Download Impact of Pre-war and Post-war Intergroup Contact on Intergroup

Impact of Pre-war and Post-war Intergroup Contact on Intergroup Relations and Mental Health:
Evidence from a Bosnian Sample
Supplemental materials
Sampling procedure
We used a ‘snowball’ sampling procedure, starting with the personal contacts of the
second author. In particular, her parents and family members in Bosnia provided the first
contacts with their friends, in Sarajevo and in other towns and cities. These respondents then
made further contact with their friends, family members or neighbors. Paper questionnaires
were mostly distributed by and completed in the presence of the second author. Only a few
respondents preferred to have a few days to complete the questionnaire. Moreover, some
respondents self-completed the questionnaire, while others, especially older members of the
community, preferred to be interviewed and gave the answers verbally. In order to increase
the diversity of the sample, local volunteering organizations, working with former military
personnel who fought in the Army and war invalids, were contacted too, and agreed to
provide access to their clients. The authors acknowledged the possibility of inducing distress
in some respondents during the completion of the questionnaire (due to the potentially
traumatising material addressed) and the second author was able to debrief almost all of the
respondents in person.
In the final sample (N = 381), 40 respondents (10.50%) had attended primary or basic
school, 239 (62.73%) high or secondary school, 68 (17.85%) university, and 32 (8.40%) were
postgraduate; two respondents (0.50%) had never attended school. Respondents were all
Muslim, due to the nature of the sampling technique, which began with the involvement of
Muslim respondents only. The recruitment of respondents then spread through the
neighborhoods of these individuals, which, after the war, have become mostly segregated,
with Muslims living next to Muslims, and Christians living amongst other Christians.
Measures
All instruments were first produced in English, translated into Bosnian, and backtranslated into English to ensure absolute accuracy. This was carried out by the second author
and checked by both a professionally qualified Bosnian language translator and a bilingual
individual, both based in the UK (to ensure that lay people could understand the terminology
used). All measures presented to respondents were thus in Bosnian. The questionnaire was
piloted on the immediate family members of the second author to ensure comprehension and
ease of completion before wider distribution.
Experience of violence. We used seven items; “Was your home ever damaged by a
bomb during the war?”; “Were you injured or physically hurt during the war?”; “Did you
witness someone being killed during the war?”; “Did you suffer any psychological trauma
because of the war?”; “Did you fight as a soldier in the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina during
the war?”; and “Were you a prisoner in a concentration camp during the war?”. Respondents
were asked to respond whether or not they had faced the violence referred to in the statement
(no=1; yes=2). Higher mean scores indicated higher levels of experience of violence.
Ingroup Identification. Ingroup identification was measured by six items: “I feel
supported by other Bosniaks”, “I have a strong sense of belonging to the Bosniak
community”, “I have strong ties to Bosniaks”, “I feel respected by other Bosniaks”, “Being
Bosniak is an important part of who I am”, and "Being Bosniak is the most important part of
who I am". Answers were provided on a 5-point scale (1=disagree strongly, 2=disagree
somewhat, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree somewhat, 5=agree strongly). Higher mean
scores denoted higher levels of ingroup identification.
Pre-war (Past) Contact. We measured pre-war contact with Serbs using nine items.
The second author carried out five qualitative interviews with Bosniaks, from different towns,
cities, and villages within Bosnia & Herzegovina prior to the study, to assess the main types
of pre-war cross-group contact. In this scale we asked respondents to report the degree of
contact they had in the past, in the area where they lived before the war. Four items assessed
contact with neighbors: “How often did you socialize with your Serb neighbors?”, “How
often did you share meals with your Serb neighbors?”, “How often did you attend ‘special
occasions’ (e.g., celebrate Eid/ Christmas, attend weddings and funerals) with your Serb
neighbors?”, and “How often did you co-operate in house-building with your Serb
neighbors?”. Three items concerned contact with friends: “About how many of your friends
were Serb?”, “How often did you invite your Serb friends to your house?”, and “How often
were you invited into the house of your Serb friends?”. Finally, the remaining two items
tapped contact with colleagues: “How often did you mix informally with your Serb work
colleagues whilst at work?” and “How often did you socialize with your Serb work colleagues
outside of work (e.g., go for meals or drinks after work, or meet outside of school)?”. All
responses were given on a 5-point scale (1=never/none, 2=rarely/not many, 3=neither often
nor rarely/some, 4=sometimes/most, 5=very often/all). Higher mean scores indicated higher
levels of pre-war contact. An exploratory factor analysis (principal axis with varimax
rotation) yielded one factor, explaining 68.9% of the total variance. The loadings of the nine
items on the factor were all high, ranging from .70 to .86.
Post-war (Present) Contact. We used nine items, equivalent to those used to assess
past, pre-war contact, but adapted to the present moment. In particular, respondents were
asked to answer the nine questions “in relation to the area where you live today”. An
exploratory factor analysis (principal axis with varimax rotation) yielded one factor,
explaining 73.6% of the total variance. The loadings of the nine items on the factor were all
high, ranging from .78 to .88.
Outgroup Trust. We used three items: “Most Serbs cannot be trusted to deliver on
their promises” (reverse coded), “I think that Bosniaks can’t trust the Serbs after everything
they did during the war” (reverse coded), and “Despite the events that occurred during the
war, I trust Serbs”. Each item was rated on a 5-point scale (1=disagree strongly, 2=disagree
somewhat, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree somewhat, 5=agree strongly). After
appropriate recoding, higher scores indicated higher levels of outgroup trust. The items
yielded a scale that failed to meet the normal criterion value of .7 (Cronbach’s α=.61), but
could not be improved by dropping items and was thus considered acceptable under the
circumstances.
Intergroup Forgiveness. We measured forgiveness with five items: “I will never
forgive past wrongs committed by the Serbs” (reverse coded), “I believe revenge should be
sought for acts committed by members of the Serb community” (reverse coded), “I forgive
the Serbs for their past misdeeds”, “It is important that I abandon my right to resentment”, and
“I am able to show mercy towards offenders from the Serb community”. Respondents gave
their answers on a 5-point scale (1=disagree strongly, 2=disagree somewhat, 3=neither agree
nor disagree, 4=agree somewhat, 5=agree strongly). Where appropriate, items were recoded
so that higher scores indicated higher levels of intergroup forgiveness.
Social distance. Social distance was assessed through five items: “I would be willing
to have a Serb as part of my family”, “I would be willing to have a Serb as a friend”, “I would
be willing to have a Serb as a neighbor”, “I would be willing to have a Serb living in my
area”, and “I would be willing to marry or, if already married, to have a child of mine marry a
Serb”. Answers were provided on a 5-point scale (1=disagree strongly, 2=disagree somewhat,
3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree somewhat, 5=agree strongly). Items were recoded, so
that higher scores denote higher levels of social distance towards Serbs.
Morbidity. We employed the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12).
Sample items are: “Have you lost much sleep over worry?” and “Have you been feeling
unhappy and depressed?”. Respondents had to think how they felt in the last two weeks and
rated each item on a 4-point scale (0=not at all, 1=less than usual, 2=no more than usual,
3=much more than usual). Higher scores reflected poorer mental health, suggesting the
presence of mild psychiatric morbidity.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). In order to detect symptoms of this
pathology, we employed the 17-item Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL), a selfreport instrument devised to measure the DSM-IV symptoms (American Psychiatric
Association, 2000) of PTSD. In particular, we used the PCL-C version, a scale designed for
civilians that considers responses to stressful experiences from the past, and not to specific
traumatic events. Respondents had to indicate how much they have been bothered by each
symptom in the past four weeks, on a 5-point scale (1=not at all, 2=a little bit, 3=moderately,
4=quite a bit, 5=extremely). Sample items are: “Loss of interest in activities that you used to
enjoy?” and “Feeling emotionally numb or being unable to have loving feelings for those
close to you?”. Higher mean scores denoted higher presence of PTSD symptoms.
Reference:
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). Washington, DC American
Psychiatric Association