The Story of a Refugee

(1)

1

The Story of a Refugee

n

Does contact with a Syrian refugee positively influence the opinions of Dutch students? Building bridges between practice and theory.

Name: Miriam van Voornveld, Msc.

Student number: S2222043

Email: miriamvanvoornveld@hotmail.com

Study: Master in International Humanitarian Action (NOHA)

Home university: University of Groningen (Netherlands)

Host university: Uppsala University (Sweden)

First thesis supervisor: Prof. Dr. A.J. Zwitter (University of Groningen)

Second thesis supervisor: Dr. L. Löfquist (Uppsala University) May 2017

(2)

(3)

3

Abstract

Nowadays, there are many worries about the influx of refugees and the opinions towards refugees held by people in host countries. As worries and tensions rise, many social

interventions are carried out to create better understanding and intergroup relations. However, often there is no clear insight in the effectiveness of these interventions and existing knowledge from literature is rarely applied. To build bridges between practice and theory, this thesis looks at the effectiveness of the project ‘The Story of a Refugee’ as a case study. By combining

literature research and the collection of pre- and post-test data, this study looked at whether the project was able to influence the opinions on refugees of students after meeting a Syrian

(4)

4

Preface

I would like to genuinely thank the people who assisted me in the process of writing and conducting this master thesis research. It was an interesting and inspiring journey, for which I have to thank many people.

First of all, I want to express my gratitude for the opportunity I received at PAX to conduct this research. With gratitude and melancholy feelings, I look back at the great time I had within this organization and especially within the project The Story of a Refugee. I want to thank Iris Ruijs and Philo Offermans for the great opportunities they gave me within the project, and Daphne Dijkman for working so closely together and for helping me to collect data. I also want to thank Sanne Walhout for entering 740 student questionnaires into Excel.

Additionally, I want to thank the four schools who were willing to collaborate in this research. Those are Lek en Linge (Culemborg), ROC ter AA (Helmond), Landstede (Zwolle) and A. Roland Holst College (Hilversum). As I had to visit these school three times (for conducting a pre-test, the meeting with a Syrian ‘refugee’ and the post-test), I am thankful for the time they made available for me. Also, I want to thank all the 127 students who are part of this current research. Without them, this thesis would not have any ‘body’.

Furthermore, I want to thank the Syrian speakers I met and whit whom I spent a lot of time doing school visits. They really taught me a lot, not only professionally but also personally. My Syrian colleagues always told me how much they disliked the label ‘refugee’. Therefore, I tried to consistently avoid this term in my thesis and talk about them as Syrian guest speakers, as they are so much more than just refugees. They are teachers, dreamers, people like you and me. And this realization is exactly what the project The Story of a Refugee aims at: creating mutual understanding and humanizing the debate. I want to continue this process and way of thinking by avoiding to refer to the Syrian guest speakers of PAX as ‘refugees’ where possible in this thesis in front of you.

Finally, I want to thank Prof. Dr. A.J. Zwitter for supervising this thesis, and my family and friends for their endless moral support.

(7)

7

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

Since 2014, Europe has been subject to a so called ‘refugee crisis’. The number of refugees is currently the largest number since World War II, and there are more displaced persons now than there were after World War II (UNHCR, 2016). The largest number of refugees is coming from Syria. The news shows us horrific pictures of the war in Syria and the inhumane living conditions, as well as imagery of rubber boats full of asylum seekers.

These pictures and images have wakened discussions and tensions within the Dutch society. The influx of refugees, fear for terrorism, polarization within the society, discrimination, prejudice towards certain ethnic groups are worries existing among the Dutch population. The Ongoing Research on Citizens Perspectives (Continu Onderzoek Burgerperspectieven; COB) asked in 2016 the Dutch citizens to share the most important problems there are in the Netherlands (Den Ridder, Mensink, Dekker, & Schrijver, 2016). More than half of the respondents (56%) recalled the subject ‘refugees’ as the main source of concern. These concerns are mainly about integration, refugee policies and the reception of refugees. The second most mentioned theme the participants worry about is the way Dutch citizens live together. 16 percent mention this as a national problem in society. Participants showed concerns about prejudices, intolerance and depriving manners in the Dutch community.

But even for a longer period of time, tensions have been visible and worries are

expressed. Examples of such tensions include the death of the Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, the attacks in Brussel, anti-Islamic and anti-western tendencies and violent actions from religious and non-religious radicals (Lub, De Groot, & Schaafsma, 2011). These tensions have emphasized the urge for political and policy change, and for interventions and education programs.

1.1. Building Bridges

This unrest and tension in society are also witnessed in schools. Therefore, a lot of school based interventions are carried out to create interethnic contact and mutual understanding (Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2007; other interventions1_{). School based interventions can consist of many forms,} such as role-playing, information sharing, serious games, intergroups contact interventions and trainings (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014). Despite enormous efforts, it is not sure whether or not these implemented approaches work in practice. In 2007, Gijsberts & Dagevos concluded in SCP rapport that it is one big ‘question mark’ whether policies aiming at interethnic contact should continue to exist (Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2007, pp. 29-30). There is no consensus or knowledge on what works and why, and there is a lack of adequate research on the intended effects that intervention programs imply. Another problem is that interventions often only tend to reach people who already are more positive towards refugees or other outgroups (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). Participation is often voluntary and therefore dependent on the willingness of participants to engage in the project. Prejudiced or negative people seek to avoid contact with other groups (Pettigrew, 2008), while actually often being the targeted group. This is

questioning the effectiveness of intervention programs even further.

While it is not sure whether these social-interventions work in practice, it is often

showed in international literature that positive intergroup contact is one of the most studied and one of the most supported theories in social psychology in reducing negative emotions and

1_{For examples in Dutch society, look for example at www.databank-antidiscriminatie.nl,}

(8)

8 prejudices towards the outgroup, both in adults and children (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). This seeming contradiction can be explained by the fact that many public and policy interventions are not based on existing literature nor on research (Aboud et al., 2012; Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014; Cameron & Rutland, 2008; Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2007). Programs turn out to be designed often without any knowledge on psychological theories or research findings, and therefore they turn out to be often ineffective (Cameron & Rutland, 2008). But the finger can not only be pointed towards policy and intervention makers, academic

researchers are also part of the problem. First of all, scientifically tested interventions and programs are most often studied within laboratory settings and these scientific tests often study university students who already are less prejudiced (Nelson, 2009). In the Handbook of

Prejudice Stereotyping and Discrimination, Nelson critically observed his own research field, “(…) we have tended to work in our labs rather than hitting the field, we study college students who by and large are not prejudiced, and we refrain from making many public statements about the implications of our research” (Nelson, 2009, p.1). This last mentioned critical remark of scientific research not giving practical implications is a more often mentioned complaint. For example, Pettrigrew and Tropp are two of the most prominent scientists in the field of interethnic contact and prejudice and they extensively how interethnic contact could lead to reduction of negative intergroup opinions (see Pettigrew and Tropp, 2011). However, they did not give any practical implications (Lub, De Groot, & Schaafsma, 2011, p.58). In many cases, science is not (primarily) focussed on providing practice with game-changing tools or guidelines. How can this major field of scientific research improve practical interventions and projects? Interventions are often not based on science or ‘best-practises’ and social science does not provide the civic society with useful tools or practical implications. However, interventions can benefit a lot from scientific useful insights. Building bridges between practice and academia is therefore needed to evoke and improve social change.

1.2. Case study: The Story of a Refugee

To build bridges between science and practice, this research will use a school-based intervention named The Story of a Refugee (“Het verhaal van een Vluchteling”) in The

Netherlands as a case study. This project aims at creating mutual understanding and interaction between Syrian refugees and Dutch students. Syrian ‘refugees’ visit schools where they share their personal stories and inform the students about the situation in Syria. In this way, they try to create dialogue between students and Syrian speakers. The aim is to create understanding and also support for the reception and situation of refugees in the Netherlands. This comes from the organisation PAX. PAX is a nongovernmental organisation (NGO), working on peace

worldwide.

This paper will study the outcomes and effectiveness of this intervention. Existing research and theories behind such intended changes of interethnic contact will be conducted. The general research question of this thesis is: Does the project The Story of a Refugee (i.e. contact with a Syrian refugee) positively influence the opinions of Dutch students? With the use of literature study and a quantitative data selection among Dutch students (using a pre- and post-test), this research tries to answer this question, and thereby attempts to build bridges between practice and theory.

1.3. Niche

(9)

9 of this research. As stated before, research in the Netherlands on interethnic contact stayed very superficial according to the SCP, with mainly only researching project plans (Gijsberts &

Dagevos, 2007). Besides that, creating interethnic contact in the Netherlands is often a goal an sich (e.g. intercultural gatherings in neighbourhoods or schools) according to the research of the SCP (Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2007). However, in international literature the goal is often not to increase interethnic contact, but rather to increase social cohesion or decrease prejudice (Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2007). In research terms, interethnic contact in the Netherlands is often a dependent variable (a goal), while in other countries and in international literature they use it as an independent variable (a mean). This subject has yet to be studied in the Netherlands.

1.4. Outline of this thesis

In the following chapter – chapter two – the organization PAX and the project The Story of a Refugee will be explained. Also, chapter two will examine the outcomes of a short

(10)

10

CHAPTER 2: PAX and the project The Story of a Refugee

2.1. Organisation

PAX is an international peace organization. With partners in different countries all over the world, PAX tries to build just and peaceful societies across the globe. The mission statement of PAX is “PAX works together with committed citizens and partners to protect civilians against acts of war, to end armed violence, and to build a just peace” (PAX, n.d.).2

The five main pillars of the work of PAX are: ‘protection of civilians’; ‘humanitarian disarmament’; ‘natural resources conflicts & human rights’; ‘community based security & civil rights’; and ‘dealing with the past’. Those pillars are incorporated in different projects. PAX works on these five themes in 15 different countries, which are located in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. For example, PAX is working in Colombia on human rights, in South Sudan on peace, and has programs to create dialogue between civilians in Iraq. Besides that, they also work in Syria. For over 10 years, they are working together with local peace activists, who peacefully champion for a more democratic Syria. Before the war, the role of PAX in Syria was relatively positioned at the background; however, since the war their policy actively changed more towards protection of civilians and peacebuilding.

2.2 Project The Story of a Refugee

Since social discussions arose in the Netherlands concerning multiple subjects, including the influx of refugees, PAX focuses more and more on the Dutch context. By the end of 2015 PAX started the project The Story of a Refugee. The project arose from a question from a school in Helmond. Ingeborg Krook – a social science teacher at ROC ter AA in Helmond – came across extreme opinions from students with regard to refugees. According to her, the opinions were very polarized. Therefore, she contacted multiple organizations (including PAX), to ask whether there was someone who could share knowledge or a personal story related to refugees. One of the employees of PAX who is from Syria himself, went to the school and shared his personal story. As the reactions were very positive and the word spread among other teachers, PAX got more requests and so the project called The Story of a Refugee was born.

The bottom-up project is therefore mainly formed upon requests from the civil society. The project is mostly based on common sense, by making the students talk with a Syrian refugee, and not about a Syrian refugee. In this way, students are able to put a face with the stories, making it more personal.

“Many teachers find it very difficult to address this issue, afraid that things will get out of hand. You can prevent this by inviting someone in your class who looks you in the eyes

and tells you how it really is to be a refugee” - Ingeborg Krook

According to internal documentation of PAX, the main goal of the project is twofold. First of all, the goal is that more people will be more positively towards war-fled refugees in our society. The second goal is more support for humane reception of war refugees (and see them as people).

The design of the project (i.e. the guest lecture) is as follows. A Syrian guest speaker visits a class and gives a presentation about the following subjects: their personal information,

(11)

11 their life in Syria before the war, the start of the revolution, facts and figures about refugees, their personal story of fleeing the country, their fleeing route, how they ended up in the Netherlands and some information about their life now and hopes for the future. After this presentation, there is time for questions and a discussion. As every speaker gives his own presentation, the content varies. Sometimes speakers decide to not stick to their original presentation, but to let the students lead the discussion and presentation with their questions. Other times the presentation is followed more strictly. Also, the time available for questions differs per person, presentation and duration of the class. Sometimes, there is a lot of time for questions and discussion and sometimes there is less time. The project revolves around meeting one Syrian person and gaining knowledge about Syria. The project visits a location solely one time. There is no class about Syria or a related subject before or after this meeting.

At the beginning of 2017, the Syrian guest speaker pool existed of 18 speakers. Every speaker followed a weekend full of training. The Syrian guest speakers are guided by a PAX employee during every visit. The intention of this is twofold: to have a familiar face with them (to guide them) and to collect the input of these classes, to develop the project further and to determine what the strengths and weaknesses of the project and the presentations are.

The targeted audience of the project is the ‘silent majority’. According to PAX, the silent majority consists out of people who do not possess an explicit opinion towards refugees. PAX argues in their internal report that vivid supporters and those who vividly argue against the presence of refugees are not interesting fort his project because the positives are already

positive, and fierce opponents are not receptive for such a project or different opinions. With the goal to create better understanding, the targeted audience should be open for the project.

Therefore, they aim at the ‘silent majority’.

To create more sympathy and understanding, an open conversation is needed, and to have an open conversation, a secure atmosphere must be present. Therefore, according to PAX it is important to reach people who are already a group together, and who already are covered by a fixed structure, such as school classes or church communities. The project mostly aims at students between 16 and 23 years old in high schools from all educational levels (Dutch: vmbo, havo, vwo) and in intermediate vocational education (Dutch: MBO). In practice, students are often high school students around 15 years old. Although the main focus is on schools, other societal organizations (e.g. churches, Amnesty International) are also visited when requested.

In the year 2016, approximately 190 classes were visited, with a little more than 4.500 participants (mainly students). The project is still carried out in 2017, and anno March 2017 many more schools have been visited. Moreover, PAX received over 2 million euro from the Dutch Lottery (Dutch: Goed Geld Gala from the Postcode Loterij) for this project. With this money, PAX will collaborate with the organisation Critical Mass to improve the project. This research will prove outcomes and give recommendations regardless of the existing and upcoming future project plans.

2.3. Questionnaires collected by PAX

To get an insight in the effectiveness of the project, PAX collects a short questionnaire among students concerning how the project influences their opinion. This questionnaire of PAX and the outcomes of it will be shortly discussed here.

(12)

12 After the guest lecture of a Syrian guest speaker, the students are asked to answer the following questions: “After hearing this story, I understand better why refugees come to the Netherlands” (answer options: yes or no) and “After hearing this story, I think (answer options: more positive, more negative or not different) about the reception of refugees in the

Netherlands”.

2.4. Project outcomes according to questionnaire by PAX

In total, 740 students filled in the questionnaire. The students are from different educational levels (in Dutch: vmbo TL, havo, vwo and mbo niveau 3 en 4). The age varies from 11 to 34 years old, with a mean age of 15,3 years old. The following outcomes are received after entering in the outcomes manually in Excel and by analysing it in SPSS.

The statement “I am worried about the influx of refugees in the Netherlands”, was answered by the Dutch students in the following way: 38% stated ‘no’, nearly half of the students answered this question with ‘sometimes’ (48%) and 10,7% stated ‘yes’ (missing= 6,1%). For the second statement “I am (…) about the reception of refugees in the Netherlands”, 3% of the students filled in the blanks with the answer option ‘negative’, 51% filled in ‘neutral’ and 43% said that they are ‘positive’ towards the reception of refugees in the Netherlands (missing= 3%). On first sight, these prejudice levels seem very low. The middle group seems to be the biggest group (i.e. the people who sometimes worry about refugees and who are neutral towards the reception of refugees).

The questions asked immediately after the visit of a Syrian guest speaker indicate a very positive outcome. Of the 740 participants, 704 answered the question about whether they understand better why refuges come to the Netherlands (missing = 5%). 91% answered this question with ‘yes’, and 4% with no. Also, when asked the question whether the students are thinking differently about the reception of refugees in the Netherlands, 1% of the students stated that they were thinking more negative, 42% stated that they were not thinking different and 50% stated that they were more positive towards the reception of refugees after hearing the refugee his or her story (missing= 7%). These outcomes are visually shown in figure 1 and figure 2.

Figure 1 and 2: Pie charts of the outcomes at T1, own data

Table 3: Correlations between the variables measures at T1

91% 4%5%

"After hearing this story, I understand better why refugees come to the

Netherlands" Yes No Missing 1% 42% 50% 7%

"After hearing this story, I think (...) about the reception of refugees in the

Netherlands"

(13)

13 In general, students seem to be more positive after the visits. A visual display of the interplay between the pre-test question (T0): “I am (…) about the reception of refugees in the

Netherlands” and the post-test (T1): “After hearing this story, I think (answer options: more positive, more negative or not different) about the reception of refugees in the Netherlands”, give some interesting insights (see figure 3).

The figure below (figure 3) indicates that the people who were mainly already positive about the reception of refugees at T0, are the ones who most often became (even more) positive after hearing the story of a Syrian guest speaker (a little more than 60% of the 740 students). Students who were neutral before the intervention, often either did not change in their opinion, or they became more positive. This implies that there is almost a 50% chance that those

students changed their opinion. The students who indicated that they were negative about the reception of refugees in the Netherlands before the project, more often stated after hearing the story of a Syrian guest speaker that they did not change their opinion. However, only a few people were negative about the reception of refugees in the first place (10,7% of the students).

2.5. This research

While the outcomes of this short questionnaire are very positive and promising, there are some critical remarks to make. First of all, the questions are asked immediately at the beginning and at the end of the presentation. Therefore, the Syrian guest speaker is already in the class and could have made his first impression. With the presence of this person, it is reasonable that students give more socially desirable answers.

Moreover, the answer options are minimal and debateable. The students could indicate whether and why they were worried about the reception of refugees. Students who answered that they are worried about the reception of refugees (i.e. answered this options with ‘yes’) indicate for example that they are worried that terrorists (e.g. ISIS) will also enter the country, or that refugees are given priority concerning social housing while others are still waiting. Other reasons mentioned are that refugees are greedy or that too many refugees are coming.

Notwithstanding, other ‘yes’ answers also express worries concerning refugees, although focussing on different aspects. For example, some students state that they are worried about Wilders, or that something will happen to refugees during refugees’ flight. Also, they are worried

1 3 0 12 171 117 5 175 185 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Negative (T0) Neutral (T0) Positive (T0)

Change in students' opinions after hearing the story of a Syrian guest

speaker

More negative Not different More positive

Figure 3: graphical representation of change in students’ opinion after hearing the story, own data.

(14)

14 that the reception of refugees is poorly organized in the Netherlands, or that they become

victims of discrimination. So, the first type of ‘worry’ can be described as a worry for refugees (more negatively towards refugees), while the second set of answers are more emphatic worries (more positively towards refugees).

The same is true for students who answer whether they are worried about refugees with a ‘no’. Also for the no option, there are also a lot of different opinions given. Some students say no because they don’t think about refugees or are not interested in or don’t care about the topic (so: more a neutral answer, not opposing not supporting refugees), while others indicate that with the no option they mean that for them it is just normal to help refugees, that they are welcome here or that they also deserve a better life (a more positive answer).

(15)

15

CHAPTER 3: Theory

In our world, it appears that people fear the unknown (Nelson, 2002, p.229). Unknown

situations often cause more anxiety or stress than familiar situations. People often tend to make assumptions about ‘the unknown’. When people have limited contact with an outgroup, they feel little motivation to be accurate in their thoughts, expectations and assumptions about that group. Having limited contact and low motivation to be accurate in their beliefs, creates a perfect situation for prejudice and fear to kick in (Nelson, 2002). As mentioned by one of the Dutch respondents in the COB research: (man, 48 years old, higher educated) “the biggest opponents never see a refugee themselves” (translated, Den Ridder et al., 2016, p.38). Therefore, a simple remedy often thought of when wanting to diminish the fear for the unknown, is by making the unknown known. This is a simple train of thought, often implicitly at the base of many Dutch interventions (Gijsberts & Dagevos, 2007; Snel & Boonstra, 2005).

Although this assumption seems intuitively appealing, not every contact situation leads to positive outcomes. Sometimes contact between different groups can also “fuel the flames of hatred” (Jackson, 2011, p.160). An often-used example in this context is tensions mounting between different ethnic groups after putting students together in newly integrated schools, just right after the desegregation of schools in the United States (Aronson, 2000). That contact situation did not lead to better understanding or better intergroup relations. Instead, it led to exactly the opposite: tensions and conflict. Just mere simple contact is clearly not enough, at least not in every situation.

3.1. When contact leads to positive outcomes: Contact theory and its conditions

Researchers therefore thought of different contexts, different representatives of the outgroup, and different individualistic characteristics that would influence the outcome of contact (Cook, 1962). The two most important founding fathers of what now is widely known as ‘intergroup contact theory’, are Robin Williams (1947) with his book The reductions of Intergroup Tensions and Gordon Allport (1954) with his book The Nature of Prejudice. Both authors hypothesised about necessary conditions of contact. The most influential statements of intergroup contact were made by Allport (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011, p.8). To answer the question ‘when does contact lead to positive outcomes?’, Allport (1954) originally proposed four main conditions under which contact could leads to reductions in prejudice. According to him, intergroup contact will only have positive effect when (1) there is equal group status; (2) there are common goals being pursued; (3) there is intergroup cooperation; and (4) there is support from authorities, customs, norms, etc. These four conditions are widely used in research on interethnic contact.3 The first condition – equal status within the situation – is often found difficult to define and researchers have used this term in various ways (Riordan, 1978). What is often used and emphasized by Allport (1954), is that it is mainly about equal status within the context situation, not about the inquiries that might exist in the bigger society. This can be met for example, by giving members of each group equal opportunities to participate, make decisions and to offer opinions in certain activities.

The second condition mentioned by Allport (1954), is that the situation should involve

3_{Allport is not the only researcher who proposed conditions, there are many additional conditions mentioned}

by others (e.g. Amir, 1876; Brewer & Miller, 1984; Pettigrew, 1998; Robinson & Preston, 1976). The problem would be that if all of these preconditions should be met, “(t)he hypothesis would rarely predict positive results

(16)

16 shared goals between groups. There should be joint commitment and goal oriented effort to obtain a certain goal by all individuals, such as winning together a hockey season (Pettigrew, 1998). When members of different (ethnical) groups have a shared goal to pursue, they tend to act more open and friendly towards each other.

The common goals – as previously mentioned – should be obtained by interdependent efforts, without intergroup competition (Pettigrew, 1998). The third condition of Allport (1954) is therefore intergroup cooperation. In the literature, athletic sports are mentioned as having this condition. Cooperation often shows the capacity to create positive relation across certain group boundaries (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).

The fourth condition described by Allport (1954) is support from authorities, customs and norms, also referred to institutional support (Pettigrew, 1998). There should be no laws or norms against interethnic contact that can prohibit positive outcomes of contact. Authorities can establish norms of acceptance and guidelines about how to respectfully communicate with one another. Evidence for this condition is often found in the context of schools (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). When principals or teachers appear to value interracial relations, children from different racial groups tend to get along better (Longshore, 1983) and often possess positive interracial attitudes (Patchen, 1982). This condition is perceived to be of major importance in order to facilitate positive contact effects (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011, p.96).

Within the project The Story of a Refugee, not all of these conditions are met. There is no equal status within the situation, as a teacher-student relation is in its essence hierarchal. Also, the Syrian guest speakers are often older than the students (the mean age is around 35 years old), which also creates a hierarchal difference. There are also no clear common goals wherefore intergroup cooperation is needed. Institutional support is the only condition that is clearly met. The teacher invites the Syrian guest speakers to create a better understanding, so it is highly plausible that the teacher supports interaction and good communication. There is also an employee or person from PAX in every class, who makes sure that Syrian guest speakers are treated correctly and jumps in when the situations become uncomfortable. As only one out of four conditions are clearly met, this raises the question whether it is possible to still create positive outcomes. In other words, in how far are the four conditions necessary to create positive outcomes?

3.1.1. Facilitating versus necessary conditions

According to Pettigrew (1998), Allport and others did not specify which of these preconditions are necessary and which are merely facilitating conditions. It is shown by a substantive meta-analytic research by Pettigrew and Tropp (2011)4_{of Allport’s conditions, that establishing these} factors typically improve positive outcomes of the intergroup contact (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). But even though there is research showing that when all of the conditions are met it often leads to improved attitudes and contact with outgroups, there are also many studies showing a reduction of prejudice and an increase in positive outcomes while not meeting these conditions (Pettigrew, 1998, p.68). A regularly cited example is the research of Van Dyk (1990). In this research, white housewives and their opinion towards ‘blacks’ in South Africa were researched. The researchers found that when White housewives often had contact with their Black domestic workers in South Africa, they became more positive towards black South-Africans in general. This is in a context that clearly does not fit the conditions of Allport, as the contact was during the time of Apartheid with strict social norms against interethnic contact and liking. In the

(17)

17 existing literature, it is consistently found that whether or not the conditions of Allport are met, there is an apparent relationship between contact and prejudice. Therefore, it is frequently concluded that the four conditions of Allport are facilitating conditions, rather than necessary conditions. As stated in the meta-analysis of Pettigrew and Tropp (2011): “While 94% of the 713 samples in our analysis showed an inverse relationship between intergroup contact and

prejudice, only 19% of the samples involved contact situations structured in line with Allport’s conditions” (p.68). Therefore, it can be said that the conditions are beneficial for a positive outcome, but that they are not necessary conditions for contact to lead to positive outcomes. How does contact then lead to positive outcomes?

3.2. How contact leads to positive outcomes: mediators

Although contact and prejudice are perceived to be interrelated according to the contact hypothesis, it is not yet clear how intergroup contact reduces prejudice. The three most studied explanations are intergroup knowledge, anxiety and empathy (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008, 2011). 3.2.1. Intergroup knowledge

The first and original idea of intergroup contact theorist was that intergroup contact would facilitate in knowledge and learning about the outgroup, and that this in turn would lead to reduced prejudice (Allport, 1954). As stated before, it is often thought that people fear what they do not know. By having contact, one can learn about each other and from each other. Old

negative attitudes can be corrected by the new knowledge (Allport, 1954). Research shows that ignorance contributes to outgroup prejudices, and that corrective new information can help to improve intergroup attitudes (Stephan & Stephan, 1984).

However, new information can also produce or maintain negative attitudes. Although not completely true for everyone, some prejudices are true for some outgroup members. In a

research of Vescio, Sechrist and Paolucci (2003) they found that people who witnessed an interview segment where stereotype confirming information was given by an African American interviewee, later endorsed more stereotypic perceptions of African Americans in general. Besides that, research shows that even though one might think (s)he counters prejudices of the listener, highly prejudiced students often still look and link things to existing prejudices

(Rothbart & John, 1985).

There are many examples where counter-information is not completely taken in consideration. As a Dutch example, some people still believe that Marianne Vaatstra was

murdered by a refugee, and that Pim Fortuyn was killed by an ethnic minority, which for both of them is not true. Although hard evidence shows that this is not the case, there is still a

percentage of people who are either ignorant, don’t know the facts or who unconsciousness link the dead to an ethnic minority. Ratio therefore does not always seem to play a major part in prejudice and beliefs.

Meta-analysis of 17 independent samples by Pettigrew & Tropp (2011) found that intergroup contact does indeed lead to knowledge, but that enhanced knowledge only has a minor effect on diminishing prejudice.5_{The impact that contact has on prejudice is only for 5%} mediated by knowledge. Therefore, the authors conclude that the mediating effect of knowledge is only modest.

5_{Pettigrew and Tropp (2011 p.80) found that intergroup contact and knowledge correlate for +.22. Knowledge}

(18)

18 3.2.2. Emotions: increased empathy and decreased anxiety

As stated above, knowledge does not seem to have a major impact on prejudice reduction. Therefore, most research points at the effect of emotions. Evidence suggests that contact works to reduce prejudice, mainly by anxiety reduction and enhanced empathy (Tausch & Hewstone, 2010). Also, Pettigrew and Tropp (2008, 2011) found this in their meta-analysis: contact situations which promote positive emotions and reduce the negative ones, are most likely the interventions that succeed in conflict and prejudice reduction.

Increasing positive emotions can be established by increasing empathy. The researchers of the COB research (Den Ridder et al., 2016) state that people who feel sympathy or empathy for refugees, perceive refugees mainly as people in need who should be provided with shelter. Contact with an outgroup person may enable someone to take the perspective of this person, and to empathize with their concerns (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). Especially when people disclose themselves during the contact, empathy is likely to happen. One study revealing this for example is of Turner, Hewstone and Voci (2007). In this study, it was found that cross-group friendships predicted positive outgroup attitudes towards other South Asians, especially when those children revealed a lot of personal information (self-disclosure). Self-disclosure had positive outcomes on outgroup attitudes, because it generated empathy. The voluntary sharing of personal information that is of an intimate and personal nature, promotes familiarity, perceived similarity and helps to perceive the outgroup members as individuals (Miller, 2002). This shows the importance of contact on an intimate level, instead of on an informative level. Pettigrew and Tropp (2011, p.83) find in their meta-analysis that empathy is indeed an

important mediator. According to them, empathy mediates roughly 30% of the contact-prejudice association. 6

Reduced anxiety is also seen as a way that contact can have positive effects on prejudice. Stephan and Stephan (1985), researched the critical role of anxiety in interactions between groups. Individuals often experience feelings of intergroup fear before interacting with an unknown person from a different background or culture. People tend to fear four types of negative consequences. The first is negative psychological consequences for the self, such as fear for embarrassment due to one’s own behaviour and feelings of being confused or not in control. The second one is negative consequences for the self, such as fear for being exploited, dominated or physically harmed. The third feared negative consequence is negative evaluations by

outgroup members, a fear to be rejected, disapproved or ridiculed. The last fear is fear for negative evaluations by ingroup members, fearing that members of one’s own group will disapprove of their interaction with the perceived outgroup member.

Multiple researches find that people indeed do have fear for a sometimes-unmet

outgroup. Initial contact can cause anxiety (Blascovich et al., 2001) and after previous outgroup contact moments, it is found that people often will become less anxious (Blascovich et al., 2001; Page-Gould et al., 2008). Pettigrew & Tropp (2011) find in their meta-analysis that indeed anxiety reduction is a relatively strong mediator for the contact-prejudice effect. 7_Anxiety reduction mediated roughly 31% of the contact-prejudice association.

6_{Pettigrew and Tropp (2011 p.84) found that intergroup contact and empathy correlate for +.35. Empathy and}

prejudice only correlate for -.32. This shows that intergroup contact increases feelings of empathy, and that these feelings of empathy in turn negatively influence prejudices.

7_{Pettigrew and Tropp (2011 p.82) found that intergroup contact and anxiety reduction correlate for +.29.}

(19)

19 3.2.3. In the context of the project

The above-mentioned literature shows that increased empathy and reduced anxiety seem to be the most important answers on how contact leads to positive outcomes. Therefore, it is

interesting to determine whether the project The Story of a Refugee would be able to increase empathy, increase knowledge and decrease fear. Are these above-mentioned outcomes possible after meeting a single Syrian refugee, according to the students themselves?

In the context of empathy, we argue that it is possible to create empathy after meeting one single Syrian refugee. Many studies show that after meeting one single person, one could emphasize more with that person, but also with outgroup members, as they possibly experience the same (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). Besides that, in their presentations the Syrians reveal their personal and often emotional story. Many show pictures of their families, their hometown, their flight and the loss they experienced. As stated above, self-disclosure is very important to create empathy.

Increasing knowledge is also very likely to happen within this intervention. A major objective of the story of the Syrian guest lecturer is to provide information about Syria before, during and after the war, and information about one’s personal life and experiences. Therefore, it is likely that this project increases knowledge among students.

However, after an initial meeting with an outgroup member, feelings of fear may still be existing. Research of Page-Gould and colleagues (2008) show for example that stress responses gradually fade away after three interactions with the outgroup in their research. By the third contact meeting, fear and stress levels were not different from people who interacted with a same-group partner. Also, Pettigrew (1998, p.71) states: “Continued contact generally reduces anxiety”. Therefore, it is theorized that the project is better in generating knowledge and empathy than it is able to decrease intergroup fear. The following hypothesis is formulated:

H1: The contact leads more often to increased knowledge and increased empathy towards Syrian refugees, compared to decreasing fear towards Syrian refugees

3.3. Does intergroup contact lead often to positive outcomes?

As mentioned in section 3.1 before, a meta-analysis of Pettigrew and Tropp found that while only 19% of the 713 researched samples involved contact situations structured in line with Allport’s conditions, 94% of the samples showed that intergroup contact and prejudice are inversely related. In their analyses, they extensively studied the available researches on contact theory, from the early 1940’s up until 2000 (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). Their study incorporated more than 250.000 participants, and those studies were conducted in 38 different countries. Their outcome shows that in general, the level of contact is positively related to prejudice levels. Therefore, they argue that in general, “all things being equal”, contact is related to diminished prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011, p.71). Positive and negative situational and personal factors (moderators) therefore determine whether the outcome of the contact will be positive.

Pettigrew and Tropp also researched whether these effects are found in different

contexts and situations. In their meta-analysis, it shows that for different target groups, different age ranges, and different locations and contexts, the effect of contact reducing prejudice is still evident. This implies that the contact-prejudice relation is stable and holds in many situations. 3.3.1. Does contact lead to less prejudice or less prejudice to more contact?

(20)

20 outcomes such as diminished prejudice and improved intergroup attitudes, it does not say anything about the causality of the effect. For example, the COB (Den Ridder et al., 2016) research states that although the people who have contact with refugees themselves or who have friends that have contact with refugees are likely to have better understanding for refugees their situation, it not sure what causes what. Are some people having better understanding for refugees because of this contact, or are they having more contact with refugees because they have more understanding? In this way, the causality of the outcomes is questioned. Similar to the chicken or the egg causality dilemma, both options are possible and seem plausible. An often-mentioned critique towards the contact theory is therefore that the positive outcome could be because less prejudiced people more often look for contact with outgroup members (Pettigrew, 1998).

It is found that tolerant people are more likely to engage in positive contact situations with outgroups (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011, p.22). Prejudiced people seek to avoid contact with other groups (Pettigrew, 2008), while these are often initially the targeted groups for

interventions. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal research show that both paths (from contact to less prejudice and from less prejudice to contact) operate at the same time (Binder et all., 2009). Therefore, self-selection of people who are already willing to contact and interact with outgroup members is of possible influence on the contact-prejudice relation.

One way to overcome this problem is to make contact a no choice option (Pettigrew, 1998). If people do not have any influence on making contact with an outgroup member, the self-selection bias is ruled out. In experimental settings existing of no choice situations, contact also turns out to have an impact (Wright, Aron, & Brody, 2008). The meta analyses of Pettigrew and Tropp (2011) also looked into differences in choice (with the participants having ‘choice’, ‘some choice’ or ‘no choice’). It turns out that – when controlled for the research design – the prejudice outcome does not differ between participants who have a choice compared to those who do not have a choice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). So, even when there is no choice for the participants to decide on interacting with an outgroup member, there are still positive outcomes generated. This outcome bolsters the argument that contact indeed reduces prejudice. The researchers infer by this that “even in circumstances where contact may be challenging or difficult, reduced prejudice and other positive outcomes can still result from such contact” (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011, p.23).

Another solution to overcome this causality problem, is by doing longitudinal research (Pettigrew 1998). When the perceived cause (contact) would generate the perceived effect (e.g. less prejudice), the contact should precede the effect. This is something that longitudinal research is able to take into account (Christ & Wagner, 2012). Research on longitudinal studies show that contact indeed often leads to positive outcomes. While seen as more useful in trying to understand causal relations in intergroup contact, there is still a scarcity of such studies (Christ, Hewstone, Tropp & Wagner, 2012).

Both above mentioned points will be incorporated in this current research. In the project The Story of a Refugee, the students do not have a choice in participating during the class. As the interaction is part of their regular curriculum (often hold in classes of social sciences, English language or classes about citizenship), the students do not decide on participation themselves. Their teachers decide inviting a Syrian guest speaker into their class, not the students. This excludes the option of a selection bias, which is of great benefit for the intended outcome. However, students still have a choice in whether they want to participate in this research or not, but this will be discussed in the methodology chapter (chapter 4).

(21)

21 refugee leads to positive outcomes, longitudinal research will be conducted. As there is a scarcity of longitudinal research, this research will use a pre- and post-test. This is a great addition for the existing literature, as most research is retrospective, cross-sectional and includes choice options (Christ, et al., 2012; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). With this study design, one can research whether contact turns out to have an influence on people who were already more reluctant towards refugees, but also whether it is able to positively influences people who are more prejudiced, those who would normally probably avoid intergroup contact.

3.4. Generalized outcomes

Although in general the effect of contact with an outgroup member on prejudices is mostly positive (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011), the degree of the impact it has is often seen as ‘modest yet meaningful’ (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006)8_{. So, in other words, contact often leads to prejudice} reduction, but the degree of this reduction is often seen as ‘small’ or ‘modest’. This small impact is sometimes criticised. However, in prejudice reduction, this is still seen as one the most effective way to reduce prejudice. In the meta-analysis of Beelmann and Heinemann (2014), the researchers looked into different types of interventions aiming at prejudice reduction and better intergroup attitudes. The authors compared all sorts of interventions with different scientific base (e.g. knowledge acquisition, intergroup contact, social-cognitive training), in many possible forms (e.g. active trainer, printed materials, groups discussions, TV material, use of manuals, role playing). They found that role play and intergroup contact are two of the most effective ways, although having a seemingly small impact. About this small/modest impact, the authors state that “(…) even small effects could have impressive implications and practical significance–for example, if slightly improved intergroup attitudes lead to less discrimination or prevent violent behavior toward out-group members” (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014, p.17).

Another existing critique is that scholars sometimes question whether the positive effects intergroup contact has towards the met persons can also create positive outcomes

towards the whole outgroup (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). According to the contact hypothesis, the effects of interaction and contact with one or a few from the outgroup, should not solely be directed to those persons but should generate generalised effects the outgroup as a whole. If the effects of intergroup contact would not generalize, the societal value of those interventions and interactions would be neglectable and of minor significance (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). Critics have often raised the concern that contact would mainly better the relations between

individuals rather than between groups (e.g. Amir, 1976).

That a generalized effect is possible to achieve, is demonstrated in the meta-analysis from Pettigrew and Tropp (2011).9_{Statistical tests exposed in their research that it did not} matter whether research looked at the individual effects of contact (the effects toward the members within the contact situation) or whether they looked at the effects towards the outgroup as a whole. In both types of research, similarly strong positive outcomes were found, “suggesting that the effects of contact tend to generalize” (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2005, p.1149). For this contact to generalize, the group membership of the met individual needs to be salient (e.g. Brown & Hewstone, 2005). In other words, one must know that someone is a

8_{The Pearson correlation size has an r value of approximately -.21 (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011, p.18). For racial}

and ethnic groups specific, it is also found to be -.21 (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011, p.51). In scientific research, these correlations estimates are often seen as ‘small’ or ‘medium’, according to the standards of Cohen (1988). Cohen (1988) categorizes a coefficient of .10 as small, .30 as moderate, and .50 as large.

9_{Pettigrew and Tropp (2011, p.32) found that intergroup contact and generalized outcomes toward involved}

(22)

22 member of a certain group (in this case the group of Syrian refugees), to make the link between the person with whom the contact was with and the outgroup as a whole. Considerable research supports the importance of salient categorization (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).

The project The Story of a Refugee also aims at a generalized effect. The goal is not that the students become more positive towards the met Syrian person, but that they change their opinion on an aggregated level: toward Syrian refugees in general. Therefore, group salience is also important in the project The Story of a Refugee. If the Syrian guest speaker would not be seen as a Syrian refugee, but rather as an individual apart from its outgroup, the contact effect would not generalize to the outgroup. However, in the project the Syrian guest speakers talk about themselves as being refugee (which the title of the project already implies). They also tell about their country of origin, about the ongoing war and about their ‘fellow’ Syrian refugees. Therefore, their group membership could be seen as salient and generalization of a positive effect to the outgroup could be possible.

3.4.1. Generalized outcomes to involved outgroups: cognitive versus affective

The literature often makes a distinction between two types of generalized outcomes, namely affective dimensions of prejudice (feelings and emotional responses towards the outgroup) and cognitive dimension (perceptions, stereotypes and judgements about a group). It is often found that affective dimensions of prejudice can be changed more easily and better, compared to the cognitive dimension. when it comes to stereotypes, cognitive processes seem to be very rigid. Rothbart and John (1985) are in this regard eminent researchers. Their focus was on the issue that people grant more weight to confirming information from outgroup members than on members who disconfirm the stereotypes. In other words, even though prejudices may be countered with contrary information, people will still look for factors that correspond with their existing prejudices. When people get asked to think about a representative of a certain outgroup, members who confirm the group stereotype will more likely come to mind. This type of

prejudice is therefore less easily changed.

On the other hand, affective dimensions of prejudice make a person think and feel as an attached person. The attitudes become more relational in nature, reflecting our opinions about the outgroup in light of the relationship and experiences we have with them. As affective ties are or could be created by intergroup contact, it is according to Pettigrew and Tropp (2011) likely that there are greater shifts in affective prejudice measures possible.

Several studies did indeed find that affective indicators of prejudice typically yield a stronger inverse contact-prejudice relationship than cognitive indicators for stereotypes. The meta-analysis by Tropp and Pettigrew (2005) found that approximately 18% of the studies on intergroup contact incorporated measures of the affective dimension of prejudice.

Approximately 53% of the studies up until 2000 measured changed in cognitive dimensions of prejudice. The rest of the prejudice indicators were not covered by any of these categories (approximately 29%, Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005, p.1148). Although both dimensions find positive outcomes for prejudice reduction, indicators of affective dimensions of prejudice (e.g. emotions and favorability) were found to have in general a stronger mean effect than the measures of cognitive dimensions (e.g. stereotypes and beliefs).10_{These outcomes suggest that affective}

10_{Indicators of emotions (-.275) and favorability (-.249) as part of the affective dimensions had a significantly}

(23)

23 dimensions of prejudice are more easily changed than cognitive dimensions, just as expected by literature. Another research by Tropp and Pettigrew (2005, p.1154) with a new single study using all four measurements described above, also found that those prejudice indicators based on affective dimensions of prejudice show significant and more consistent relationships with intergroup contact, compared to the relative effects obtained with cognitive indicators. However, the studies used in Pettigrew and Tropp are not explicitly about meeting one outgroup person, but often about more meetings in different settings. Therefore, it is interesting to look at researches that look into the effect of meeting one single person on this behalf. Until now, there is no distinction made in this research between contact with a single outgroup member or with more outgroup members. The outcomes for interethnic contact seem promising, but is it possible after meeting a single person to create positive outcomes on different generalized levels?

3.4.2. Meeting once a single outgroup member

In general, people often tend to correlate individual behaviour to the behaviour of the whole outgroup. For example, people often blame other outgroup members for harm enacted by one outgroup individual, even when the action was quite visibly the action of one single person (Lickel, Stenstrom, Denson, & Schamder, 2006). A reason for this “collective blame” is that an outgroup is often seen as having an indirect causal role to the individual outgroup member’s action. For example, the outgroup is held accountable for stimulating or creating certain behaviour, or for not preventing or stopping that behaviour. This negative stance towards the outgroup as a whole based on the actions of one person is a reoccurring bias; however, could the actions of one person also have a positive effect on the perception of the whole outgroup? Are people also willing to change their opinion more positively about the outgroup after meeting once a single outgroup member (e.g. a Syrian refugee)? The research from Rothbart and John (1985) which was also discussed in section 4.4.1 mentions that people grant more weight to stereotype confirming information from outgroup members than to members who disconfirm the stereotypes. Mental processes of prejudice are more rigid to change: our minds do create cognitive structures to organize and sort information, which are often resistant to change (Hamilton, 1981; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). Pettigrew and Tropp (2011) argue however that just as people “jump to conclusions” in their initial judgements towards the outgroup, which often are not based on much personal contact or knowledge, the opinion could also be changed after meeting and liking “a few members of the outgroup” (p.46). Is meeting one outgroup member then also enough?

Different researchers found that it is possible to change opinions towards the whole outgroup after meeting a single outgroup member. One of the researches is of Wolsko, Park, Judd and Bachelor (2003). In their research, they examined an experimental investigation of

(24)

24 An important outcome in the research of Wolsko et al. (2003) is that they found

generalized outcomes, but not on all outcome measures. The contact significantly enhanced the evaluation of outgroup members, as it found an increase in overall warmth to Latinos relative to whites and an increase in perceived prevalence of positive attributes among group members. This is part of the affective dimension of prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). On the other hand, the contact itself had no significant effect on the stereotypes hold by the student towards to outgroup (seen as a cognitive dimension of prejudice), neither had it an effect on the

perceived heterogeneity of the outgroup (i.e. seeing the outgroup as one homogenous group). These results – in the words of the researchers – “suggest that contact alone is not sufficient to produce less extreme stereotypes or greater perceived heterogeneity” (pp. 106-107). This research of Wolsko and colleagues (2003) will be referred to later in section 4.5.

Ensari and Miller (2002) conducted another research whereby they looked at the effect of a student working together on a task with an outgroup member (in this case a Muslim

student). They found that when this person both revealed personal information (self-disclosure) and when this person was seen as typical for its outgroup, positive outgroup evaluations

emerged (affective outcome measure). Their research was only about an affective outgroup measure, and not about cognitive outcomes.

Both of the above-mentioned researches imply that under certain conditions it is possible to create positive outcomes towards the outgroup on affective measures, even after meeting a single person one time. Although both meetings were under different conditions than those are in the project of PAX (e.g. in both it was a cooperative task, in the first research it was about a group project and in the second research it was one on one interaction), it still hints at the possibility for change on an affective level. However, on a cognitive level, the first research did not find statistical differences, and the second one did not research that type of outcome. Of course, it remains a quite minimal intervention to meet a single person once in order for one to change his or her attitude. It is shown that more interactions in more contexts create better outcomes and better possibilities for these outcomes to generalize (e.g. Islam & Hewstone, 1993; Pettigrew, 1998; Wolsko et all., 2003). But the above-mentioned research shows that change is possible, mainly on the affective level.

With regard to these outcomes and the existing literature, we expect that The Story of a Refugee will have greater effect on affective dimensions than on cognitive dimensions of prejudice. In this current research, affective attitudes will be measured as part of the affective dimension of prejudice, and cognitive stereotypes will be measured as part of the cognitive dimension of prejudice. As the Syrian guest speaker reveals personal and emotional information, it is possible that the affective attitudes towards Syrian refugees are changed positively. It is however likely that more intensive and more frequent contact is needed for cognitive stereotypes to change (Van Dick et al., 2004). “Contact may be more likely to reduce stereotyping to the extent that it involves both substantial numbers of and meaningful

relationships with a variety of outgroup members” (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011, p.109). Therefore, since the students only meet a Syrian guest speaker once, we hypothesize that cognitive

(25)

25 H2: Contact positively enhances attitudes towards Syrian (affective dimension of prejudice)

H3: Contact does not lead to increased positive outcomes on stereotypes hold towards Syrian refugees (cognitive dimension of prejudice)

3.4.3. Generalized outcomes to so called ‘uninvolved outgroups’

The above-mentioned outcome variables (in this research affective attitudes and cognitive stereotypes) are the most extensive researched outcome categories (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). However, as stated in the goals of PAX, PAX also has a goal to increase the outcome ‘humane reception of refugees’. As this goal aims at increasing attitudes towards refugees in general, and not only towards Syrian refugees, this can be labelled as the uninvolved outgroup. In the

literature, Pettigrew (2009) calls this the secondary transfer effect. In the secondary transfer effect, the effect of intergroup contact is not only aimed at the immediate met outgroup, but also has wider implications. As the difference between the groups and group members could be very high, this outcome seems less appealing. Nevertheless, there are different researches which shows that this outcome is possible. There are two theoretical explanations that could underlie such a process, as pointed out by Pettigrew and Tropp (2011, p.34).

First of all, contact with an outgroup member does not only change our vision towards outgroups, but could also make people reconsider the vision of themselves and their ingroup (Pettigrew, 1998). One learns about different cultures, different point of views, and maybe even learns that some stereotypical opinions hold by their own ingroup are false. Learning that there are other cultural standards and ways that groups use to cope, could lead to people becoming less ethnocentric (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011, p.34), which can lead to a broader change in one’s perception of the world, rather than a sole change in one’s perception of the direct outgroup.

The second underlying process is that prejudice of many kinds intercorrelate, and do so in a positive manner (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). For example, someone who is highly prejudiced towards a certain outgroup is often likely to hold such believes also towards other outgroups. Therefore, if in a certain part of life prejudice is diminished towards a certain group, this could also diminish prejudice towards other groups. Different cross-sectional studies (e.g. Pettigrew, 1997) and longitudinal studies (e.g. Eller & Abrams, 2004; Levin, Van Laar, & Sidanius, 2003) showed that these outcomes were possible.

Besides that the goal ‘a more humane reception of refugees’ is a goal that aims to influence also uninvolved outgroups, it also is an outcome that aims at a different angle. This goal is beyond improving attitudes between groups, “calling for policy relevant outcomes of contact” (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011, p.110). So, with this project, they do not only try increase intergroup attitudes, but also outcomes on a policy level. Is it possible to create outcomes on a policy level after meeting once a single person?

An often-implicit train of thought behind the change on a policy level, is that people’s improved attitudes towards the out-group will also have the effect that those individuals want to support structural changes to create more equality between groups (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). Policy outcomes is not that much researched yet, and is slowly developing in the contact

literature (Dixon et all., 2010; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). Some of the existing researches on change in policy attitudes will be described here.

(26)

26 1969). The Watts Riots were riots that took place in Los Angeles for five days, as the police was accused of handling an incident in a racist manner. The five days of rebellion of mainly Black-Americans in Los Angeles, have cost 34 lives and created about 40 million dollars of property damage. Research of Jeffries and Ransford (1969) explored how people looked at these riots and whether this could be related to prior contact with black people. The research found that those middle-class whites who had prior contact with the outgroup, reported to have less fear for being attacked by black people. They also believed that smaller proportions of black people were part of or participated in the rebellions. Related to the preferred social policies that should be enacted in order to prevent future riots like this to happen, whites who had prior contact were found to have less punitive measurements (e.g. stricter penalties, more racial segregation), and more often suggested supportive policies to prevent future riots (e.g. racial integration, better changes for Blacks).

Another research is about the racial attitudes among white South Africans (Dixon et al., 2010). This study looked at whether contact had influence on government policies “designed to rectify the legacy of apartheid” (p.831). The frequency and quality of prior contact predicted white’s support for compensatory (that aims at supporting Blacks but that does not challenge white’s privileges) and for preferential policies (aims at supporting blacks by challenging white’s privileges).

But more recent studies in the Western context also found these outcomes (Dowds, 2006; Hayes & Dowds, 2006; Pettigrew et all., 2007). Hayes and Dowds (2006) studied for example various explanations of why people oppose immigration. They found that the social contact theory was the most important and consistent predictor of policy attitudes.

A critical reader, however, notices that all these researches are retrospective, which questions the causality. A retrospective study does not distinct between whether the contact lead to these positive outcomes, or that more open-minded ‘Whites’ looked more for contact. Does contact cause these positive immigrant policy attitudes, or do people who hold more positive outgroup policy views actively seek more contact? Furthermore, the above-mentioned researches are not about meeting once a single person, so in the context of The Story of a Refugee, it is not sure what yet can be predicted.

What is known is that contact leads more often to changing affective attitudes towards the outgroup, rather than changing policy outcomes. Especially as those policy outcomes are aiming at uninvolved outgroups. For outgroups, it is known that groups with similar levels of stigmatization are likely to be perceived as similar (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011, p.40). The effect “is strongest when there exists cultural similarity or even overlap between the involved and

uninvolved outgroup” (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011, p.46).

Although the concept ‘similarity’ is a difficult concept to define (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011, p.39), in the case The Story of a Refugee, there is considerable overlap between the outgroups. What can be said is that Syrian refugees are part of the label ‘refugees’, just as being a student on the ‘faculty of Arts’ does not change someone from being a part of the label ‘University of

Groningen’. The label refugees could therefore be seen as an overarching label. On the other hand, the COB research shows that people in the Netherlands differentiate between economic and war refugees. For the former they have less sympathy than for the latter. Perceived choice and responsibility is hereby an important concept. Economic ‘refugees’ or asylum seekers choose to flee, while war fled refugees do not have a choice. Also, in a research on meeting one single outgroup member from Batson et al. (1997), they state regarding the scope of the

The Story of a Refugee