Stand By or Stand Up? Interventions to Promote Prosocial Intergroup Bystander Behavior Among Youth in the Middle-East

• In Event: 2-037 - But What Do *They* Say? The Role of Group Dynamics in Bullying Behaviors and Bystanders Responses to Bullying

Integrative Statement

Intergroup exclusion—a form of prejudice-based victimization that targets outgroup members (Cooley et al., 2016)—is a typical expression of protracted conflict in the Middle-East manifest in youths’ everyday lives (Bar-Tal et al, 2017). Prosocial bystander intervention (e.g., tell excluder it’s not fair), however, is highly effective in stopping such victimization and its myriad consequences (Salmivalli, 2014). Yet, some bystanders react passively (e.g., do nothing) or negatively (e.g., support excluder/join in exclusion; Brewster & Tucker, 2016). Social-emotional skills-based interventions increase youth’s prosocial bystander responses (BRs) (Espelage & Low, 2012) and interethnic contact increases prosocial attitudes toward victimized outgroup peers (Brenick & Killen, 2014). Moreover, youth’s evaluations of exclusion differ for same- versus cross-ethnic victimization and differ by context (e.g., with the peer group, with parents; Brenick & Halgunseth, 2017). Research has yet to explore whether either intervention strategy promotes prosocial and reduces passive and negative BRs in not just same- but also cross-ethnic exclusion scenarios in which either peer or parent intergroup-norms are salient.

To assess whether 12-month-long skills- or contact-based interventions affected BRs, 148 Palestinian-Israeli and 154 Jewish-Israeli school-children (Mage=10.55) were assigned to the 1) social-cognitive/emotional skills-based intervention (skills; e.g., empathy, perspective-taking); 2) combined skills and contact intervention (skills+contact; i.e., skills training and structured contact activities with ethnic outgroup peers); or 3) control group (control). Although contact-based interventions in conflict zones have yielded positive outcomes, they can also potentially exacerbate negative intergroup relations, especially in periods of high-conflict (see Berger et al., 2018). Thus, to better facilitate positive contact and intergroup bystander prosociality, we supplemented our contact intervention with skills-based training.

At pre-test, post-test, and a 6-month follow-up, participants evaluated hypothetical scenarios in which they witnessed a) parents not letting their child invite an outgroup peer to a sleepover (parent-context), and b) a friend not allowing an outgroup peer to join a group activity (peer-context). Participants were asked how they would respond to each; BRs were categorized as prosocial, passive, or negative.

Results from a 3 (time: pre-test/post-test/follow-up) x 3 (BR: prosocial/passive/negative) x 3 (group: skills/skills+contact/control) x 2 (context: peer/parent) x 2 (gender: male/female) x 2 (ethnicity: Palestinian-Israeli/Jewish-Israeli) repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant main effects of time and context, which were qualified by several interaction effects (Table 1). Notably, a time x BR x group interaction showed that both treatment groups used significantly more prosocial and fewer passive and negative BRs over time (Figure 1). Conversely, the control group used significantly fewer prosocial and more passive and negative BRs over time (Figure 1). Additionally, a BR x context x ethnicity interaction revealed that Palestinian-Israelis used passive BRs most frequently in the peer-context whereas they used passive and negative BRs most in the parent-context.

These findings suggest that both skills and skills+contact interventions can promote prosocial and reduce negative and passive BRs among Palestinian-Israeli and Jewish-Israeli youth, even amidst ongoing protracted conflict. Further, they demonstrate the differential impact of context depending on ethnicity. Applications and implications of these findings for culturally-sensitive school- and home-based bullying interventions will be discussed.

Authors

• Alaina Brenick, University of Connecticut
  Presenting Author

• Samantha Lawrence, University of Connecticut
  Non-Presenting Author

• Daniell Carvalheiro, University of Connecticut
  Non-Presenting Author

• Rony Berger, Ben Gurion University of the Negev
  Non-Presenting Author