Examining Complex Intergroup Relations: Through the Lens of Turkey 9781032022284, 9781032022260, 9781003182436

Citation preview

Examining Complex Intergroup Relations

This ground-breaking volume presents a unique contribution to the development of social and political psychology both in Turkey and globally, providing a complex analysis of intergroup relations in the diverse Turkish context. Turkey is home to a huge variety of social, ethnic and religious groups and hosts the largest number of refugees in the world. This diversity creates a unique opportunity to understand how powerful forces of ethnicity, migration and political ideology shape intergroup processes and intergroup relations. Bringing together novel research findings, the international collection of authors explore everything from disability, age and gender, Kurdish and Armenian relations as “traditional minorities”, the recent emergence of a “new minority” of Syrian refugees and Turkey’s complex political history. The theories and paradigms considered in the book – social identity, intergroup contact, integrated threat, social representations – are leading approaches in social and political psychology, but the research presented tests these approaches in the context of a very diverse and dynamic non-WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic) society, with the goal of contributing towards the development of a more intercultural and democratic social and political psychology. Bringing together cutting-edge research and providing important insights into the psychological underpinnings of a singular societal situation from a variety of perspectives, this book is essential reading for students studying the psychology, politics and social science of intergroup relations, as well as practitioners interested in conflict resolution. Dr Hüseyin Çakal is an Assistant Professor of Social Psychology in the School of Psychology at Keele University in the United Kingdom. His work has covered the dynamics of collective action and prejudice reduction strategies, effects of social identity and intergroup contact on health and intergroup emotions among advantaged and disadvantaged groups. He has a pas­ sion for policy-oriented research on extremely disadvantaged communities in the leastaccessed regions, for example, South East Asia, Latin America and in the Middle East. Dr Shenel Husnu is a Professor of Social Psychology in the Department of Psychology at Eastern Mediterranean University, Cyprus. She is a trainer of peace education for Turkish and Greek school children which promotes contact and cooperation between both communities. Shenel’s research interests include intergroup relations, gender and LGBTI+ issues. She has a number of publications in prejudice reduction techniques and their application to the Cyprus conflict.

Examining Complex Intergroup Relations Through the Lens of Turkey

Edited by Hüseyin Çakal and Shenel Husnu

Cover image: © Alexander Spatari/Getty images First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 selection and editorial matter, Hüseyin Çakal and Shenel Husnu individual chapters, the contributors The right of Hüseyin Çakal and Shenel Husnu to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-1-032-02228-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-02226-0 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-18243-6 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003182436 Typeset in Goudy by MPS Limited, Dehradun

To our children Azra Nur, Mine and Eren And to my Dad Erbay who taught me value of hard work and play and that both can be combined (H.C)

Contents

List of Contributors Acknowledgements Editor’s Introduction

x xii xiii

PART I

Intergroup Relations: The Traditional Minorities 1 Fathoming Forgiveness: Armenians and Turks in Turkey

1 3

DEME T İSLA M B A Y -Y A P AL I AN D BA N U C I N GÖ Z-U LU

2 Perceptions of Discrimination and Social Contact among Alevis and Sunnis in Turkey: Findings from Two Field Studies

25

GÜ LÇIN A KBA Ş, E LÇ I N RA Y - Y OL, A N D N EBI SÜM ER

3 Disability and Discrimination: Microaggression Experiences of People with Disabilities in Turkey

47

DENIZ CANE L-Ç I NA R B AŞ, DE N IZ A LB AY RA K K AYMA K, AN D Z. H ANDE S ART

4 How Does Culture Relate to Benevolent and Hostile Sexism?

67

F ATIH ÖZDEM I R A ND NU R AY SA KA LLI

5 Young People’s Attitudes toward Older People: Prejudices, Stereotypes, Inter-group Evaluations, and Frequency of Contact NA GIH AN TAŞ D EM IR

84

viii

Contents

6 Missing the Good Old Days: Investigating Outgroup Attitudes through Collective Nostalgia and Global Identification

106

Y ASIN KO C, BE N GI SU AK K UR T, A YC A A KSU , ZEYNE P DO ĞAN, DENIZHA N S EN G UL , A ND J O E L AN D ER SO N

PART II

Intergroup Relations: The New Minorities 7 Acculturation and Adaptation of Syrian Refugees in Turkey: The Role of (Dis)Concordance of Acculturation Orientations and Identity Threat

125

127

İM GE T ER ZI, RI TA GU ERR A , A ND KI N G A B I ERW I ACZO NE K

8 Acceptance of Syrian Refugees in Turkey: The Roles of Perceived Threat, Intergroup Contact, Perceived Similarity and Temporary Settlement

150

ŞENA Y YIT ME N , M AY KE L V E R KUY T EN, B OR J A M ARTI N OVI C, A ND M UR AT E R D OĞ AN

9 Predicting Acceptance of Syrian Refugees in Turkey: Group Norms and Competitive Victimhood as Mediators of Sub versus Common Ingroup Identity and Intergroup Contact

175

M ELTEM GÜLE R , H A LI M E Ü N V ER, A N D H ÜS EYIN ÇAK AL

10 “Syrian” Refugees at the Gaze of Kurds and Arabs in Mardin: Understanding Social Representations and Acculturation Expectations from a Decolonial Approach

197

M ERAL GE ZI C I Y A LÇ IN , C A N AN CO ŞK AN , M I NE BA TU , Ö MER KA N , A ND N IHAN Y I L M A Z

11 Extended Contact with Turks and Syrian Refugees’ Intention to Migrate: The Mediating Roles of Ingroup and Outgroup Identification

224

ZAF ER ÖZ KAN , AN D NA IF E R GÜ N

12 Intergroup Contact Among Majority and Minority Status Groups in Turkey: Extending Theory and Practice SAB A HAT C I GD E M B AG CI , S O F IA ST A TH I , A ND BERFI N ACA R

239

Contents

ix

PART III

Intergroup Relations and Political Culture

277

13 Social Representations of Peace and Attitudes towards Human Rights in Turkey

279

PELIN KAR AKU Ş A K AL I N A ND M ELEK G Ö REG ENL I

14 Military Coups, States of Emergency and Their Effects on Political Culture and National Identity in Turkey

297

Y ASEM IN G Ü LS ÜM A C AR AN D ELI F SA ND A L Ö NAL

15 Routes to Collective Action among Opposition Voters: Testing Efficacy, Anger and Injustice in Turkey’s Repeated Elections

314

CANA N COŞ KAN , GÜ L SE L I B A YSU , A ND YA SI N KO C

16 Collective Action in Turkey: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next?

332

ÖZDEN M EL IS U L UĞ , N EV IN S OLA K , A N D YA SEMI N G ÜLSÜM AC AR

17 Conclusion

357

SHEN EL H U SN U A N D H ÜS E Y IN Ç A KA L

Index

360

Contributors

Berfin Acar, BA, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey Yasemin Gülsüm Acar, PhD, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom Gülçin Akbaş, PhD, Atilim University, Ankara, Turkey Bengisu Akkurt, MSc, Kadir Has University, Istanbul, Turkey Ayca Aksu, MSc, MEF University, Istanbul, Turkey Deniz Albayrak-Kaymak, PhD, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey Joel Anderson, PhD, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia Sabahat Cigdem Bagci, PhD, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey Gülseli Baysu, PhD, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom Kinga Bierwiaczonek, PhD, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Mine Batu, BS, ARFADA Diyarbakir Turkey Deniz Canel-Çınarbaş, PhD, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey Banu Cingöz-Ulu, PhD, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey Canan Coşkan, PhD, Bielefeld University, Northrhine-Westphalia, Germany Hüseyin Çakal, PhD, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom Zeynep Doğan, BA, Istanbul Sehir University, Istanbul, Turkey Murat Erdoğan, PhD, Turkish-German University, Istanbul, Turkey Naif Ergün, PhD, Mardin Artuklu University, Mardin, Turkey Meral Gezici Yalçın, PhD, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey Melek Göregenli, PhD, Izmir Solidarity Academy, Izmir, Turkey Rita Guerra, PhD, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

Contributors xi Meltem Güler, PhD, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey Shenel Husnu, PhD, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, North Cyprus Demet İslambay-Yapalı, PhD, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey Ömer Kan, BS, Ömer Kan Anatolia Danışmanlık Merkezi Turkey Pelin Karakuş Akalın, PhD, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, North Cyprus Yasin Koc, PhD, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands Borja Martinovic, PhD, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands Fatih Özdemir, PhD, Bursa Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey Zafer Özkan, PhD, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkey Elçin Ray-Yol, MA, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada Nuray Sakallı, PhD, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey Elif Sandal Önal, PhD, Bielefeld University, Northrhine-Westphalia, Germany Z. Hande Sart, PhD, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey Denizhan Sengul, MA, Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey Nevin Solak, PhD, TED University, Ankara, Turkey Sofia Stathi, PhD, University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom Nebi Sümer, PhD, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey Nagihan Taşdemir, PhD, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey İmge Terzi, MSc, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal Özden Melis Uluğ, PhD, University of Sussex, Falmer, United Kingdom Halime Ünver, MSc, Keele University, Staffordshire, United Kingdom Maykel Verkuyten, PhD, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands Nihan Yılmaz, World Children İnitiative Şenay Yitmen, MA, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

Acknowledgements

A few individuals have contributed to putting together this volume. We are grateful to our reviewers Biran Mertan, Maria Ioannou, Mustafa Firat, Orkun Yetkili, Thia M Sagherian-Dickey and members of InteR-Pol Lab, Halime Ünver, Büşra Karaköse and Büşra Kızık, for their expert opinion and for making this book better.

Editor’s Introduction Hüseyin Çakal and Shenel Husnu

From time immemorial, Asia Minor has been one of the most extraordinarily diverse regions of the world. The Ottoman Empire – the most and the longest dominant political reign in the region – has been touted as both oppressive and tolerant at the same in terms of racial, ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity (Zarakol, 2020). Historians argue that these conflicting interpretations result from the dynamic nature of the empire that grew from a small Islamic principality to rule over many races, ethnicities, and cultures, which in turn created different institutional trends, ideologies, and conflicts. One can argue that the Empire’s modern day successor, Republic of Turkey, has gone through the similar processes of religious, ethnic and linguistic diversification in the last decade. The ethnicity, religious, gender, age, and capacity (the less abled)-based traditional minorities were joined by a new minority, Syrian refugees, as a result of the ongoing Syrian civil war. The rapid societal changes onset by the arrival of the Syrian refugees and already existing social and ideological groups thus have transformed the country from a society constructed on binary intergroup relations between majority Turks and these traditional minorities to one of the most socially, ethnically and religiously most diverse societies in the region, if not in the world. This diversity creates a unique opportunity to understand how powerful forces of ethnicity, migration, and political ideology shape intergroup processes and intergroup relations in the context of a fast-changing dynamic society. Following our first observation on the existence of historical or traditional minorities in the region, the first section of the book brings together not only the novel research findings on ethnic (Kurds and Armenians) and religious (Alevis) prejudice but also ableism, sexism and ageism in the context of intergroup relations between the traditional minorities pertaining to Turkey as well and the majority Turks. Contemporary empirical research in Turkey has mainly considered one aspect of the intergroup context – ethnicity – and has mostly focused on intergroup relations between majority Turks and the biggest ethnic minority Kurds. Although equally complex and tumultuous, intergroup relations between Turks and other groups, that is, Armenians, and other dimensions of this rich intergroup context such as religion, gender, and age have not received the same attention. For example, the scarce social psychological

xiv

Editor’s Introduction

research shows that Turks’ perceptions of the ethnic minority Armenians are determined by individual construals and a host of other societal level processes (e.g., glorification of national image, threats, and support for war; Bilali, 2013). In similar vein, social psychological research on intergroup relations on the basis of disability, gender and age implies that much of the violence towards other minorities is fuelled by prejudice.

Intergroup Relations: The Traditional Minorities The chapters in this section focus on the intergroup relations in the context of traditional minorities, Armenians, Alevis, the disabled, women and the elderly and address an important but equally under-researched theme – intergroup relations with, in the words of Islambay Yapali and Cingöz-Ulu, “silenced” minorities (Chapter 2). Islambay Yapali and Cingöz-Ulu start off with an analysis of forgiveness in the context Turkish – Armenian intergroup relations, perhaps one of the most conflictual intergroup relations, both historically and currently, in the country. By interviewing both Armenians and Turks, they comb through the complex issues of conflict, discrimination, and denial of rights and get their participants to face other group’s challenges in forgiveness. An encouraging finding emerge from these interviews. Both groups appear to accept each other’s wrongdoings and move forward within a citizenship framework that provides equal rights and status on the basis of common civil citizenship. These results speak to the core of two classic theories of intergroup dynamics. On one hand, findings underline, albeit indirectly, the classic tenets of intergroup contact theory that is, equal status, common goals and support of social and legal norms (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 2008), and emphasise the importance of creating common identities (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1999) to eradicate prejudice and bring about forgiveness on the other. In Chapter 3, Akbaş, Ray-Yol and Sümer delve into another forgotten yet heavily under researched conflict, the conflict between two main Islamic sects of Turkey, Alevis and Sunnis. Through a more direct test of intergroup contact theory, they investigate whether the prejudice reducing effects of contact is applicable to the Alevi-Sunni context in which both strong and weak ties are an everyday reality. Their results not only shed light on the basic structure of this conflict long forgotten by the research community but also provide yet another confirmation of contact’s positive effects on reducing animosity even in the context of centuries old conflict. The onus is now on future research to unpack these effects and underline the nuances and similarities of prejudice reduction mechanisms in old and new conflicts. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 focus on three more examples of such classic yet under researched themes in intergroup relations, prejudice and micro-aggressions in the form of ageism, sexism, and ageism, respectively. Çınarbaş, Kaymak and Sart document, using data from qualitative interviews they conducted with disabled individuals, studied how physically disabled individuals experience discrimination

Editor’s Introduction xv through denial of their most basic human rights that able individuals take for granted. Özdemir and Sakallı further describe how key dimensions of culture, that is, masculinity, collectivism, long-term orientation, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2011) impose and sugar-coat discrimination, which in turn is internalised by the very same individuals who suffer from it. In Chapter 6, Taşdemir turns her gaze to the dimensions of ageism and how these dimensions influence contact with the elderly as well as contents of stereotypic perceptions towards them by adapting newly develop measures of ageism to Turkish context across two surveys. Research reported in these three chapters both replicate findings from decades of research on prejudice and intergroup relations but also echo the long-enduring critique of the key theories on prejudice reduction, namely, intergroup contact and common ingroup identity in that they have been unable to bring about social change (Dixon et al., 2012; Pettigrew, 1998). The critique itself is based on the assumption that prejudice reduction strategies should be “transformative” (Erasmus, 2010) and to some extent research on the sedative (Cakal et al., 2011) effects of contact attests this. Positive interactions with those who hold the power demotivates the disadvantage group members from challenging the status quo. As chapters in this section show, even after long periods of contact prejudice endures. The question we should be asking then might be how can we improve research – contact research in this context- so that it shapes the policy and not policy and/or politics shapes research (Boswell & Smith, 2017). Yasin and his associates close the section with their comprehensive study on collective nostalgia and group-based emotions. Using data from their large scale survey, they investigate how Turks’ yearning for the glorious past of the nation and identification with the global community, an approximation of affiliation with the core values of modern global culture, are associated with attitudes towards a variety of outgroups. Two interesting findings emerge from their study. Collective nostalgia appears to be associated with positive attitudes towards traditional minorities, Kurds, Armenians, and gay men, but not towards the new minority Syrians. More interestingly, global identification was associated with positive attitudes towards all outgroups across the board. Both results complement each other. Opening up to the world and deprovincialisation (Cakal et al., 2011; Verkuyten et al., 2010) from ingroup’s worldview bring about positive change in acceptance towards all while longing for the glorious days of the nation in the past trigger a similar but nuanced positivity. This is an important finding that deserves more attention. One of our aims when we first started to work on this project was to showcase research on intergroup relations within the “mainstream” society and between the biggest majority groups, Turks, Sunnis, the abled, the young, and men on one hand and Armenians, Alevis, the disabled, the elderly, and women on the other. Each chapter in this section focus on one of these less-visible conflicts. In doing so, they make three important contributions. First, they shed fresh light on how the relations between the mainstream society and traditional minorities have evolved. Second, they enrich some of the key themes of our discipline –prejudice, forgiveness, ableism, and sexism with their findings and

xvi

Editor’s Introduction

thus expand our understanding of these basic processes in a “less-traditional” research context. Finally, they mount a serious attack on the bastions of WEIRD psychology, challenging the field to look beyond this demographic.

Intergroup Relations: The New Minorities The second theme of the book is related to the dimensions of intergroup relations between the majority group Turks and the largest “new minority”, that is, Syrian Refugees. Since the start of the Syrian civil war, Turkey has received a large and steady influx of Syrian refugees. Since 2018, The Turkish Ministry of Interior Directorate General of Migration Management (DGMM) closed 12 of the 18 temporary accommodation centres (TACs) and started to relocate Syrian refugees to urban areas or provinces. This move has not only created opportunities for cultural interaction between Syrian refugees and members of the Turkish society but also deteriorated social cohesion and relations between the groups by creating an apparent competition over resources. Existing research shows that marginalisation among Syrian refugees might be rooted in the lack of access to sources of social support, for example, community (Fazel et al., 2014); secondary stressors (Alfadhli et al., 2019); and negative interactions with the host society (Getmansky et al., 2018). In the opening chapter of the section, Terzi, Guerra, and Bierwiaczonek look at the important issue of acculturation through the lens of Syrian refugees in Turkey. As their findings attest, to the extent that Syrian refugees want to maintain their own culture, their adaptation to the Turkish society is psychologically costlier. When Syrians perceive Turks as wanting to engage with them, they demonstrate more willingness to adapt, both psychologically and socio-culturally. However, when Syrians perceive themselves as discriminated, they experience more discordance of acculturation – mismatch between expectations of the Turkish society and Syrian refugees’ expectations with regards to acculturation – adaptation is more challenging. Yitmen and her colleagues further unpack the thorny issue of acculturation by focusing on contact and perceptions of similarities between Turks and Syrians from the Turkish perspective. Their evidence, data from three large surveys, is both compelling and persuasive. More contact with Syrian refugees leads to more acceptance and more support for Syrians by lowering threat perceptions. In their second study, Yitmen and her associates show evidence of a similar mechanism. Perceiving Syrians as similar to Turks is associated with lower threat and therefore with more social acceptance, help, and support for of Syrian refugees. Last, but not least, the findings from their third study underlines the importance of seeing Syrians as temporary versus permanent. When Syrian refugees are perceived as temporary settlers, they are perceived as less threatening and therefore more worthy of acceptance. There are two key findings we need to emphasise here. First, contact and perceived similarity improves acceptance of Syrians. Second, perceiving Syrians as temporary versus permanent is key to this acceptance and supporting them. These findings

Editor’s Introduction xvii emphasise how contact can be successfully harnessed to effectuate social change and more importantly how legal and public narrative can be managed to influence everyday relations between the society and the refugees. Both are important avenues for future research and together with emerging research on contact’s energising effects on social change (Cakal et al., 2016; Hässler et al., 2020; Reimer et al., 2017), they invite us to rethink the alleged inefficacy of prejudice reduction strategies in bringing social change. Social psychologist has mostly interpreted “intergroup relations” through a binary lens and studied as such. Although theoretically and methodologically useful (Dixon et al., 2020), this perspective has not done much justice to rich and complex contexts such as Turkey. Chapters by Ünver, Güler and one of us (H.C), and Gezici Yalçın, Batu, Yılmaz, and Kan move beyond this binary approach. Ünver, Güler and I investigate how dimensions of contact (positive versus negative), ethnic (Turkish and Kurdish) and a common ingroup, Muslim, identity motivate acceptance of Syrians via ethnic and religious norms. Results are mostly in line with prejudice reduction path to social change (Dixon et al., 2012; Wright & Lubensky, 2009). Positive contact and a common ingroup Muslim identity increase acceptance by strengthening adherence to social norms while negative contact and ethnic identification decreased acceptance by increasing competitive victimhood. Group status, that is, majority versus minority, however, appears to have influence on these paths. And negative contact with Syrians reduced adherence to religious social norms only among Turks. Taken together, these findings allow us to make several observations. First, the group status, majority versus minority, can influence intergroup relations with yet a third group. Second, there is an urgent need to move towards more inclusive perspectives and methodologies to reflect the richness of everyday intergroup relations in such equally diverse and complex contexts (Dixon et al., 2020). More research looking at the role of these historical societal structures in determining public opinion on social change in similarly complex societies is definitely needed. Countries with rich histories of religious, ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity such as Turkey, Iran or India or nations that has recently been transformed from sending to receiving nations, again Turkey with sizeable communities of immigrants and refugees, that is, Syrians and Afghans; Chile with Haitian and Colombian migrants and Venezuelan refugees and Colombia with the highest number of internally displaced persons and large group of Venezuelan refugees (Castro et al., 2021) are contexts that have long been overlooked by WEIRD political and social psychologists. While informative, quantitative research practices may not always be the best option to capture the richness and diversity in such contexts. Gezici Yalçın, Batu, Yılmaz, and Kan overcome such methodological limitations in their chapter and document Kurdish and Arab, traditional minorities social representations on Syrian refugees in the Turkish border city of Mardin. Perhaps not so surprisingly, their findings show that basic intergroup structure of “us versus them” is firmly in place despite the fact that traditional minorities share ethnic, religious, and cultural similarities with the newly arrived Syrians.

xviii

Editor’s Introduction

What is more, these traditional minorities perceive Syrians as threatening and expect them to acculturate. Gezici and her associates attribute these to the colonial nature of the intergroup relations that these traditional minorities have had with the advantaged Turks in the region. Ozkan and Ergun invite us to look at the other side of the coin. What factors are in play with regards to the refugees’ intentions to move to another country? They answer this question by investigating positive and negative extended contact (Wright et al., 1997), one of the less understood but yet a powerful dimensions of contact. Expectedly, positive extended contact with Turks is associated with reduced return migration intentions via identification with the host society while negative extended contact has the opposite effect. In doing so, they present a primer on how the basic process of interaction unfold to influence decision making in a significant domain of life with considerable psychological and economic costs, return intentions to home country or intentions to migrate to another country. This is an important issue especially for the policy makers. Although we aim to provide an inclusive snapshot of the current state of art research on intergroup relations in Turkey, it is not always possible to cover all in an edited volume like this. Bagci, Stathi, and Acar’ s contribution to the volume addresses this weakness. They chart the entire territory of social psychological research conducted on Turkish–Kurdish intergroup relations in the last decade focusing mainly on intergroup contact experiences among Turkish and Kurdish groups. Most of these experiences relate to multiculturalism and threats. Their observations provide a promising programme of research for the next generation of researchers, both Turkish and international, and create a powerful mandate for future research to move beyond the more conventional prejudice reducing effects of contact towards more applied themes and settings.

Intergroup Relations and Political Culture Turkey has had a very complex political history. From several state coups with severe political, social and economic consequences to a more democratic political structure in the 90s. Turkish political structures have hence evolved to its current state in which it hosts a multi-party system with representatives from ethnic and political minorities. These developments have recently been challenged by two major shocks. First, the country was shaken by several months of demonstrations that started as a small protest against the demolition of a small park (‘Gezi Park Protests’) in central Istanbul, which also spread to other cities. The protests transformed into a revolt against the government before they were brutally crushed by state forces (Acar & Ulug, 2016). Second, in 2016, a small group of military officers and the forces they commanded attempted to overthrow the government and the president Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Both events have left lasting and significant impressions on Turkey’s political culture and structures. Accordingly, the third theme of the book focuses, collectively, on intergroup

Editor’s Introduction xix relations and the political culture in terms of human rights, elections, military coups and Turkey’s this recent tumultuous period. We start with the premise that social and political psychological research can provide important insights into the psychological underpinnings of these developments. In the opening chapter of the section, Karakuş-Akalın and Göreğenli employ a mixed methods approach to reveal how individuals conceptualise peace as the existence of rights and liberties in the context of 2015 Turkish General Elections. Further analyses show a worrying, yet not surprising, trend. Individual motivations to justify the system at the cognitive level (Jost et al., 2003) and authoritarian ideologies like right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1998) and blind patriotism (Parker, 2010) are associated with less support for human rights. Their expert opinion emphasises the intriguing bidirectional relationship between individual support for authoritarian ideologies and perpetuity of restrictive regimes. Supporting such regimes increases adherence to authoritarian ideologies and restrictive ideologies foment adherence to such ideologies, a finding replicated elsewhere in the region (Williamson, 2021). Acar and Önal approach this circularity via top–down approach. By focusing on the shared social frameworks first discussed by Hawlbacks in the 1920s, they put periods – three military coups (1960, 1971 and 1980), the 1997 memorandum and the period after the July 15, 2016 coup attempt during which democratic processes were halted under their lens. Using both archival and current data their analyses concentrate on the authoritarian discourses of military coups citizens’ reactions to these discourses. The findings are telling. Whereas coups are legitimised as temporary but necessary processes “to save the Republic of Turkey”, individuals and groups are homogenised into “national unity” by means of national identification. These observations provide us with an important window into the political cultures that legitimise such antidemocratic ruptures in the name of “protecting and maintaining” democracy in the country. Taken together, both chapters point out to the significance of multilevel approaches (Pettigrew, 2008) in understanding the micro- and macro-level determinants of antidemocratic practices. Comparative research to uncover whether these processes apply to other similar contexts where democracies constantly stutter is needed. As Acar and Önal show those who occupy the powerful positions during the coups use a discourse that overlooks important differences and group affiliations and homogenises the masses into “Turkish nation who should protect the republic”, Coşkan, Baysu and Koc look at the other side of coin of identities in their chapter and argue that different political identifications may trigger collective action toward the regime via different paths. Using the social identity model of collective action (van Zomeren et al., 2008), Coşkan and her colleagues go beyond snap-shot approach use longitudinal data collected before and after the general elections in 2015 and investigate political mobilisation among supporters of secular, liberal and left-wing opposition parties. Their findings show that while left-wingers are mobilised via efficacy seculars are motivated by anger solely. Interestingly supporters of the liberal parties

xx

Editor’s Introduction

experience both anger and efficacy and these in turn drive their intentions to mobilise against the political status quo. Despite such turbulent times, social and political psychological research in Turkey is a novel phenomenon and it is more concentrated on citizen reactions to more recent issues such as the protests against the demolition of the Gezi Park. In the closing chapter of the section, Uluğ, Solak, and Acar review the collective movements in Turkey during the last decade. This is a much-needed exercise that has long been overdue. As with the previous chapters, there is lots of food for thought in their discussion. The authors document the outburst of collective action research in Turkey identifying the gaps and pointing out future avenues for research. When we first conceived the idea about a book on intergroup relations in Turkey, our intention was to bring together cutting-edge research on intergroup relations in Turkey and to make the findings from this rich and diverse area of study available to a wide audience of scholars and students. We would like to think that we ended up bringing together researchers not just from Turkey but from all around the globe, including Cyprus, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and Portugal, showing a vast interest in the topics covered. The volume we share with the readers is a product of eagerness and hard work as colleagues worked effortlessly despite the chaos brought to all our lives by the COVID-19 pandemic. We hope the book will help shine light on the intriguing intergroup context of Turkey – and beyond – in similarly diverse contexts and will allow us to move forward with ways in which it can be improved.

References Acar, Y. G., & Uluğ, Ö. M. (2016). Examining prejudice reduction through solidarity and togetherness experiences among Gezi Park activists in Turkey. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4(1), 166–179. 10.5964/jspp.v4i1.547 Alfadhli, K., Cakal, H., & Drury, J. (2019). The role of emergent shared identity in psychosocial support among refugees of conflict in developing countries. International Review of Social Psychology, 32(1), 2. 10.5334%2Firsp.176 Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47–92. Bilali, R. (2013). National narrative and social psychological influences in Turks’ denial of the mass killings of Armenians as genocide. Journal of Social Issues, 69(1), 16–33. 10.1111/josi.12001 Boswell, C., & Smith, K. (2017). Rethinking policy ‘impact’: Four models of researchpolicy relations. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 1–10. 10.1057/s41599-017-0042-z Cakal, H., Eller, A., Sirlopú, D., & Pérez, A. (2016). Intergroup relations in Latin America: Intergroup contact, common ingroup identity, and activism among in­ digenous groups in Mexico and Chile. Journal of Social Issues, 72(2), 355–375. 10.1111/ josi.12170

Editor’s Introduction xxi Cakal, H., Hewstone, M., Schwär, G., & Heath, A. (2011). An investigation of the social identity model of collective action and the ‘sedative’ effect of intergroup contact among Black and White students in South Africa. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(4), 606–627. 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02075.x Dixon, J., Elcheroth, G., Kerr, P., Drury, J., Al Bzour, M., Subašić, E., … & Green, E. G. (2020). It’s not just “us” versus “them”: Moving beyond binary perspectives on inter­ group processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 40–75. 10.1080/10463283. 2020.1738767 Dixon, J., Levine, M., Reicher, S., & Durrheim, K. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Are ne­ gative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solu­ tion?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(6), 411–425. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X11002214 Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1999). Reducing prejudice: Combating intergroup biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(4), 101–105. 10.1111/1467-8721.00024 Erasmus, Z. (2010). Contact theory: Too timid for “race” and racism. Journal of Social Issues, 66(2), 387–400. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01651.x Fazel, M., Patel, V., Thomas, S., & Tol, W. (2014). Mental health interventions in schools in low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet Psychiatry, 1(5), 388–398. 10.1016/S2215-0366(14)70357-8 Getmansky, A., Sınmazdemir, T., & Zeitzoff, T. (2018). Refugees, xenophobia, and domestic conflict: Evidence from a survey experiment in Turkey. Journal of Peace Research, 55(4), 491–507. 10.1177/0022343317748719 Hässler, T., Uluğ, Ö. M., Kappmeier, M., & Travaglino, G. A. (2020). Intergroup contact and social change: An integrated contact-collective action model. Journal of Social Issues, 77(3). 10.1111/josi.12412 Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 2307–0919. 10.9707/2307-0919.1014 Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. 10.1037/00332909.129.3.339 Parker, C. S. (2010). Symbolic versus blind patriotism: Distinction without difference?. Political Research Quarterly, 63(1), 97–114. 10.1177/1065912908327228 Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65–85. 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65 Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 187–199. 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.12.002 Reimer, N. K., Becker, J. C., Benz, A., Christ, O., Dhont, K., Klocke, U., … & Hewstone, M. (2017). Intergroup contact and social change: Implications of negative and positive contact for collective action in advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 121–136. 10.1177/0146167216676478 Smith-Castro, V., Sirlopú, D., Eller, A., & Çakal, H. (2021). Introduction: Intraregional migration in Latin America from a psychological perspective. American Psychological Association. 10.1037/0000234-001 Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological bulletin, 134(4), 504. 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504 Verkuyten, M., Thijs, J., & Bekhuis, H. (2010). Intergroup contact and ingroup re­ appraisal: Examining the deprovincialization thesis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(4), 398–416. 10.1177/0190272510389015

xxii

Editor’s Introduction

Williamson, S. (2021). Elections, legitimacy, and compliance in authoritarian regimes: Evidence from the Arab world. Democratization, 28(8), 1483–1504. 10.1080/13510347. 2021.1929180 Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 73(1), 73. Zarakol, A. (2020). On Global Historical Sociology: The inaugural Fletcher Prize Forum. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 33(6), 888–890. 10.1080/09557571.2020. 1838198

Part I

Intergroup Relations: The Traditional Minorities

1

Fathoming Forgiveness: Armenians and Turks in Turkey Demet İslambay-Yapalı and Banu Cingöz-Ulu

The discipline of social and political psychology has social issues and solutions to them at its very foundation (Pettigrew, 1998), but in a world ridden with so much conflict and violence, it often proves difficult to define and examine conflict, let alone move towards resolving it towards reconciliation. Besides their international roots, conflicts stemming from ethnic, national, religious, linguistic and class differences within a state are not at all scarce (Connor, 1994). Turkey itself hosts several different conflictual relations including AleviSunni, Kurdish-Turkish, and Armenian-Turkish tensions. Intergroup conflicts may have deep roots in the distant past, and sometimes even the smallest current conflict of interest may re-ignite those deeply entrenched affective reactions, thereby straining the current relationships between groups. Inspired by these attempts and concerned by the increasing polarisation in Turkey, this chapter aims to sketch intergroup forgiveness, which is an important dynamic for reconciliation in intractable and asymmetrical conflicts with the ultimate goal of understanding how Armenians1 and Turks in Turkey approach the relatively silent conflict of over a hundred years and how they see forgiveness possible, hopefully leading to an understanding of the possibilities for reconciliation and peace, since it is documented that forgiveness allows both parties to favorably move beyond negative emotions and promote dialogue and willingness to live together for the groups (Bilewicz, 2016). Just as this chapter was being written, the tension between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh region has turned into an open armed conflict and to a state of war; where the Armenian citizens of Turkey are again afraid to open their shops in the dire memories of the September 6-7 events of 1955 (“Istanbul pogrom”) directed against the non-Muslim minorities in Istanbul. While historical conflicts between states and their minority groups have been transferred to the relations in modern states in modern times, and the minorities being the most vulnerable, how is it possible to create communities or societies that feel part of the same nation and do indeed intend to live together? Against the backdrop of these conflictual relations, the aim of this study is first to understand how Armenians and Turks see intergroup forgiveness, whether it is relevant, or even desirable for their relationship in Turkey. It explores what members of each group understand from forgiveness, and what members of DOI: 10.4324/9781003182436-2

4 Demet İslambay-Yapalı and Banu Cingöz-Ulu these communities regard the facilitating and hindering factors in the possibility of forgiving each other. Although no clear consensus exists on how exactly to define forgiveness, we know that it is different from apology, condonation, forgetting, justifying and reconciliation; and it has been related to affective and motivational processes (Noor, 2016). The definition we adopt in this framework comes from Dinnick and Noor (2019, p. 228): “The decision for a victimized group to suppress their desire to seek retaliation against, or to avoid, members of the perpetrator group”. The decision itself is critical and the type of conflict and the relationship between the two groups become paramount in establishing whether this decision is possible.

The Spread: The Armenian-Turkish Conflict The Armenian-Turkish conflict is one of the firsts among other conflicts in the context of Turkey. This conflict dates back to the late 1800s and early 1900s, to as early as the Young Turks movement when the Ottoman Empire testified substantial political, economic and cultural transformations including nationalist movements of minorities. The effects of nationalism were felt strongly especially with the continuing loss of land in the Balkan regions and the spread of nationalist ideologies among the non-Muslim minorities were increasingly perceived as a security threat, resulting in tensions and conflicts among the Muslims and Armenians (Akman, 2004). Young Turks’ approach to modernise and transform the Ottoman Empire by “Turkifying” and “purifying” the nation of ethnic minorities (Hovannisian, 1999) seems to mark the earliest signs of 20th century conflict. The fact that Armenians differ from Turks both ethnically and religiously posited a threat for Young Turks, as a result of which Ottoman Armenians were persecuted and forced to leave their land (Akçam, 2006). Non-Muslim identities, i.e. the Armenian identity, were suppressed through ingroup glorification and intergroup marginalisation based on the discourse of defeating traitors (Bilali, 2013; Lewy, 2005). Although the number of killed Armenians is debated by most researchers and historians, some estimate this number at over a million (Akçam, 2006; Hovannisian, 1999). Armenian men and boys were targeted first, and women and girls were detained by the Kurds and Turks. Some escaped death on the condition that they renounce their religion and become Muslim (Özdoğan & Kılıçdağı, 2012). Today, the conflict between Armenians and Turks is not an overt conflict like the Kurdish-Turkish conflict. We use the term covert to denote this, but perhaps silenced would be a better choice of word. This “aura” of silencing may be related to fear and collective traumas experienced - especially after the state-condoned murders of Hrant Dink, Sevag Balikci and many others alike (Akhanli, 2015). Given this backdrop of solidified traumas of Armenians, clinched with these recent murders, what would be some possibilities to paths of forgiveness and how the situation is narrated by Turks, who may also position themselves as the victims (of more than 100 years) and in a position of forgiving as well.

Forgiveness in Armenians and Turks 5

The Knot: Identity and Intergroup Forgiveness We categorise people into groups, including our immediate environment, and ourselves to make sense of and simplify the social environment (Reynolds & Oakes, 2000). This in turn, creates “groups” as cognitive existences. Social identity, on the other hand, signifies the individual’s belonging to these groups and the emotional significance attributed to their group membership. The nature of these identities, their historical construction as in opposition to each other or the commonality between identities play an essential role in the eruption and expansion of a conflict (Uluğ & Cohrs, 2019). Due to their central role in intergroup conflict, they also lie at the core of the resolution and reconciliation processes after the conflict (Kelman, 2005). Collective identities are also a way of establishing the relationship between the past and the future. They create the narrative of belongingness and the historical representations that parallel these narratives (Ashmore et al., 2004). The context in which identities are displayed is paramount (Drury & Reicher, 2000). That means identity does not exist in a vacuum. Identity and how it is expressed and when it becomes salient are all about the environment in which a person finds oneself. As such, forgiveness after collective traumas also highlights the importance of identity. Events that people do not experience directly also play a central role in creating a group’s and its members’ identities and help to define their perspectives on social phenomena. Collective remembering, memories transmitted from the family, efforts in the educational field help preserve identity, maintain common beliefs and strengthen ingroup identity as well as giving meaning to it (Hammack, 2008). Historical events, which are considered necessary in terms of the construction of national identity, have been selected and carried to the present often by unilateral and imposing methods. Following this, the authority of the group is strengthened by adding the discourses of being “victim” and “oppressed” as a supporting element. Competitive victimhood is defined as “a tendency to see one’s group as having comparatively suffered relative to an out-group” (Young & Sullivan, 2016, p. 30) and seen as a significant obstacle in intergroup forgiveness and reconciliation (Nadler & Shnabel, 2015). In a study conducted with supporters and opponents of Pinochet’s military dictatorship in Chile, competitive victimhood has been shown to reduce the tendency for forgiving outgroups (Noor et al., 2008). In their study, Uluğ et al. (2020) find that Turks in the Kurdish-Turkish conflict and Israelis in Palestinian-Israeli conflict show similar behavior patterns regarding victimhood and forgiving. These advantageous groups’ adoption of their own conflict narrative may lead to a perception that the group should take aggressive steps towards the outgroup for their safety, although this competitive perception of victimisation makes the groups relatively more advantageous. It is important to see that all these studies that show the tendency for the advantageous group to exaggerate their past sufferings or to sticking to their own historical narratives, are mostly focused on national or ethnic identities.

6 Demet İslambay-Yapalı and Banu Cingöz-Ulu According to Barth (1998), mechanisms such as belonging and exclusion should function effectively in order to ensure the continuity of ethnic and national identities, which can be meaningful when confronted with other identities. Nation-states can have an opportunity to create a domain of domination, power to shape their own fate. In contrast, minority groups cannot complete their political unity and establish their own domain of domination. Therefore, the mechanism for creating this domain is more docile and quiet, focused more on history, language and culture for minority groups. The majority group in a nation tend to hurt the minorities so as to protect its domain and the extent of this hurt depends on the extent to which majority groups feel threatened. The more this minority is perceived as a collective entity, the greater the desire to harm them. The same processes and the sense of belonging are also related to processes of forgiveness and reconciliation. Regarding the role of power and the status of the social group, social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) has a strong explanatory power. It has been considered as the main theoretical background in intergroup forgiveness studies, bringing identity to the fore of the relationship between conflict and reconciliation (Bakke et al. 2009). The degree and strength of one’s identification with one’s own group and the status of this group are closely related to the degree of forgiveness of the other group. The influence of social identity on intergroup forgiveness is not only evident in in-group identification and group status dynamics, but common group identities are also relatable to forgiveness. Existing research recognises the critical role played by social identity in intergroup forgiveness. For example, Hamer et al. (2017) find that the higher the level of national identification of Polish students, the lower the degree of willingness to forgive Germans. Conversely, supranational identification (belonging to humanity or European Union) has positive effects on willingness to forgive outgroups. Similarly, Wohl and Branscombe (2005) highlight the significance of more inclusive identities easing forgiving outgroups in their research, by priming Jews to think of Germans as members of a superordinate identity: humanity. Another study finds identification with common humanity both increases forgiveness among Indigenous Australians and decreases collective action towards historical atrocities done by the outgroup (Greenaway et al., 2011). When commonalities are emphasised or a new inclusive identity is forged under a common category, it can facilitate mutual forgiveness. For example, having a substantial group of Kurds widely spread across many cities of Turkey makes it somewhat easier to work under a common citizenship framework due to the visibility and the availability of a common denominator, religion. The situation is somewhat different for Armenians, due to both their small numbers, hence their lower visibility and the perceived distance of the Armenian identity to its Turkish counterpart (both cultural/ethnic and religious differences) make it more difficult to forge that common identity, or even emphasise the commonality compared to Kurds. Hence, the more people identify themselves with a large umbrella identity, the easier it makes forgiveness, but the more they

Forgiveness in Armenians and Turks 7 identify with a narrower umbrella, the more inhibitory it becomes on the path to forgiveness. A great deal of previous intergroup forgiveness has focused on whether group members forgive or not, but it is rarely discussed and spelled out how this is possible or not. For that reason, we wanted to understand how respondents saw forgiveness, what it meant to them and what factors shaped their tendencies for forgiveness. We focused on ingroup identities and their thoughts on living together as Armenians and Turks living in Turkey, and delved deeper into possibilities and mechanisms for intergroup forgiveness. In this part, we tried to sketch the importance of social and collective identities and its relation with conflictual situations, the influence of history and victimhood and the influence of social identity and its dynamics on forgiveness. In the present study, we aim to understand the dynamic of forgiveness concerning the elements of identity mentioned above for both perpetrator and victim groups. It is important to note that in this Armenian-Turkish relationship we take forgiveness as relevant to the Turkish party as well, based on the framework of the competitive victimhood literature mentioned briefly above. The questions of who suffered the most, or who hit first, or who actually backstabbed whom helps establish the narratives firmly around blame, responsibility and justifications of past atrocities. However, imagining forgiveness for the Turkish part may enable shaking off this more defensive mode in approaching the issue with perhaps a more open and reconciliatory mindset, with giving a way to set the victimhood narrative aside and perhaps provoke thinking that could enable other forms of living together with a possibility of peace.

The Interviews For the aims of this paper, 10 semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 6 Armenian (3 women and 3 men; one interview conducted as a pair) and 5 Turkish (2 women and 3 men) citizens of the Republic of Turkey. Their ages ranged between 23 and 62 (Armenians: Mage = 34.16, SD = 10.85; Turks: Mage = 31, SD = 15.59). We reached them through convenience and snowball sampling. The interviews lasted about 42 minutes on average. Although the respondents were free to express their personal opinions and emotions regarding the conflict, it is important to remember that comparison and evaluation occurs at a collective level. As Reicher (2004) points out, it is not how an individual as a group member compares himself or herself to other individuals in the out groups. It is, rather, how a group compares itself to the outgroup as a whole. In other words, the salience of social identity enables collective level features to be reflected in the individual self. Examples of interview questions include “Were past wrongdoings acknowledged and forgiven - or is it possible to forgive past wrongdoings of perpetrator groups? (Why, how, when, under what circumstances?”, “What do you think the consequences of forgiving other groups can be?” and “When you consider the

8 Demet İslambay-Yapalı and Banu Cingöz-Ulu different ethnic and religious groups in Turkey, do you think it possible to live together and do you want to live with outgroup members?” Thematic analysis is a qualitative methodological approach that permits researchers analysing a reasonable account of data both with and without relying on any methodological and epistemological background in a flexible way. Furthermore, it renders determining, analysing and discussing patterns or themes along with similarities and differences within data (Boyatzis, 1998; Braun & Clarke, 2006). For these reasons, following Braun and Clarke (2006), we have employed thematic analysis to identify major themes and items. Themes were not predetermined: we adopt a data-driven (i.e. inductive) approach to explore what emanates from the data. Moreover, our analysis is partially apprised by some theoretically driven notions and constructs. As such, some questions pertain directly to the respondents’ social identities. In this respect, the present study is also somewhat deductive. Consequently, we use a retroductive approach (Glynos & Howarth, 2007), which consolidates both inductive and deductive approaches. The answers of the participants in both groups were combined under each question and all data were evaluated together. In this way, data were examined whether there were explanations indicating common themes, which were, then, determined.

The Plot Thickens: The Analysis The identities and ideologies predominantly shaped respondents’ answers. Nonetheless, the themes of both groups were similar concerning forgiving outgroups (or perpetrators, in their own words) and living together, but these were patterned differently. In other words, the discourses of the members of both groups were formed around similar themes and with different contents according to their ideological orientations. Four main themes extracted: antecedents of the conflict, necessary conditions for intergroup forgiveness to sprout, possible outcomes of forgiveness and rejection. Theme 1: Antecedents of the Conflict This theme involves the respondents’ viewpoints as to the reasons of the conflict and the events that preceded them. All respondents from both groups mentioned some landmark events that took place between groups, to which they attribute the locus of conflict. This theme includes the attributions of responsibility, the blame and consequently, the narratives of victimhood. Three sub-themes emerged and we labelled them as power conflict, othering and non-recognition of rights. Power Conflict Power conflict occurs when one group seeks to magnify its influence and control over the other in intergroup relations where the propositions of mutual win-lose strategies become apparent over time (Fisher, 2006).

Forgiveness in Armenians and Turks 9 Armenian respondents highlighted their need for power and the threat they perceive from the Turks and the Turkish state. Turks, in contrast, framed their need for power in terms of the necessity of dominating the Turkish state. This is justified in terms of a paternalistic narrative that focuses the majority group’s insight into having more knowledge as to what is important and just, what needs to be done and what actions are to be taken. The following excerpt points out the need for the power of Turks and their perceived threat by an Armenian respondent: On the largest scale, there was an effort to create a homogeneous society, but it did not happen. I mean, relative success is achieved, but the traces left behind exceed the achievements. Then the genocide … an identity was assimilated and the people killed for the aim of destroying it. (#1, Armenian man, 24) Another Armenian respondent highlighted the importance of the need for power for all groups living in Turkey: The ego, the need for the people to acquire and manage land and power. […] As the Ottoman state was getting stronger, many local kingdoms in the east, the Armenian kingdom, and later the Assyrians, and the followers of the Kurds in their wake, sought land and power for themselves. (#6, Armenian woman, 29) The quote above refers to the necessity of autonomous systems and the right to self-determination for different groups in Turkey. Nonetheless, she ascertains later in the interview that it is quite wrong to seek power by utilising persecution instruments and damaging people and confiscating their properties. The following Turkish respondent highlights the geographical location of the country and plurality, setting the stage for a constant conflict of power in these lands (and perhaps de-emphasising the roles played by the actors through this focus): I guess there were mostly things related to ethnicity in this land, but also sectarian conflicts … Like Alevism-Sunnism … It is a land where there is constant conflict, they always find something to fight for power. (#10, Turkish woman, 20) The theme of power conflict typically portrays the nationalist sentiments of the groups. The following excerpt from a Turkish respondent expresses how banal nationalism to be used by the Turks and the victim language is used by the minorities (referring to Kurds and Armenians) and she resolves this conflict by the individual initiatives of showing reciprocal empathy.

10

Demet İslambay-Yapalı and Banu Cingöz-Ulu I think that the Turks have embraced the banal nationalism in their relations with other minorities in Turkey. Other parties may be using the victim language too much. When this happens, while one party says “we never committed genocide”, on the other side there would be a perception that only their losses have occurred. To reduce this, I think groups need to show empathy towards each other. (#11, Turkish woman, 25)

To sum up, both groups approach the power conflict relying on different construals since all conflict scenarios involve a certain amount of power, either directly or indirectly (Coleman, 2006). Othering Othering is defined as “process of differentiation and demarcation, by which the line is drawn between “us” and “them” – between the more and the less powerful – and through which social distance is established and maintained” (Lister, 2004, p. 101). From this perspective, although othering is often viewed as a negative exclusionary mechanism, it reinforces and strengthens the collective identity of the ingroup. According to Jensen (2011), identity formation starts with othering; by offering and relegating subordinate people to subject positions showing up as others in discourse. It is not surprising that the majority groups define, decide and act through its priorities, where the minorities are seen as nuisance subordinates. One of the mechanisms driving othering is contempt, which results in a decrease in collective confidence and an increase in fear as the following excerpt illustrates: Just yesterday, a man emptied the rubbish container in front of Surp Takavor Church. On the one hand, you say that Allah’s house is the place of worship, they regard Jesus, as the prophet; and then they dump garbage on the place where the prophet Jesus worshipped. How are we to live together? (#2, Armenian man, 50) Armenians are one of the officially recognised minorities in Turkey. Although they have many basic human rights today in Turkey, such as education in their mother tongue, broadcasting in their own language, having interpreters in courts and opening places of worship; contempt infiltrates their everyday life by means of social exclusion and intolerance: There is huge discrimination when we look at it from another point of view. They say “we have done nothing, our ancestors may have, what does it have to do with us” but then you see so much discrimination in daily life against the non-Muslim people. (#1, Armenian man, 24)

Forgiveness in Armenians and Turks 11 One Turkish respondent states that if he had the power, he would eliminate marginalisation and bring equality, emphasising a need to reverse othering: If I could, I would try to create a brand new society. In other words, I work in such a way to be a country with freedom of belief for everyone who does not have a difference of opinion that will enable people to live in prosperity (#8, Turkish man, 62) However, he later mentions that coming together can only be possible with certain Muslim groups -giving Kurds as an example: First, I don’t believe that Turks and Kurds have a serious problem between them. In other words, Armenians can be a little difficult, what they call “massacres” this-and-that … They too… they also whittled a world of people in Erzurum. I don’t know if our folks cut them or not, I don’t want to pronounce it. Maybe we cannot become friends at once with them [Armenians] but Kurdish society is compatible with the Turkish community. (#8, Turkish man, 62) In the above excerpt, the respondent marginalises the Armenians by claiming that Turks were also harmed and implying that the conflict can be traced back to their actions. While he avoids confrontation and does not want to pronounce whether “we also cut them”, in terms of othering, we see a clear pattern of group-specific treatment where Kurds may be a more suitable minority in resolving conflicts and living together in peace. Non-Recognition of Rights Non-recognition of rights is the last sub-theme of the antecedents of the conflict. It not only causes conflict, also deepens the existing conflict, which in turn becomes more intricate. This sub-theme involves lack of educational reforms and lack of an evenhanded approach as the common barriers to peace and forgiveness. An Armenian respondent underlines the religious, linguistic and national discrimination and refers to the denial of rights. She reveals the wish to be treated equally with the members of the majority and cohabit in a peaceful environment although she sees it as unrealistic: Multilingualism, multi religiosity, multi-nationalism…While it is possible to live together in a fraternity like in America, the biggest mistake is saying “just us” and hurt other people. Rather than standing side-by-side, they stand against them. Of course, those people are rightfully resisting. (#3, Armenian woman, 48) Another Armenian respondent emphasises confiscation of properties of nonMuslim from the early to mid-1900s.

12

Demet İslambay-Yapalı and Banu Cingöz-Ulu This genocide history or conscription of wealth … I wish I lived in Kuzguncuk. They seized Kuzguncuk with capital tax. I am very sorry for it; it is my biggest sadness. (#1, Armenian man, 24)

According to most resources, Kuzguncuk used to be a non-Muslim dominated İstanbul village. This neighborhood is usually seen as a village of peace, harmony and tolerance (Kürküt, 2019). Along with the Turkification and homogenisation efforts of the Turkish nation-state Kuzguncuk, especially after 6-7 September Pogrom and Capital Tax, Armenians and other non-Muslim groups had to leave their neighborhood or give their properties in return for wealth tax. The following quote illustrates the fear, that even the most basic human right, right to live, is not recognised at times. I wasn’t even aware that I was Armenian until Hrant was killed. I was something, I had a difference, I was going to a different school, I was speaking a different language. My mother says “Don’t speak Armenian in the street, by Jove! I say why, but I don’t think it’s too weird. The murder of Hrant was the breaking point for me. We can be killed for that!” (#1, Armenian man, 24) Turks have generally been silent about the non-recognition of fundamental rights, but one of the respondents mentioned the mistakes made without much detail: We, as the Turkish Nation, are a nation that boasted about our past. Turks have also had their mistakes. Since we like to boast about our past, we don’t want to talk about things that are wrong. (#9, Turkish man, 24) A Turkish respondent drew attention to Turks’ action against Armenians: We continue to attack people, you are causing both loss of life and property, but on the other hand, you do not accept them in any way and even insult them because of people’s ethnic origins. (#11, Turkish woman, 25) As can be seen from the excerpts, Armenians have been forced to renounce many of their social, cultural, political and geographical rights. In order to consolidate their identity, groups either claim themselves as victims or they tend to remain silent talking about the conflict with such outgroups (Bilali, 2013). As seen in the interviews, Turks were generally silent when asked about their relations with Armenians or Armenians’ rights.

Forgiveness in Armenians and Turks 13 Theme 2: Necessary Conditions for Forgiveness to Sprout While some of the respondents emphasise particular conditions to be met in order for forgiveness to bud out, some other respondents totally reject this for the past wrongdoings. This main theme is composed of three sub-themes: rightsbased conditions, political conditions and confrontation with the past. Rights-Based Conditions This sub-theme proposes preconditions that will enable respondents to resolve the causes of perceived discrimination and to forgive. While apology and recognition, educational reforms and return of historical lands are paramount for Armenian respondents, it is striking that Turkish respondents do not claim any rights here. However, some left-wing Turkish respondents underline the necessity to acknowledge the rights of Armenian respondents. Although more than 100 years have passed since the genocide and there is now an independent Armenian state, these are not very meaningful for the Armenians of Turkey, because they still see themselves as the true owners of the land and feel an emotional attachment. The following Armenian respondent, who says that wounds will never heal and the past will never be forgotten, states that forgiveness can be discussed if historical lands and properties are returned: How can this be resolved? How can a little bit of the pain be mitigated? This wound will never heal; I can’t help it … This is the Armenian land, and today as we know Anatolia means Western Armenia. First of all, in order there to be détente or to decrease the dose, there should be the unconditional return of the lands … It is necessary to make visits to these lands in a hassle-free way, to obtain property, even those who are alive must be returned their goods and properties … If we can do that, the hostility and hatred will disappear to some extent. (#2, Armenian man, 50) AKP and İyi Parti supporters2, on the other hand, remained silent in general, avoided the questions or talked about shared narratives emphasising the suffering and victimisation of both groups at every opportunity. In this context, their narrative emphasises the similarities of the groups, makes room for equalising the victimisation experiences of both groups, undermines the victim group’s experience and in a way, relieves their responsibility for the violence. Political Conditions This sub-theme explains the political conditions highlighting national integrity and the boundaries that the group members desire. The following respondent emphasises the importance of opening the Armenian-Turkish state borders. He considers the border issue to be more important than genocide for being more practical in today’s relationship between Armenia and Turkey:

14

Demet İslambay-Yapalı and Banu Cingöz-Ulu When you look at the Armenian-Turkish conflict, you don’t need to do anything, just open the border gate. To accept the genocide, I think it’s the job after that. […] Genocide is a huge conflict area with no benefit to anyone. I think it’s the job for later. (#1, Armenian man, 24)

Another Armenian respondent, who is from Yerevan but living in Turkey, touched upon the border issue this way: I would open the border gate. I would find my grandfather’s house and bring my grandmother here, Van, and I would show her. (#4, Armenian man, 31; #5, Armenian women, 23) This couple from Yerevan, assumes the border passages will run smoothly; yet another Armenian respondent expressed his concern in the opposite direction: “I do not want the border to be opened. This is because Turkey would swallow Armenia, ruin it, finish it like it did to Georgia”. (#2, Armenian man, 50) A Turkish participant places the responsibility for the political distance on the Armenian side: As far as I have read from history books, I think that the other side remains distant. It just feels like they keep running away from sitting at the table. There are offers from our side such as “Let’s open the archives, let a neutral council be formed” and so on. I think the other side avoids and runs. (#7, Turkish man, 24) Confrontation with the Past This sub-theme explores the necessity of coming to terms with the past for groups’ forgiving each other and the issue of an apology. According to Adorno, confrontation with the past is “a matter of the way in which the past is called up and made present” (Adorno, 1986, p.126). In other words, confronting the past does not mean leaving the past aside completely, erasing it, forgetting it or remove its traces. On the contrary, it points to a way of living in peace with the collective memory that carries the traces of the past. As the following Turkish respondent notes, good things are not confronted: People don’t confront good things. It is important to ask about what and why the past mistakes were present, how we take lessons from past mistakes. […] When they speak of the past, the only thing that comes to their minds is the Ottoman Empire. It’s as if the time between falls off the map. So I do not think that it [confrontation] is possible in Turkey. (#11, Turkish woman, 25)

Forgiveness in Armenians and Turks 15 Interviews show that groups often may carry good memories to brag about their past, or keep bad memories alive in order to maintain their historical continuity and maintain psychological coherence. Confronting the past, on the other hand, is associated with groups re-evaluating its wrongdoings they caused in the past and taking lessons from them. Usually, the victim side bears traces of the past. According to Sahdra and Ross (2007), members of victim groups have stronger memories than the perpetrator group members in Sikh–Hindu conflict in India, as in the present context. This Armenian respondent notes that confronting the past is actually a very easy thing, going through an acceptance: When you don’t confront the past, because you don’t take care of things, the next step is always becoming connected to the previous step. Since you can’t get over it and you left that collective memory in that way, or you are trying to produce a new memory, you’re constantly fighting with the real thing. […] If you accept the wrong things you have done, you try not to do it in the next step. However, because we cannot confront with 1915, troubles can occur easily and quickly (#1, Armenian man, 24) The theme of confrontation is intricately related to the theme of apology; such that confrontation with the past (or acknowledgment of wrongdoings) is almost a prerequisite for an apology to occur (Kaya, 2015). The following excerpt by an Armenian respondent shows the emotional importance of the apology for the past wrongdoings from the Turkish side: Personally, of course, not in the concrete sense, but in an abstract sense, I will certainly accept the apology. It’s a different situation when there is an apology for the current events, but when I think about the past conditions and mistakes, I can forgive if I believe in the apology. (#6, Armenian woman, 29) Another Armenian respondent similarly differentiates the apology from the descendants of the past and the current perpetrators: I have to break it up first. Now, yes, there was a genocide and I have a memory of it, I have traces of it. But there are three generations, I cannot establish a direct connection that well. […] The point I have to forgive is that it only starts in 2007 with the murder of Hrant. Then it starts with the murder of Sevag. I have to forgive those. It’s not so hard to forgive them, I think. (#1, Armenian man, 24) The two statements distinguish between past versus current mistakes, although it seems that the ease of forgiveness for the two is evaluated differently by these respondents. Some Turkish respondents also agree on the need for an apology:

16

Demet İslambay-Yapalı and Banu Cingöz-Ulu Of course, the faulty group should admit their mistakes, should be able to search for solutions that can repair these mistakes, and apologise for them. If the other group says “Yes, we made a mistake, we have done this as a nation, as a country, but now we want to redeem ourselves, what can we do? […]” But as I said, the group that should be forgiven must first accept their mistakes. (#11, Turkish woman, 25)

The next respondent emphasises the significance of history education that could enable a renewed lens towards the past, which in turn, could support the process of apology and conflict transformation: I think education has utmost importance. Education has to change first. With education, people need to change their perspective and get a different understanding … Anyway, a pardon, an apology would be possible. (#6, Armenian woman, 29) This Turkish participant thinks it is unlikely for both groups to apologise and forgive mistakes: “I do not think anyone will accept a statement such as “I committed a massacre, I am sorry”. Neither will they accept, nor us. This is supposed to be a process and it will be a long process”. (#7, Turkish man, 24) Theme 3: Possible Outcomes of Forgiveness The thought that groups may forgive each other brings many possibilities, many positive outcomes to minds. These are grouped under collective grief and dialogue. Collective Grief Collective grief emerges because of experiencing loss at mass levels, across many different segments of society or a nation. Wars, natural disasters and mass casualties as a result of huge traumatic events can be some examples of situations that bring about collective grief. Collective grief emerges as a group commemorates these past incidents and remember it collectively. These rites or collective mourning, however, may not be possible for different ethnic minorities due to political reasons as well as a general perception of threat from any such collective event (see Weiss, 1997 for an overview). The following excerpt we present illustrates the importance of the commune in expression of the pain as well as strengthening and sustaining the collective emotions: Maybe there can be collective or common mourning over the losses. I think very basic things in common can be shared. (#11, Turkish woman, 25)

Forgiveness in Armenians and Turks 17 The perception of “justice” and “conscience”, the obligation to live together, cultural and economic interests can be counted among the things that push people to mourn collectively. Common mourning also has many positive consequences. First, it can be ensured that collective boundaries and common commemoration practices are preserved. Second, it helps to ensure the collective continuity and coherence of individuals and/or groups. Finally, the continuity between the past and the present can be established. However, in order for all these to happen, it is necessary for the groups to freely experience their grief and to enable dialogue between the groups. Dialogue Dialogue can essentially be regarded as both a part and a result of the forgiveness process. Without dialogue, reconciliation cannot progress, so forgiveness cannot occur. Dialogue also arises as a result of forgiveness. Respondents referred to a more constructive and positive dialogue that could emerge after the groups reconcile and forgive each other. Dialogue is possible in rare moments when necessary conditions arise, albeit rarely and briefly (Buber, 1958). As Buber stated, one of the main conditions of dialogue formation is the emergence of situations that will help to reach the stage of dialogue. It would be unrealistic to expect a compromise on all issues, yet a common ground for dialogue would be very important for the parties to understand each other and at least to end the conflict environment. This is reflected in the words of the following Turkish respondent with an emphasis on the necessity of a peace and dialogue environment to achieve forgiveness (although it is also interesting to note how his preferred pronoun is “they” instead of “us” throughout, with a certain amount of isolation of himself from the situation). If there would be peace and dialogue, if they completely forgive each other, then there would be no problems. Both of them see each other’s beautiful sides, but do not see their bad sides. That would happen. (#8, Turkish man, 62) The following Armenian respondent views dialogue as essential to living together, which might be one of the most important consequences of forgiveness. She also considers it to be a prompt result of intergroup forgiveness and highlights other psychological outcomes. I think saying “I apologize for my own ancestor” would be a fair enough attempt to forgive. Of course, the dialogue would develop further. Sincerity would develop, discrimination would be eliminated, the unrest would be lifted. These are the most important criteria for coexistence. (#6, Armenian woman, 29)

18

Demet İslambay-Yapalı and Banu Cingöz-Ulu

The following Armenian respondent also notes that negative attitudes and behaviors towards minorities in Turkey create spiritual discomfort in dominant groups, which can be eliminated through communication and dialogue: With the convenience of being together, you can live a more comfortable life. There is no such possibility for minorities right now. Most of them are very uneasy and uncomfortable […] they also suffer in a spiritual sense. Communication, this time, of course, communication will improve. I think it will be a healthier and fairer society. (#6, Armenian woman, 29) Once again, the above extract shows how dialogue is also acknowledged, not only as a necessary and indispensable part of forgiveness but also as an outcome that would lift the tensions off the individuals’ shoulders for mutual benefit. A frequently emphasised outcome of forgiveness besides dialogue is bringing an inner peace to the individuals. Some respondents believe that forgiveness will contribute to their (and the people’s) psychological well-being, that the emotional burden of not forgiving is huge. The following respondents emphasise the spiritual comfort that forgiveness will bring by basing it on the Bible: We have to love, but we have seen Turks as our enemies for a long time. When we read the holy book, we understood. It says: “Forgive, and God will forgive you”. God created both the Turks and us. We can forgive. This healing comes from God. […] Forgiveness is a healer. We forgave. Peace came and we’re very comfortable. […] We feel tranquil right now. (#4, Armenian man, 31; #5, Armenian women, 23) The following Turkish respondent also emphasises the need for mutual acceptance of mistakes, noting that this will strengthen the sense of empathy: Mistakes happen. There have been mistakes in the history of every nation. Actually, you have to accept these mistakes… After that, I think you can more easily understand why the other person made such a mistake. (#7, Turkish man, 24) Theme 4: Rejection The fourth and the last theme emerging from the interviews is rejection which involves both the denial and ignorance of the conflict as well as the refusal to forgive the outgroup. Some respondents decline the idea of forgiving in an absolute sense. The excerpt below expresses the impossibility of forgiving: There are mistakes that can be forgiven, you excuse it due to ignorance, but there are also unforgivable mistakes. For example, genocide is an unforgivable mistake. In no way can I forgive. If they could bring my grandparents, their

Forgiveness in Armenians and Turks 19 brothers, and sisters, fathers, mothers, relatives, to the little baby they killed, I can forgive. I don’t want the property, I don’t forgive. (#3, Armenian woman, 48) Impossibility of forgiveness takes the shape of resisting the idea of an intentional massacre on the Turkish side. This mirror image is reflected in the words of a Turkish respondent through shared family narratives: I don’t think there is a genocide, to be honest. Of course, it was complicated back then…the years 14-15, World War I… My grandmother, for example, hates Armenians, she can’t stand them. I mean, she even gets angry when she sees an Armenian thing on TV. Transmitted memories, of course…that their village was raided. She says they were persecuted. Which, of course, makes it very unlikely that she would lie, so why would she lie? (#7, Turkish man, 24) Some Turks preferred not to comment on the conflict and redirected the topic to prioritising the Kurdish issue first: I do not know the exact number, but we have maybe 2 million and 3 million Armenian and Jewish citizens. If we proceed on the basis of our current problems, since our biggest problem is the Turkish-Kurdish problem, I think we need to solve it first. Yes, they [Armenians] are also of ethnic origin in Turkey, but since there is no active conflict with them, they are more, … umm … (#9, Turkish man, 24) A Turkish respondent, on the other hand, who thinks that Armenians are being persecuted, also says that if he were an Armenian, he would not forgive the persecution: “Why should these people forgive us? If it was me, I wouldn’t”. (#11, Turkish woman, 25) In sum, rejection to forgive, on the one side and denial of the memories of past mistakes, coupled with a non-accountability of them, on the other side seem to “put salt on the wound” for Armenians (Vollhardt & Nair, 2018, p. 416).

The Solution When the context of relations between the two groups is examined, there is a more political and international process in which countries, namely Turkey and Armenia, play a role rather than group members. Nonetheless, in this chapter, we look at what the Turks and Armenians living in Turkey get out of this ongoing silent conflict and how they view each other, not at a national or macro level, but through a micro level by exploring the experiences or thoughts of the group members.

20

Demet İslambay-Yapalı and Banu Cingöz-Ulu

Unlike studies done so far considering forgiveness or willingness to forgive as the main variable, this study revealed the people’s narratives for reasons of the conflict, as well as the necessary conditions for forgiveness and some of its possible consequences. Thus, a more holistic approach to forgiveness, which is currently missing, emerges. Markova (2015) suggests that people can endorse different beliefs and ideas around common categories that changes and varies according to cultural and political situations. Similarly, in the present study, the responses of the participants came together in different ways under the same themes, and their patterns differed according to their perceived victim/perpetrator status and political party preferences. There were three main themes: antecedents of the conflict, necessary conditions for the forgiveness and possible outcomes of intergroup forgiveness. In their study, Cehajic et al. (2008) study antecedents and consequences of forgiveness through their pre-determined categories. However, in our study, participants’ responses construct antecedents and consequences of the conflict. Despite absolute differences in respondents’ answers, by approaching the same issue from different angles, common themes emerged for both groups. Each theme incorporates processes and experiences that demonstrate the complexity and bipartisan nature of intergroup forgiveness. Right-wing Turks generally remain silent about the Armenian conflict and the genocide, or they say that they are being treated unfairly by highlighting the glorifying narratives they brought from the past - they see themselves as the party to forgive, not to be forgiven. It can be said that those on the left politically are more moderate and apologetic in admitting mistakes. Similarly, in their studies, Bilali et al. (2012) find that Turks use justification (victimhood) or blame third parties (displacement of responsibility) for the past violence against Armenians. Moreover, Bilali (2013) finds that Turks used the “denial” mechanism in the Armenian-Turkish conflict: for them, the reasons, excuses and silences given by communal narratives and put out by social institutions form a “social reality”. Armenians, on the other hand, are quite desperate about the recognition of the genocide, and they think that the discrimination they experience today has an effect on this. While some participants are quite distant to forgiveness, others think that the smallest step to be taken will ignite the fuse of forgiveness. As the needs-based model of reconciliation suggests, acknowledgment of the crime may empower the victim group (Nadler & Shnabel, 2015). Furthermore, acknowledgment has the potential rebuild moral order (Staub & Vollhardt, 2008), but persistent denial may enhance sentiments of unfairness and victimhood (Vollhardt, 2012). Future research needs to explore them systematically. Identity is a phenomenon that is generally regarded as a medium to being victim and perpetrator. However, according to the past or ongoing conflicts, it may come to the fore as something that can also ensure that the members of the group remain silent. According to Bilewicz (2016), when the perpetrators are reminded of past and ongoing conflicts, they generally tend to make a rational explanation or employ an ethnocentric approach to defend themselves; or they

Forgiveness in Armenians and Turks 21 tend to talk on the causes and consequences a lot or remain silent. In the present study, right-wing Turks generally employ an ethnocentric approach to explain the conflict with Kurds rather than Armenians, and remained silent about the conflict with Armenians. It may seem to be a preference for them to remain silent in situations where they feel guilty, and talk more in situations where they feel as victims. As Üngör indicates, “the Armenian-Turkish conflict is very much a conflict of memory. Armenians wish to remember a history that Turks would like to forget” (Üngör, 2008, p.26). Following the interviews and field observations, although there were a few respondents who never wanted to forgive the outgroup, I may say that the overall atmosphere of the interviews and observations signal a demand for the continuity of interwoven relationships between the groups. In addition, Turkey is a very polarised contest and polarisation shows up on belongings and identities (Erdoğan & Uyan-Semerci, 2018). These relationships seem to be much more resilient rather than brittle. Armenian-Turkish silent conflict has been understudied in social psychological research up to now. This study is one of the firsts examining the conflict between Armenians and Turks from a social and political psychological perspective. Considering the differences between groups in a constructive way, it may become more possible for group members to forgive each other, which can be a serious source of social change. Moreover, historical common narratives that reveal the common cultural heritage of these two groups and draw attention to the historical periods in which the two groups lived side by side in peace can also be emphasised to cure the conflict between the two groups. On the other hand, despite the identity differences of majority and minority groups, the most important framework that will equalise them is the citizenship framework (Marshall, 1950); therefore, equal conditions that will fuel forgiveness can be achieved based on citizenship, but this does not seem painless as citizenship in a country like Turkey is ethnically-defined.

Notes 1 With the term of “Armenians(s)” in this chapter, we refer to Armenians who are citizens of and living in Turkey. 2 The information of political parties they vote for are collected. Three of five participants voted for right-wing political parties, 1 voted for a moderately democratic and secular one and 1 voted for a left-wing political party.

References Adorno, T. W. (1986). What does coming to terms with the past mean? (trans. T. Bahti & G. Hartman). In G. Hartman (ed.), Bitburg in moral and political perspective (pp. 114–129). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Akarsu, A. S. & Cingöz Ulu, B. (2018, July). The Past Lies in the Present: A Social Psychological Investigation of History and Identity. Oral Presentation at 24th Congress of the International Association of Cross Cultural Psychology, Guelph, Canada.

22

Demet İslambay-Yapalı and Banu Cingöz-Ulu

Akçam, T. (2006). A shameful act: The Armenian genocide and the question of Turkish responsibility. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books. Akhanli, D. (2015, April 15). Hrant Dink-Street in Gezi Park. Gariwo. https://en.gariwo. net/righteous/armenian-genocide/hrant-dinkstreet-in-gezi-park-12688.html Akman, A. (2004). Modernist nationalism: statism and national identity in Turkey. Nationalities Papers, 32(1), 23–51. Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological bulletin, 130(1), 80. Bakke, K. M., O’Loughlin, J., & Ward, M. D. (2009). Reconciliation in conflict-affected societies: Multilevel modeling of individual and contextual factors in the North Caucasus of Russia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(5), 1012–1021. Bar-Tal, D. (2007). Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(11), 1430–1453. Barth, F. (1998). Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture difference. Waveland Press. Bilali, R. (2013). National narrative and social psychological influences in Turks’ denial of the mass killings of Armenians as genocide. Journal of Social Issues, 69(1), 16–33. Bilali, R., Tropp, L. R., & Dasgupta, N. (2012). Attributions of responsibility and perceived harm in the aftermath of mass violence. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 18(1), 21. Bilewicz, M. (2016). The dark side of emotion regulation: Historical defensiveness as an obstacle in reconciliation. Psychological Inquiry, 27(2), 89–95. 10.1080/1047840X.201 6.1162130 Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Buber, M. (1958). In R. G. Smith (Trans.), I and thou (2nd ed.). New York: Scribner (original work published 1923). Coleman, P. T. (2006). Power and Conflict. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice, (pp. 120–143). John Wiley & Sons. Connor, W. (1994). Ethnonationalism: The quest for understanding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cehajic, S., Brown, R., & Castano, E. (2008). Forgive and forget? Antecedents and consequences of intergroup forgiveness in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Political Psychology, 29(3), 351–367. Dinnick, I., & Noor, M. (2019). Intergroup Forgiveness: The Interplay between Who We Are and What Tales We Tell. In K. Sassenberg & M. L. W. Vliek (Eds.), Social Psychology in Action: Evidence-Based Interventions from Theory to Practice (pp. 221–237). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. (1998). Guilty by association: When one’s group has a negative history. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(4), 872. 10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.872 Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (2000). Collective action and psychological change: The emergence of new social identities. British journal of social psychology, 39(4), 579–604.

Forgiveness in Armenians and Turks 23 Erdoğan, E., & Uyan-Semerci, P. (2018). Fanusta diyaloglar: Türkiye’de kutuplaşmanın boyutları. Istanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları Fisher, R. J. (2006). Intergroup conflict. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 176–196). John Wiley & Sons. Glynos, J., & Howarth, D. (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. London: Routledge. Greenaway, K. H., Quinn, E. A., & Louis, W. R. (2011). Appealing to common humanity increases forgiveness but reduces collective action among victims of historical atrocities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(5), 569–573. Hamer, K., Penczek, M., & Bilewicz, M. (2017). “Humanum ignoscere est”. The relationship of national and supranational identifications with intergroup forgiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 257–263. Hammack, P. L. (2008). Narrative and the cultural psychology of identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 222–247. Hovannisian, R. (Eds.). (1999). Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian genocide, (pp. 1–13). NewBrunswick, NJ: TransactionPress. Jensen, S. Q. (2011). Othering, identity formation and agency. Qualitative studies, 2(2), 63–78. 10.7146/qs.v2i2.5510 Kaya, D. G. (2015). Coming to terms with the past: rewriting history through a therapeutic public discourse in Turkey. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 47(4), 681–700. Kelman, H. 2005. ‘National identity and the role of the “other” in existential conflicts: the Israeli– Palestinian Case’. Conference on Transformation of Intercultural Conflicts, University of Amsterdam, Holland, 7 October. Kürküt, E. (2019). Anti-Greek Riots of 6-7 September 1955 and Their Effects in Istanbul’s Kuzguncuk Quarter. İstanbul: Libra Publications. Lewy, G. (2005). The Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey. A disputed genocide. Lister, R. (2004). Discourse of Poverty: From Othering to Respect. In R. Lister (Eds.), Poverty (pp. 99–123). Cambridge: Polity Press. Markova, I. (2015). On thematic concepts and methodological (epistemological) themata. Papers on Social Representations, 24, 4.1–4.31. Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class. New York, NY: Cambridge. Nadler, A., & Shnabel, N. (2015). Intergroup reconciliation: Instrumental and socioemotional processes and the needs-based model. European Review of Social Psychology, 26(1), 93–125. Noor, M. (2016). Suffering need not beget suffering: Why we forgive. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 100–104. Noor, M., Brown, R., Gonzalez, R., Manzi, J., & Lewis, C. A. (2008). On positive psychological outcomes: What helps groups with a history of conflict to forgive and reconcile with each other? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(6), 819–832. 10.1177/0146167208315555 Özdoğan, G. G., & Kılıçdağı, O. (2012). Türkiye Ermenilerini duymak: Sorunlar, talepler ve çözüm önerileri [Hearing the Turkish Armenians: Problems, demands and solution suggestions] (2nd Ed.). Istanbul: TESEV Publications. Penic, S., Elcheroth, G., & Reicher, S. (2016). Can patriots be critical after a nationalist war? The struggle between recognition and marginalization of dissenting voices. Political Psychology, 37(4), 481–496.

24

Demet İslambay-Yapalı and Banu Cingöz-Ulu

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Applying social psychology to international social issues. Journal of Social Issues, 54(4), 663–675. Reicher, S. (2004). The context of social identity: Domination, resistance, and change. Political Psychology, 25, 921–945. Reynolds, K. J., & Oakes, P. J. (2000). Variability in impression formation: Investigating the role of motivation, capacity, and the categorization process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 355–373. Rouhana, N. N., & Bar-Tal, D. (1998). Psychological dynamics of intractable ethnonational conflicts: The Israeli–Palestinian case. American Psychologist, 53(7), 761. Sahdra, B., & Ross, M. (2007). Group identification and historical memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(3), 384–395. Salt Lake City, UT: The University of Utah Press. Staub, E., & Vollhardt, J. (2008). Altruism born of suffering: The roots of caring and helping after victimization and other trauma. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78(3), 267–280. 10.1037/a0014223. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Tajfel, H. E. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Uluğ, Ö. M., & Cohrs, J. C. (2019). Examining the ethos of conflict by exploring lay people’s representations of the Kurdish conflict in Turkey. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 36(2), 169–190. Uluğ, Ö. M., Lickel, B., Leidner, B., & Hirschberger, G. (2020). How do conflict narratives shape conflict-and peace-related outcomes among majority group members? The role of competitive victimhood in intractable conflicts. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1, 18. Üngör, U. Ü. (2008). Seeing like a nation-state: Young Turk social engineering in Eastern Turkey, 1913–50. Journal of Genocide Research, 10(1), 15–39. van Tongeren, D. R., Burnette, J. L., O’Boyle, E., Worthington Jr, E. L., & Forsyth, D. R. (2014). A meta-analysis of intergroup forgiveness. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 81–95. Vollhardt, J. R. (2012). Collective victimization. In L. Tropp (ed.), Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 136–157). New York: Oxford University Press. Vollhardt, J. R., & Bilewicz, M. (2013). After the genocide: Psychological perspectives on victim, bystander, and perpetrator groups. Journal of Social Issues, 69(1), 1–15. Vollhardt, J. R., & Nair, R. (2018). The two‐sided nature of individual and intragroup experiences in the aftermath of collective victimization: Findings from four diaspora groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(4), 412–432. 10.1002/ejsp.2341 Weiss, M. (1997). Bereavement, commemoration, and collective identity in contemporary Israeli society. Anthropological Quarterly, 91–101. Wohl, M. J., & Branscombe, N. R. (2005). Forgiveness and collective guilt assignment to historical perpetrator groups depend on level of social category inclusiveness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 88(2), 288. Young, I. F., & Sullivan, D. (2016). Competitive victimhood: A review of the theoretical and empirical literature. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 30–34. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc. 2016.04.004

2

Perceptions of Discrimination and Social Contact among Alevis and Sunnis in Turkey: Findings from Two Field Studies Gülçin Akbaş, Elcin Ray-Yol, and Nebi Sümer

Perceptions of Discrimination and Social Contact among Alevis and Sunnis in Turkey: Findings from Two Field Studies Sunnism and Alevism are the two main sects of Islam. Sunnis are the majority, and Alevis are the largest minority religious group in Turkey, making up about 10% to 15% of Turkey’s population. Alevis have long been discriminated against by mainstream religious and political movements (Zeidan, 1995). Since Alevis and Sunnis constitute two major religious groups and live amongst each other all throughout Turkey, investigating their perceptions of each other can contribute to a better understanding of the intergroup relations between these two important religious groups in Turkey. Moreover, such an understanding could also inform the public policy making process aimed at improving the intergroup relations and societal harmony in Turkey. In the present chapter, we report the findings of two field studies that explored how both groups’ perception of social contact is related to their perceptions of discrimination. So far, social contact and intergroup relations have mostly been investigated from only advantaged group’s perspective (i.e., Turkish majority’s attitudes towards Kurdish minority; Bağci et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2019). Thus, we also address this gap by investigating the role of social contact in improving intergroup relations, discrimination perception directed against their ingroup and outgroup, among both majority (Sunnis) and minority groups’ (Alevis). Intergroup Contact Theory Intergroup Contact Theory suggests that positive intergroup contact improves intergroup relations and reduces prejudice towards outgroup members (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998). Decades of research has shown that positive intergroup contact is consistently associated with enhanced attitudes towards outgroup members across various intergroup contexts (e.g., ethnic, religious and racial groups; Dovidio et al., 2017; Hewstone & Swart, 2011; Hodson & Hewstone, 2013; Pettigrew, 1997). Intergroup contact scholars have also investigated the mechanisms that explain the relationship between positive contact and improved intergroup relations. This research has evinced that contact improves DOI: 10.4324/9781003182436-3

26

Gülçin Akbaş et al.

intergroup relations via increased empathy and reduced intergroup anxiety towards outgroup members as well as via perspective-taking and gaining more knowledge about outgroup members (Çakal et al., 2021; Johnston & Glasford, 2018; Mana, 2019; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008; Pettigrew et al., 2011; Reimer et al., 2021). This positive knowledge is assumed to be generalised among all members of an ethnic group and reduce prejudice between groups. Additionally, intergroup contact is associated with prejudice reduction through the lowered perception of intergroup threat (Çakal et al., 2016; Hodson et al., 2009; see also Yitmen et al. in Chapter 8). Contact studies have mostly focused on the role of intergroup contact on majority group members (Bağci et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2019). As such, limited evidence is available on the effect of contact on minority group members (Hayward et al., 2017). A meta-analytic study by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) found that the association between positive contact and prejudice reduction is weaker among minority group members. These authors argued that for lowstatus groups, the anticipation of devaluation from the majority group would impair the positive impact of intergroup contact, which in turn might influence members of minority groups. However, there is still limited evidence on the asymmetrical effects of contact on minority and majority groups due to overemphasis of the literature on majority groups’ perspectives (Cameron & Turner, 2017; see Bagci et al. in Chapter 12). Hence, it is crucial to provide evidence regarding the effect of intergroup contact on intergroup relations from both the minority and majority group members’ perspectives to understand better the asymmetrical effects of intergroup contact and their underlying mechanisms. To address the gap mentioned above, we conducted two studies in the context of Alevi-Sunni intergroup relations in Turkey. In both studies, we tested the effect of the quantity and the quality of contact (the favorability of the contact between the two groups’ members) together on both groups’ discrimination perceptions. Past research has shown that contact quality is as effective as contact quantity in reducing prejudice (Islam & Hewstone, 1993), desire for social distance and negative intergroup emotions (Binder et al., 2009) and subtle prejudice (Voci & Hewstone, 2003). Although contact quantity is important, contact quality may be the integral factor affecting intergroup contact and attitudes. Overall, past studies have demonstrated that contact quality predicts the indicators of intergroup relations such as outgroup prejudice (Binder et al., 2009) and attitudes towards the outgroup (Brown et al., 2001; Stephan et al., 2000), stronger than contact quantity does. However, researchers emphasise the importance of increasing both the quantity and quality of intergroup contact to effectively reduce intergroup bias (Hewstone et al., 2002). In sum, considering the gap mentioned above, the current study aims to expand the literature by exploring intergroup contact in a religious intergroup context from both the minority and majority groups’ perspectives. With field studies conducted in two ethnically diverse cities in Turkey, we investigate the role of intergroup contact quantity and quality on perceived discrimination among Sunnis and Alevis.

Perceptions of Discrimination

27

Intergroup Contact and Perceived Discrimination Perceived discrimination is a critical construct that shapes intergroup dynamics (Alanya et al., 2017; Saleem et al., 2018). Studies from the direct contact literature have shown negative associations between positive contact and perceived discrimination among minority group members. For instance, South Black Africans’ positive contact with Whites was negatively associated with perceived ingroup discrimination, through reduced perceived personal discrimination (Dixon et al., 2010). Tropp et al.’s (2012) longitudinal study showed that intergroup contact in the form of cross-ethnic friendship with Whites was associated with lower levels of both personal and group-based perceived discrimination among African-Americans and Latino-Americans. Tropp et al. (2012) argue that, as a result of positive contact, minority group members might perceive intergroup relationships as less conflictual. This, in turn, seems to be linked to lower levels of perceived discrimination towards their ingroup. A recent study conducted in the Turkish-Kurdish intergroup context attests this. Findings revealed a positive association between positive contact and reduced perceptions of discrimination (Bagci et al., 2018). Specifically, for Kurds (the minority group), positive contact with Turks (the majority group) was negatively associated with personal and group-based discrimination perceptions. In a similar vein, Syrian refugees who had positive contact with Germans reported lower discrimination fear against their ingroup (Lutterbach & Beelmann, 2019). One of the potential mechanisms underlying this association between direct contact and reduced perceived discrimination against ingroup could be the enhanced perception of positive attitudes from majority group members. For example, past research showed that positive interaction with majority group members was associated with an increased positive expectation from the majority group (Saguy et al., 2009). Another potential mechanism explaining how direct contact is associated with lower levels of perceived discrimination is could be the development of more favorable outgroup attitudes (e.g., Keith et al., 2015; MacInnis et al., 2017; Rae et al., 2020), which, in turn, may lower the perception of personal and group-based discrimination. Positive direct contact reduces the sense of outgroup anger (e.g., Kauff et al., 2017; Seger et al., 2017), resulting in a decreased perception of discrimination against the ingroup. Thus, we predicted that, for Alevis, intergroup contact quality and quantity would be associated with perceptions lower discrimination against their ingroup (including personal discrimination, group-based discrimination). Previous studies also suggest that intergroup contact provides a chance for social comparison (Leach et al., 2007). As a consequence, minorities can understand the relative advantage of majority group members and their groups’ relative deprivation in society (Pettigrew, 2010). Hence, for Alevis, we proposed that intergroup contact quality and quantity would be associated with lower discrimination against Sunnis. Perceived discrimination is considered as an essential aspect of intergroup interaction for minorities but not for majorities (Kanas et al., 2015). Thus, only

28

Gülçin Akbaş et al.

a limited number of studies explored the association between perceived discrimination and intergroup contact from the majority groups’ perspectives (see te Lindert et al., 2021; Tropp, 2007). Nevertheless, there is reasonable evidence that allows us to expect that intergroup contact might be associated with decreased levels of perceived discrimination against both the ingroup and the outgroup among members of the majority groups. For instance, for majority groups, positive intergroup contact was associated with enhanced attitudes towards minority groups, lower perceived threat, intergroup anxiety and ingroup identification (e.g., Bağci et al., 2019; Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2011; Schmid et al., 2014; Verkuyten et al., 2010). Intergroup contact also allows the majority group members to make social comparisons during the contact (Pettigrew, 2010). These comparisons might make them understand their relative advantage in society (Leach et al., 2007). Alevis and Sunnis in Turkey As two major sects in the Islamic world, Alevis constitute the second-largest group in Turkey, after Sunnis (Paul & Seyrek, 2014; Zeidan 1995). They both adhere to Islam and are considered Muslims in terms of religious identity. However, they differ in their beliefs, practices (Verkuyten & Yıldız, 2009) and their political orientations (Keles, 2014). The main difference between Alevi and Sunni Muslims is that Alevis interpret Islam and Qur’an more mystically and spiritually (Özalay, 2006; Zeidan, 1995). Although Alevis accept and respect Islam’s central ideas, their interpretation of the main tennets of the Islamic scripture differ from those of Sunnis. For instance, rather than engaging in religious practices such as fasting, prayer and pilgrimage (Erdemir, 2005), they prefer their own set of religious rituals, they worship in different places and have distinct religious heroes (Shankland, 2003). In Turkey, Alevism is considered as a heterodox Muslim sect by the state and society (Paul & Seyrek, 2014). They face many challenges in dair life, individually as a group as the religious public domain is dominated by the majority Sunnis. For instance, Sunni practices are applied in public areas (Shankland, 2003). For this reason, Alevis often complain that the Directorate of Religious Affairs, the religious authority in the country, imposes Sunni oriented rites in the public domain and practices and claim that such practices only represent the Sunni orthodox Muslim population (Koca, 2014; Özdemir & Arıcı, 2012). For instance, the worship places of Alevis, known as ‘Cem evleri’, are not recognised as religious venues and the Government refuses to provide any financial support for them (Mahmoud, 2012). Alevis are also discriminated against based on their Alevi faith, as the compulsory religion course in the school curriculum covers only Sunni beliefs without reference to Alevis (Özalay, 2006). More importantly, Alevis have been subject to several massacres in Turkey. For example, recently, in Sivas, Çorum and Kahramanmaraş reflect the vehemence of ongoing conflict. This is why Alevis report that they have been facing Sunni prejudice and

Perceptions of Discrimination

29

discrimination (Shindeldecker, 1998), as well as various social, political, religious, economic and work-life problems for many years (Köse, 2010). In sum, Alevis and Sunnis live together across different regions of Turkey, though they have different historical experiences, religious beliefs and practices. Although a branch of Islam and compared to the Sunnis, Alevis constitue a disadvantaged group, and for many years, and the relationship between Alevis and Sunnis has been conflictual. Thus, examining the intergroup relations between these two groups based on Intergroup Contact Theory and levels of perceived discrimination, can provide valuable insights into understanding the related intergroup dynamics. Overview of Studies The current research sought to explore the association between intergroup contact (both contact quantity and quality) and perceived discrimination (individual-based and group-based discrimination) among Alevis and Sunnis living in the northern city of Amasya (Study 1) and Hatay which is located in southeastern Turkey (Study 2). These two cities are different in terms of the ethnic identities of Alevis. Specifically, those in Amasya are Alevis of Anatolia, and they identify themselves as Turks in terms of ethnic background (Mahmoud, 2012). Those in Hatay, however, are considered an extension of Alevis in Syria who identify themselves as Arab (Mahmoud, 2012; Zhigulskaya, 2019). Both cities also differ in terms of intergroup relations between Sunnies and Alevis. In Amasya, Alevis and Sunnis live in mixed neighbours whereas in Hatay Alevis are concentrated in certain neighbourhood. Therefore, Alevis in Amasya might have different intergroup experiences with members of Sunni outgroup than Alevis in Hatay or vice versa. For example, in Hatay but not in Amasya, there are other religious minority groups such as Jews. Besides, since Alevis in Hatay tend to live in segregated manner, they might have less opportunity for intergroup contact compared to Alevis in Amasya and their discrimination perception may be different. At any rate, Alevis in both cities are considered as a minority religious group. Thus, we believe that believe that establishing findings from two different cities will help provide a clear depiction of the current intergroup relations between the two sects and strengthen the generalisation of the results. Relying on the studies on social contact and perceived discrimination, we hypothesised that for both cities, the Alevi participants would report lower levels of contact quantity and quality as compared to the Sunni group (Hypothesis 1, H1). Additionally, the Alevi group’s perception of discrimination directed against their group was expected to be higher compared to that of the Sunni group. Additionally, we also expect Alevi men to have higher discrimination perceptions than Alevi women because Alevi men potentially experience more discrimination in public domains since their employment rate is much higher than women and they have more contact opportunities with the members of the Sunni group. (Hypothesis 2, H2). Last but not least we hypothesise

30

Gülçin Akbaş et al.

that perceived social contact would be negatively associated with perceived discrimination against the ingroup and the outgroup (Hypothesis 3, H3).

Study 1 Study 1 aimed to examine the link between intergroup contact and perceived discrimination among Sunnis and Alevis in Amasya. It is estimated that Alevis comprise 20% of Amasya’s population (see Yıldız, 2003) and interact with members of the Sunni majority group on a daily basis. The categorisation between Alevis and Sunnis in Amasya is highly salient. In their daily interaction, they know which group the other person belongs to.

Method Participants and Procedure We recruited 172 Alevis (Mage = 38.35, SD = 11.29; 45.9% female and 54.1% male) and 157 Sunnis (Mage = 35.44, SD = 10.62; 41.7% female and 58.3% male) from Amasya. After obtaining ethical approval from the Middle East Technical University UEAM (Human Participants Ethics Committee), the authors collected the data using the paper-pencil survey method through a snowball sampling method. The participants were approached in various public settings (e.g., shopping places and barbershops), and those who agreed to participate completed a pen and paper survey on their perceptions and attitudes towards the outgroup. Materials We used the same scales for both groups for conceptual and empirical comparability. Social Contact Scale Intergroup contact was measured using Islam and Hewstone’s (1993) 10-item scale. Five items of the scale assess quantity (e.g., “how often do you contact with Alevis/Sunnis in formal places like school and job?”) and five items assess quality (e.g., “do you perceive the contact with Alevis/Sunnis as pleasant?”) of intergroup contact. The items were adopted into Turkish using the translation and back-translation method by the researchers. Contact quantity was measured on a 1 (never) to 5 (always) scale (e.g., “How often do you contact with Alevis/ Sunnis in formal places like school and job?”). Contact quality dimension assessed the equality, volition, sincereness, pleasantness and cooperation elements of contact based on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., “Do you perceive the contact with Alevis/Sunnis as pleasant?”). For both subscales, higher scores reflect higher intergroup contact quantity and quality. The Cronbach’s alpha was .67 for contact quantity and .83 for contact quality.

Perceptions of Discrimination

31

Perceived Discrimination Scale Perceived discrimination was assessed with two subscales assessing the perceptions of individual-based discrimination and group-based discrimination using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never; 5 = always). Perceived individual-based discrimination was measured using four items developed by Baysu (2007). A sample item for perceived individual-based discrimination against Alevi group is, “I feel that Alevis are not accepted by Sunni people” and a sample item for perceived individual-based discrimination against Sunni group is, “I feel that Sunnis are not accepted by Alevi people.” The Cronbach’s alphas for individual-based discrimination against Alevis and Sunnis were .92 and .75, respectively. Perceived group-based discrimination was measured using six items. We borrowed 4 items, adapted to Turkish by Baysu (2007), from Ruggiero and Taylor (1995); and one item from Coymak (2009) and we developed one additional item. A sample item for perceived group-based discrimination against Alevi group is “Do Alevis experience discrimination when they look for a job?” and a sample item for perceived individual-based discrimination against Sunni group is, “Do Sunnis experience discrimination when they look for a job?” Cronbach’s alphas for perceived group discrimination against Alevis and Sunnis were .90 and .68, respectively.

Results Before analyses, we checked the normality of the data and performed data screening, which led to no outliers. We then tested group differences, correlations and predictions. Descriptives and Correlations Means, group differences and correlations between the variables are reported in Table 2.1. Group differences were tested after controlling for the effect of gender and the level of education using ANCOVA. There were statistically significant mean differences between the groups on all major variables, except for contact quantity. For both contact quality and quantity, mean values were over 3.7 on the 5-point scale, indicating frequent and satisfying contact between the two groups. However, the effect size for discrimination against Alevis is large, indicating critical differences between the two groups’ perceptions. Regression Analyses Separate hierarchical regression analyses were conducted for the two groups to examine whether contact quantity and quality are associated with perceived discrimination (see Table 2.2). For Alevis, contact quality negatively predicted both perceived individual-based discrimination (β = −.39, p < .01) and group-based discrimination (β = −.40, p < .001). Similarly, for Sunnis, contact

Contact Quantity Contact Quality Ind. Disc.: Alevi Ind. Disc.: Sunni Group Disc.: Alevi Group Disc.: Sunni

4.13 4.51 1.94 1.89 1.96 1.92

M

.81 .65 .86 .75 .74 .64

SD

Notes * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. All scales ranged from 1 to 5. Sunnis’ scores are shown on upper diagonal.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Variable (Total)

Sunni (N = 158)

4.04 3.77 3.51 2.10 3.32 2.19

M 1.05 .97 .96 .77 .86 .56

SD

Alevi (N = 176)

.20 62.02 *** 251.07 *** 6.51 * 244.96 *** 16.93 ***

F

Table 2.1 Mean Scores and Correlations between the Variables for Study 1

.00 .16 .43 .02 .43 .05

Eta2 .39 ** −.16 * −.14 −.12 −.13

1

1 *

.22 1 −.39 ** −.05 −.39 ** −.12

2

4 .07 −.02 −.00 −.23 ** 1 .51 ** ** .29 1 .67 ** .11 .32 ** .52 **

3

6 −.01 −.05 −.17 * −.20 * .50 ** .49 ** ** .53 .62 ** 1 .76 ** .26 ** 1

5

32 Gülçin Akbaş et al.

β −.02 .03 β −.03 .03 .07 −.02 .19 .00 −.02

β −.10 −.04 β −.10 −.05 .06 −.18 * 1.65 .02 .03

Notes * p < .05. ** p .05).

Discussion In this study, we explored the role of demographic factors such as age, gender and social status, level of religiosity and finally the role of psychological factors such as collective nostalgia and global identification in predicting attitudes towards outgroups in Turkey. We specifically chose four separate social groups: Kurds, Armenians, LGBTQ+ individuals and Syrian refugees, because they are related to Turkish society in different ways. Now, we discuss the results and their implications. In terms of the demographic variables, we found that age was a predictor of positive attitudes towards three outgroups (i.e., Kurds, Armenians and Syrian refugees) and a predictor of negative attitudes towards the LGBTQ+ community. Previous research shows that older people tend to have more prejudice (Henry & Sears, 2009). In this study, older may have more positive attitudes towards Kurds and Armenians perhaps because these groups are perceived to have been historically a part of the society. However, it is not very clear why age would predict positive attitudes towards Syrian refugees. One explanation could be humanitarian reasons, and perhaps older people feel less threatened by Syrian refugees and show more concern for them. This requires further investigation. The relationship between age and the negative attitudes towards LGBTQ+ individuals are in line with previous research (Anderson & Koc, 2015; Whitley, 2009). Moreover, gender was a significant predictor of attitudes towards Kurds and LGBTQ+ people. Men were more positive towards Kurds whereas they were more negative towards LGBTQ+ people. This is in line with previous research that men have more negative attitudes towards LGBTQ+ individuals (Kite & Whitley, 1996) because they might feel threatened by them (Falomir-Pichastor & Mugny, 2009) or they might think LGBTQ+ individuals violate societal expectations about gender roles (Eslen-Ziya & Koc, 2016). In a similar vein, social status predicted positive attitudes towards all group except for Kurds. Although social status is often equated with social dominance orientation and

118

Yasin Koc et al.

hence more negative outgroup attitudes, some research shows that people with lower status tend to strive for stronger social dominance orientation more and therefore develop more negative outgroup attitudes (Küpper et al., 2010). This might explain why people from higher social class were more positive towards Armenians, Syrians and LGBTQ+ individuals in our study. Moreover, religiosity was a significant predictor of attitudes towards all groups in line with the expectations. Religiosity predicted positive attitudes towards Syrians and Kurds, because Syrian refugees are also assumed to be Muslim and this might create a common identity (e.g., Baysu et al., 2018, Gaertner et al., 1993). Moreover, recent research shows that Muslim group norms mediate the link between common Muslim identity and acceptance of Syrian refugees (Guler et al., in this volume). This should be further investigated. Contrarily, religiosity predicted negative attitudes towards Armenians because they are a salient religious outgroup, and also towards LGBTQ+ community because they are perceived to be in violation of religious rules and norms (Anderson & Koc, 2015). This shows the complex relationships between one’s religiosity and outgroup attitudes depending on how the outgroup is aligned with one’s own religion. Future research should incorporate the role of social dominance orientation and threat perceptions to further unpack these findings. In relation to our focal variables, we found that global identification predicted positive attitudes towards all outgroups. However, in line with Rosenmann (2016), we had expected that global identification would predict positive attitudes towards LGBTQ+ community and Armenians and negative attitudes towards Kurds and Syrian refugees. This reasoning was justified because Rosenmann (2016) conceptualises global identification as identification with global-Western culture. Therefore, outgroups aligned with Western norms (e.g., gay people) benefit from this identification but those not aligned with Western norms (e.g., Arabs in Israel) do not experience the intergroup benefit of global identification. However, our conceptualisation and measurement of global identification was more in line with Reysen and Katzarska-Miller (2013). In their study, they found that global identification is a superordinate identity and it predicts intergroup empathy, value diversity, social justice and intergroup helping. Therefore, it is reasonable to explain our findings along these lines. Higher levels of global identification (instead of national identification) helped Turkish participants to be more accepting towards minorities in Turkey. Further research should compare global identification and Turkish national identification to make stronger conclusions. Collective nostalgia, on the other hand, predicted outgroup attitudes in line with our expectations. Accordingly, collective nostalgia predicted positive outgroup attitudes towards Kurds, Armenians and LGBTQ+ people, whereas it predicted negative attitudes towards Syrian refugees. As argued by Wohl et al. (2020), that the type of nostalgic past might be related to outgroup attitudes differently. Although we did not manipulate the content of nostalgia, we expected the good old days of Turkey people would remember would entail the days before Syrian refugees arrived in Turkey. Therefore, the outgroups that

Collective Nostalgia 119 were historically a part of Turkey would benefit from collective nostalgia, whereas Syrian refugees as the new “other” would suffer from collective nostalgia. Our findings supported this expectation. Such socio-cognitive division in “old” and “new” minority groups were also found in historical representations of local Kurds and Arabs about Kurds and Arabs fleeing Syria. They used “us vs. them” division when they referred to those coming from Syria, although they also used positive representations such as neighbours (Yalcin et al., in this volume). However, we focused on the perspectives of the majority; so probably this division is even stronger lacking the positive representations. Overall, although our predictions regarding collective nostalgia were supported, our results rely on survey items and people can remember different collective nostalgia content depending on their political orientation (Stefaniak et al., 2021). These findings, therefore, should be substantiated with experimental findings. Overall, this is the first study to examine collective nostalgia and global identification together and their relationship to several outgroups with unique characteristics in the Turkish context. These findings provide the basis to follow up with experiments to claim causal relationships. Moreover, we know that politicians use a different past of one’s country to drive attitudes towards minorities into different directions (see Mols & Jetten, 2014). Similarly, we can use this information to make people nostalgic about the good old days where Turkish society was more open and inclusive (see also Wohl et al., 2020), and this might help turn exclusionary outgroup attitudes into inclusionary ones. A wooden toy from the past for an individual has benefits for the individual. A longing for a tolerant past of one’s society where people from different religions and ethnic groups lived together as neighbours and where we glorified our hospitality for guests and people in need might help us build a new future where nostalgic experience enhance tolerance and respect for one another.

References Abakoumkin, G., Hepper, E. G., Wildschut, T., and Sedikides, C. (2019). From nostalgia through social connectedness to self-continuity: replication and extension. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 16, 127–144. Abeyta, A., Routledge, C., Roylance, C., Wildschut, R. T., and Sedikides, C. (2015). Attachment-related avoidance and the social and agentic content of nostalgic memories. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 406–413. doi: 10.1177/02654 07514533770 Akar, S., & Erdoğdu, M. M. (2018). Syrian Refugees in Turkey and Integration Problem Ahead. Journal of International Migration and Integration. doi: 10.1007/s12134-018-0639-0 Akçam, T. (2015). Ermenilerin Zorla Mslmanlastirilmasi. İletişim Yayınları. Aktar, A., & Kırmızı, A. (2013). Diyarbekir 1915. Diyarbakır Tebliğleri. Istanbul: Hrant Dink Vakfı Yayınları. Akrami, N., Ekehammar, B., & Araya, T. (2000). Classical and modern racial prejudice: A study of attitudes toward immigrants in Sweden. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(4), 521–532. doi: 10.1002/1099‐0992(200007/08)30:43.0.CO;2‐N

120

Yasin Koc et al.

Anderson, J. R., & Koc, Y. (2015). Exploring patterns of explicit and implicit anti-gay attitudes in Muslims and Atheists. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(6), 687–701. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2126 Ariely, G. (2016). Global identification, xenophobia and globalization: A cross-national exploration. International Journal of Psychology. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12364 Bagci, S. C. & Çelebi, E. (2017b). Gruplararası Temas ve Çatışma ile Azınlıklara Yönelik Tutumlar ve Çokkültürlülüğe Destek Arasındaki İlişkiler: Gruplararası Tehdit ve Kaygının Aracı Rolü. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 20(Özel Sayı), 3–23. Bagci, S. C., & Çelebi, E. (2017a). Cross‐group friendships and outgroup attitudes among Turkish–Kurdish ethnic groups: does perceived interethnic conflict moderate the friendship‐attitude link?. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(2), 59–73. Bagci, S. C., & Turnuklu, A. (2018). Intended, Unintended, and Unknown Consequences of Contact. Social Psychology, 50(1), 1–17. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000355 Bagci, S. C., Verkuyten, M., Koc, Y., Turnuklu, A., Piyale, Z. E., & Bekmezci, E. (2020). Being tolerated and being discriminated against: Links to psychological well‐being through threatened social identity needs. European Journal of Social Psychology. Baysu, G. & Coşkan, C. (2018). Reconciliation and intergroup forgiveness: the case of the Kurdish conflict in Turkey. Turkish Studies, (), 1–25. doi: 10.1080/14683849.2018.1484287 Baysu, G., & Coşkan, C., & Duman, Y. (2018). Can identification as Muslim increase support for reconciliation? The case of the Kurdish conflict in Turkey. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 64, 43–53. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.02.002 Bikmen, N., & Sunar, D. (2013). Difficult dialogs: Majority group members’ willingness to talk about inequality with different minority groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(4), 467–476. Bilali, R. (2014). The downsides of national identification for minority groups in intergroup conflicts in assimilationist societies. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(1), 21–38. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12012 Bogardus, E. S. (1967). Measuring social distances. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement, (pp.71–76). New York, NY: Wiley. Buchan, N. R., Brewer, M. B., Grimalda, G., Wilson, R. K., Fatas, E., & Foddy, M. (2011). Global social identity and global cooperation. Psychological Science, 22(6), 821. doi: 10.1177/0956797611409590 Çakal, H., Hewstone, M., Güler, M., & Heath, A. (2016). Predicting support for collective action in the conflict between Turks and Kurds: Perceived threats as a mediator of intergroup contact and social identity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(6), 732–752. doi: 10.1177/1368430216641303 Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Nostalgia. In Cambridge dictionary. Retrieved May 11, 2022 from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary Çelebi, E., Verkuyten, M., Köse, T., & Maliepaard, M. (2014). Out-group trust and conflict understandings: The perspective of Turks and Kurds in Turkey. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 40, 64–75. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.02.002 Cooper, B. , & Akçam, T. (2005). Turks, Armenians, and the “G‐word”. World Policy Journal, 22(3), 81–93. doi: 10.1215/07402775‐2005‐4009 Dalay, G. (2015). Turkey’s Kurdish issue: From peace to low intensity-war. AlJazeera. Retrieved from: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/12/21/turkeys-kurdish-issuefrom-peace-to-low-intensity-war Demirel, C., & Eriksson, J. (2019). Competitive victimhood and reconciliation: the case of Turkish–Armenian relations. Identities, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/1070289x.2019.1611073

Collective Nostalgia 121 Ercetin, T. (2014). The Perceptions of Armenians in Turkey. Working Paper EU/7. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University. Google Scholar. Erdogan, B., & Köten, E. (2014). Yeni Toplumsal Hareketlerin Sınıf Dinamiği: Türkiye LGBT Hareketi. Marmara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(1), 93–113. doi: 10.14 782/SBD.201416302 Eslen-Ziya, H., & Koc, Y. (2016). Being a gay man in Turkey: internalised sexual prejudice as a function of prevalent hegemonic masculinity perceptions. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 18(7), 799–811, doi: 10.1080/13691058.2015.1133846 Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., & Mugny, G. (2009). “I’m not gay …. I’m a real man!”: Heterosexual Men’s Gender Self-Esteem and Sexual Prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(9), 1233–1243. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1–26. Göl, A. (2005). Imagining the Turkish nation through ‘othering’ Armenians. Nations and Nationalism, 11(1), 121–139. Göksel, G. U. (2017). Integration of Syrian Refugees in Turkey. Integration of Immigrants and the Theory of Recognition, 145–175. doi: 10.1007/978‐3‐319‐65843‐8_5 Henry, P. J., & Sears, D. O. (2009). The crystallization of contemporary racial prejudice across the lifespan. Political Psychology, 30, 569–590. Hrant Dink Foundation. (2020, November). Hate Speech and Discriminatory Discourse in Media 2019 Report. https://hrantdink.org/en/asulis/publications/75‐media‐watch‐on‐hate‐ speech‐reports/2727‐hate‐speech‐and‐discriminatory‐discourse‐in‐media‐2019‐report Karasu M., & Uluğ Ö.M. (2020) Doing Research on Turkish-Armenian Relations in Turkey, Armenia, and the Armenian Diaspora: The Challenges and Opportunities of Turkish Researchers in the Field. In: Acar Y., Moss S., Uluğ Ö. (eds) Researching Peace, Conflict, and Power in the Field. Peace Psychology Book Series. Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-44113-5_5 Kite, M. E., & Whitley Jr, B. E. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights a meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 336–353. Koc, Y. (2018). Identity threat and coping strategies among highly stigmatised sexual and ethnic minorities (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sussex). Koc, Y. (2021). Lack of ordinary privileges in a gay men’s life: Navigating through privileged systems. E., Rodríguez-Dorans, J. Holmes, (Eds.), The everyday lives of gay men: Autoethnographies of the ordinary. Routledge. Koc, Y., & Vignoles, V. L. (2016). Global identification predicts gay–male identity integration and well‐being among Turkish gay men. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(4), 643–661. Koc, Y., & Vignoles, V. L. (2018). Global identification helps increase identity integration among Turkish gay men. Psychology & Sexuality. doi: 10.1080/19419899.2018.1496134 KONDA. (2011). Türk Meselesini Yeniden Düşünmek [Rethinking of Kurdish Issue]. Istanbul: Konda Araştırma Danışmanlık. Koca, B. T. (2016). Syrian refugees in Turkey: From “guests” to “enemies”? New Perspectives on Turkey, 54, 55–75. doi: 10.1017/npt.2016.4 Kunst, J. R., & Thomsen, L. (2015). Prodigal sons: Dual Abrahamic categorization mediates the detrimental effects of religious fundamentalism on Christian–Muslim relations. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 25(4), 293–306.

122

Yasin Koc et al.

Küpper, B., Wolf, C., & Zick, A. (2010). Social status and anti-immigrant attitudes in Europe: An examination from the perspective of social dominance theory. International Journal of Conflict and Violence (IJCV), 4(2), 205–219. Lazarev, E., & Sharma, K. (2017). Brother or burden: An experiment on reducing prejudice toward Syrian refugees in Turkey. Political Science Research and Methods, 5(2), 201–219. McFarland, S. (2015). Culture, individual differences, and support for human rights: A general review. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 21(1), 10–27. doi: 10. 1037/pac0000083 MinorityRights Groups International. (2007). Bir eşitlik arayışı: Türkiye’deazınlıklar. Minority Rights Groups International. https://minorityrights.org/wp‐content/uploads/ 2015/07/MRG_Rep_Turk2007_TURK.pdf Mitha, K., Ali, S., & Koc, Y. (2021). Challenges to identity integration amongst sexual minority British Muslim South Asian men. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. Mols, F., & Jetten, J. (2014). No guts, no glory: How framing the collective past paves the way for anti-immigrant sentiments. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 43, 74–86. Neyzi, L., Kharatyan-Araqelyan, H. (2010). Birbirimizle Konuşmak: Türkiye ve Ermenistan’da Kişisel Bellek Anlatıları. dvv international. Onay-Çoker, D. (2019). The representation of Syrian refugees in Turkey: a critical discourse analysis of three newspapers. Continuum, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/10304312.2019. 1587740 Özdemir, E. (2017). Suriyeli Mültecilerin Türkiye’deki Algıları. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 16(1), 116–136. doi: 10.17134/khosbd.405253 Özdüzen, O., Korkut, U., & Özdüzen, C. (2020). “Refugees are not welcome”: Digital racism, online place-making and the evolving categorization of Syrians in Turkey. New Media & Society, 146144482095634. doi: 10.1177/1461444820956341 Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Jans, L. (2013). A single-item measure of social identification: Reliability, validity, and utility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(4), 597–617. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12006. Reese, G. (2016). Common human identity and the path to global climate justice. Climatic Change, 134(4), 521–531. Reese, G., Proch, J., & Cohrs, J. C. (2014). Individual differences in responses to global inequality. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 14, 217–238. doi: 10.1111/ asap.12032 Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 858–870. doi: 10.1080/00207594.2012. 701749 Rosenmann, A. (2016). Alignment with globalized Western culture: Between inclusionary values and an exclusionary social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 26–43. Rosenmann, A., Reese, G., & Cameron, J. E. (2016). Social Identities in a Globalized World: Challenges and Opportunities for Collective Action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 202–221. doi: 10.1177/1745691615621272 Routledge, C., Arndt, J., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Hart, C., Juhl, J., … Scholtz, W. (2011). The past makes the present meaningful: Nostalgia as an existential resource. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 638–652.

Collective Nostalgia 123 Şafak-Ayvazoğlu, A., Kunuroglu, F., & Yağmur, K. (2021). Psychological and sociocultural adaptation of Syrian refugees in Turkey. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 80, 99–111. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2020.11.00 Satana, N. S. (2012). The Kurdish Issue in June 2011 Elections: Continuity or Change in Turkey’s Democratization?. Turkish Studies, 13(2), 169–189. doi: 10.1080/14683849. 2012.686575 Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Cheung, W. -Y., Routledge, C., Hepper, E. G., Arndt, J., et al. (2016). Nostalgia fosters self-continuity: uncovering the mechanism (social connectedness) and the consequence (eudaimonic well- being). Emotion, 16, 524–539. doi: 10.1037/emo0000136 Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Routledge, C., Arndt, J., Hepper, E. G., and Zhou, X. (2015). To nostalgize: mixing memory with affect and desire. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 189–273. doi: 10.1016/bs.aesp.2014.10.001 Shokef, E., & Erez, M. (2006). Global work culture and global identity, as a platform for a shared understanding in multicultural teams. In National culture and groups. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Smeekes, A. (2015). National nostalgia: A group-based emotion that benefits the ingroup but hampers intergroup relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 49, 54–67. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.461. Smeekes, A., Verkuyten, M., & Martinovic, B. (2014). Longing for the country’s good old days: National nostalgia, autochthony beliefs, and opposition to Muslim expressive rights. British Journal of Social Psychology (in press). doi: 10.1111/bjso.12097 Stefaniak, A., Wohl, M. J. A., Sedikides, C., Smeekes, A., & Wildschut, T. (2021). Different pasts for different political folk: Political orientation predicts collective nostalgia content. Frontiers in Political Science, 3, 15. Stephan, E., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Zhou, X., He, W., Routledge, C.,… Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. (2014). The mnemonic mover: Nostalgia regulates avoidance and approach motivation. Emotion, 14, 545–561. The jamovi project (2021). jamovi (Version 1.6) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org Turner, R. N., Wildschut, T., and Sedikides, C. (2018). Fighting ageism through nostalgia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 196–208. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2317 Uluğ, Ö. M., & Cohrs, J. C. (2017). “If we become friends, maybe I can change my perspective:” Intergroup contact, endorsement of conflict narratives, and peace-related attitudes in Turkey. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23(3), 278. doi: 10.1037/pac0000216 Ünver, H., Çakal, H., Güler, M., & Tropp, L. R. (2021). Support for rights of Syrian refugees in Turkey: The role of secondary transfer effects in intergroup contact. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. United Kingdom for UNHCR. (2022). Syria crisis: 11 years. https://www.unrefugees.org. uk/where‐help‐is‐needed/syria‐crisis/ Van Tilburg, W. A. P., & Igou, E. R. (2011). On boredom and social identity: A pragmatic meaning-regulation approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1679–1691. Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 331–372. doi: 10.1080/10463280701728302 Whitley Jr, B. E. (2009). Religiosity and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A metaanalysis. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19(1), 21–38.

124

Yasin Koc et al.

Wildschut, T., Bruder, M., Robertson, S., Van Tilburg, A. P. W., & Sedikides, C. (2014). Collective nostalgia: A group-level emotion that confers unique benefits on the group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 844–863. Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., and Robertson, S. (2018). Sociality and intergenerational transfer of older adults’ nostalgia. Memory, 26, 1030–1041. doi: 10.1080/09658211.201 8.1470645 Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Routledge, C., Arndt, J., and Cordaro, F. (2010). Nostalgia as a repository of social connectedness: the role of attachment- related avoidance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 573–586. doi: 10.1037/a0017597 Wohl, M. J. A., Stefaniak, A., & Smeekes, A. (2020). Longing is in the memory of the beholder: Collective nostalgia content determines the method members will support to make their group great again. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 91(August), 104044. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104044 Yildiz, K. (2012). Turkey’s Kurdish conflict: pathways to progress. Insight Turkey, 14(4), 151–173. Yitmen, Ş., & Verkuyten, M. (2019). Support to Syrian refugees in Turkey: The roles of descriptive and injunctive norms, threat, and negative emotions. Asian Journal of Social Psychology. doi: 10.1111/ajsp.12400 Zhou, X., Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., and Gao, D. -G. (2008). Counteracting loneliness: on the restorative function of nostalgia. Psychological Science, 19, 1023–1029. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.0219

Part II

Intergroup Relations: The New Minorities

7

Acculturation and Adaptation of Syrian Refugees in Turkey: The Role of (Dis)Concordance of Acculturation Orientations and Identity Threat İmge Terzi, Rita Guerra, and Kinga Bierwiaczonek

According to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), there are currently 79.5 million forcibly displaced people worldwide (UN Refugee Agency UNHCR, 2019), and Turkey is hosting the largest number of refugees in the world. According to UNHCR Turkey Operational Update, a considerable portion of this population consists of Syrian nationals. As of April 2020, the number of Syrian refugees in Turkey has reached 3.6 million (UN Refugee Agency UNHCR, 2020). The integration of Syrian refugees in Turkish society and the government’s policies during this time have been the subject of debate in both the public and academic spheres. Despite the initial welcoming approach from the Turkish society, in the last years, Syrian refugees faced lack of structural integration in society (e.g., employment and housing), increased discrimination (Akar & Erdoğdu, 2019) and have higher risks of depression and posttraumatic stress (Acarturk et al., 2018; Kaya et al., 2019). Perceived discrimination plays a detrimental role in immigrants’ and ethnic minorities’ psychological well-being (i.e., one’s positive psychological functioning), threatening their social identity (Branscombe et al., 1999). Social identity threat can take many forms (e.g., categorisation threat, distinctiveness threat, acceptance threat or threat to the value of one’s social identity, Branscombe et al., 1999). Discrimination can be seen as a source of identity threat that occurs when the value or acceptance of one’s ingroup is undermined (Branscombe et al., 1999). Metaanalytical evidence shows robust negative effects of discrimination on a variety of well-being indicators, specially for minority/disadvantaged groups. Discrimination has also been related to immigrants’ acculturation orientations and shown to have a negative impact on their adaptation to the host society (Arends-Tóth & Vijver, 2006; Berry & Hou, 2017; Wilson et al., 2013). Despite strong evidence supporting the impact of discrimination and acculturation orientations on immigrants’ psychological adaptation, specifically on their well-being, very few studies examined the impact of these social-psychological variables among Syrian refugees in Turkey. Among them, a recent study conducted with Syrian refugees living in Turkey DOI: 10.4324/9781003182436-9

128

İmge Terzi et al.

showed how perceived discrimination is negatively associated with psychological well-being (Bagci & Canpolat, 2020). Similarly, a recent study showed that perceived discrimination was also negatively related with sociocultural adaptation (i.e., functionally and culturally adaptive behaviors, Wilson et al., 2017) of Syrian refugees in Turkey (Kunuroglu & Tok, 2020). Importantly, recent research conducted with Syrian refugees also shows that positive contact with the Turkish host society is associated with less perceived discrimination, higher identification with the Turkish society as well as higher life satisfaction (Ozkan et al., 2021). Together, these studies show that discrimination is an important factor hindering the adaptation of Syrian refugees in Turkey. However, very few studies examined the impact of acculturation orientations of Syrian refugees living in Turkey on their adaptation (e.g., Bagci & Canpolat, 2020), and generally the findings were not consistent (e.g., positive associations of acculturation and psychological adaptation, Bagci & Canpolat, 2020; and no association of acculturation orientations and psychological distress, Kurt et al., 2021). The current study builds on these findings and aims to extend existing knowledge on the adaptation of Syrian refugees in Turkey. Our contribution is three-fold: (a) we extend the scarce research focusing on the relation between acculturation and adaptation among refugees, since most studies have been conducted with immigrants; (b) contrary to previous research conducted with Syrian refugees in Turkey (Kunuroglu & Tok, 2020), we focused simultaneously on both their psychological (i.e., life satisfaction) and sociocultural adaptation (Wilson et al., 2017); and (c) we considered not only the role of refugees’ own acculturation orientations towards culture maintenance and contact with the Turkish society but also the impact of (dis)concordance of refugees’ own acculturation and meta perceived acculturation orientations from the Turkish host society. Concordance of acculturation has been shown to be a relevant predictor of threat and intergroup attitudes (Rohmann et al., 2006), but previous research on acculturation and adaptation has mostly focused on the impact of own acculturation orientations. For the first time, the present research explored if perceived discordance of acculturation and identity threat (operationalised as perceived discrimination; Baysu et al., 2011; Fleischmann et al., 2019) were associated with Syrian refugees’ psychological and sociocultural adaptation. Acculturation is described as a two-way process of cultural and psychological change resulting from intercultural contact at both group and individual levels (Berry, 2005). It is a process that explains the psycho-social shifts in attitudes, behaviors, identities and values that individuals experience while they are in an extended interaction with other cultural contexts, which then impact their psychological well-being and social functioning (Ward & Geeraert, 2016). According to Berry (1997), individuals’ acculturation orientations involve two dimensions: the desire to maintain one’s heritage culture (desire for culture maintenance) and the desire to interact and participate in the host culture (desire for contact). Based on the combination of these two dimensions, Berry proposed four acculturation orientations: assimilation, separation, integration and marginalisation (Berry et al., 1989). Integration refers to one’s desire for

Acculturation of Syrian Refugees

129

both culture maintenance and contact with the host society; assimilation refers to one’s preference not to maintain the heritage culture while seeking contact with host society members; separation refers to the desire to maintain the heritage culture and not to seek intercultural contact; marginalisation refers to a low desire for culture maintenance and intercultural contact. Berry argued that the integration orientation was related to the best outcomes in terms of psychological and sociocultural adaptation (i.e., the integration hypothesis; Berry, 2005). Psychological and sociocultural adaptation are two dimensions of cross-cultural adaptation proposed by Ward and colleagues (2001). Psychological adaptation refers to overall well-being within the host culture and is usually operationalised as positive mental health, emotions and higher life satisfaction among minority group members. Sociocultural adaptation refers to one’s ability to participate, function and interact with others within the mainstream culture; as such, it is related to culture-specific behavioral skills gained in the host society in a culture learning process (Ward et al., 2001). Berry’s integration hypothesis has received a good deal of empirical support. Some meta-analytical studies examining the most adaptive acculturation orientation for immigrants suggested that integration was indeed associated with better psychological and social adaptation than assimilation and separation orientations (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013; Yoon et al., 2013). However, more recent meta-analyses pointed to moderated rather than main effects of integration, indicating the importance of acculturation context (Bierwiaczonek & Kunst, 2021; Yoon et al., 2020). Specifically, main effects of integration, both cross-sectional and longitudinal, seem to be small to very small in size and highly heterogenous (Bierwiaczonek & Kunst, 2021), which points to a crucial role of contextual moderators such as political climate (Yoon et al., 2020). For example, democratic U.S. states seem to be a more favourable context for integration than republican states, and northern regions seem to be a more favourable context for integration than southern regions (Yoon et al., 2020). Importantly, research shows that acculturation orientations are differently related to psychological and sociocultural adaptation (Ward, 2013). A study conducted in 13 different countries investigating the relations between acculturation orientations and adaptation of immigrant youth coming from 26 different cultural backgrounds showed that separation was associated with better psychological adaptation than assimilation, indicating the important role of culture maintenance for psychological adaptation relative to the desire for contact (Berry et al., 2006). Results also showed that the desire for culture maintenance impacted psychological adaptation but not sociocultural adaptation, suggesting that the orientation towards culture maintenance may be more important for psychological adaptation than for sociocultural adaptation. Recent studies conducted with immigrant youth in Germany showed similar findings, with sociocultural adaptation being more strongly related to the orientation towards mainstream culture adoption than towards ethnic culture maintenance (Schachner et al., 2016, 2018). However, most research focusing on the link between acculturation orientations and adaptation, specifically on the positive impact of integration on psychological

130

İmge Terzi et al.

adaptation, was conducted with immigrants, not refugees. A core difference between immigrants and refugees is the voluntary vs. involuntary/forced nature of migration motives. Refugees, differently than immigrants, are forced to resettle to escapate from violence and human rights violations they face in their home countries. Although this difference has been acknowledged in the literature (e.g., Allen et al., 2006), as well as the key role of trauma and coping in refugees’ adaptation, studies rarely account for the potential impact that different migration motives may have on acculturation and adaptation (Echterhoff et al., 2020). Only recently, research has started to pay more attention to the impact of the forcedness of migration on several psychological responses (e.g., loss of control, suffering) on refugees’ integration (see the psychological antecedents of refugee integration (PARI) model, Echterhoff et al., 2020). Given these crucial differences between the two groups, findings from research on the link between acculturation and adaptation among migrants may not apply to refugees, and this link needs to be studied among refugees themselves. So far, studies among refugees are rare and report mixed results. One recent study showed that the combination of both mainstream orientation and heritage culture orientation (i.e., integration) was the preferred orientation among Syrian refugees living in Germany and it was positively associated with better mental health and sociocultural adjustment (El Khoury, 2019). In contrast, one study conducted with Syrian refugees in Germany showed that the orientation towards the German mainstream society but not towards the Syrian heritage culture (i.e., assimilation) predicted refugees’ psychological well-being better than integration (Green et al., 2019). Further, a qualitative study with Syrian university students in Turkey showed that most participants preferred integration as their acculturation orientation, whereas those who had spent less time in the host country preferred separation (Safak-Ayvazoglu & Kunuroglu, 2019). Finally, a study conducted with Syrian refugees in different cities in Turkey revealed a generally negative picture of their adaptation. Refugees showed relatively low positive affect and satisfaction with their life, as well as poor sociocultural adjustment regarding their interactions with host citizens. Negative attitudes and discrimination, as well as economic concerns and length of stay were the key explanatory factors for the reported low adjustment (Şafak-Ayvazoğlu et al., 2021). Overall, current findings regarding Syrian refugees’ acculturation orientations and adaptation are mixed, were conducted in different national contexts (e.g., Germany, Turkey) and not much is known whether these differences result from a possible discordance between immigrants’ adaptation orientations versus host society’s adaptation orientations. Indeed, in line with recent meta-analytical findings pointing to the importance of adaptation context (Bierwiaczonek & Kunst, 2021; Yoon et al., 2020), several lines of research call for a mutual approach in acculturation, considering not only immigrants’ acculturation orientations but also the host society’s perspective and the potential mismatch between the two (e.g., Bourhis et al., 1997; Piontkowski et al., 2002). Therefore, the current research builds on the mutuality approach to acculturation to examine the adaptation of Syrian refugees in Turkey.

Acculturation of Syrian Refugees

131

Mutuality in Acculturation: The Concordance Model of Acculturation According to this mutuality approach to acculturation, the outcomes of the acculturation process (e.g., adaptation, intergroup relations) are better predicted by the concordance/discordance of acculturation orientations of both majority and minority groups (Bourhis et al., 1997; Piontkowski et al., 2002; see Horenczyk et al., 2013 for a review). For instance, according to Bourhis et al. (1997), the host society’s preferences regarding how they want to deal with immigrants and their acculturation play an essential role in intergroup relations. The interactive acculturation model (IAM; Bourhis et al., 1997) proposed that the relationship between minority and host society members’ acculturation orientations can be divided into three main categories: consensual (full agreement), problematic (partial agreement) and conflicting (disagreement). Similarly, the concordance model of acculturation (CMA; Piontkowski et al., 2002) highlights the importance of considering the concordance/discordance between host society and immigrants’ acculturation orientations. The current study builds on mutuality in acculturation framework. More specifically on the CMA (Piontkowski et al., 2002), examining not only how acculturation orientations of Syrian refugees in Turkey, but also their meta perceptions of acculturation orientations of the Turkish society, and the concordance/discordance between them are related to perceived identity threat (i.e., discrimination) and their psychological and sociocultural adaptation. The CMA (Piontkowski et al., 2002) integrates Berry’s acculturation model and the IAM (Bourhis et al., 1997) to examine the dynamics between acculturation orientations and expectations of the host society and the minority groups. Generally, CMA proposed “a model of acculturation that is based on the assumption that the perception of threat as an important predictor of intergroup conflict is not only correlated to specific attitudes but also depends on discrepancies in the attitudes of dominant and non-dominant group members” (Piontkowski et al., 2002, p. 222). Unlike IAM, this approach specifically focuses on the role of perceived (not actual) acculturation orientations, suggesting that the meta-perception of the outgroup members’ acculturation preferences is an important factor that predicts one’s own acculturation orientations. Different from IAM, CMA focused on Berry’s original two dimensions of acculturation and explains the discrepancies between own and meta-perceived acculturation orientations in both the culture maintenance and contact dimensions. According to CMA, four different outcomes can occur as a result of the match/mismatch between one’s own and perceived acculturation orientations: consensual, contact-problematic, cultureproblematic and conflictual. Consensual refers to a concordance between own and perceived orientations on both acculturation dimensions. Discordance can occur due to a mismatch between own and perceived orientations regarding culture maintenance (culture-problematic) or desire for contact (contactproblematic). Finally, conflictual outcomes occur when there is a mismatch on both acculturation dimensions.

132

İmge Terzi et al.

Another important feature of CMA, different from IAM, is the proposal that perceived threat is a key component of the model. Specifically, CMA argues that a mismatch between own acculturation and meta-perceptions of the outgroup’s acculturation orientations results in intergroup threat. Indeed, research conducted with majority host society members (Germans) and immigrants (Turkish and Italian) showed that discordance regarding both culture maintenance and contact predicted different forms of intergroup threat (e.g., realistic threat, symbolic threat and intergroup anxiety) for both majority and minority groups. However, discordance regarding culture maintenance was a stronger predictor of threat than contact discordance (Rohmann et al., 2006). Similarly, research conducted with majority host society members in Germany showed that discordance of acculturation leads to higher perceived intergroup threat than concordance of acculturation (Rohmann et al., 2008). Consistent with these findings, recent research conducted with Russian host society members showed that the higher the level of mismatch of acculturation orientations, the less positive attitudes (e.g., higher discrimination and lower intentions to engage in contact) they held towards immigrants (Grigoryev et al., 2018). Overall, studies on the CMA were mostly developed around the perspective of the majority group and how the majority’s acculturation attitudes are shaped by acculturation discordance/concordance (Phelps et al., 2013; Piontkowski et al., 2002; Zagefka et al., 2007). Most studies showed that concordance of acculturation preferences generates better outcomes in terms of intergroup relations and discordance is associated with higher levels of perceived threat (Piontkowski et al., 2002; Rohmann et al., 2008). For instance, Matera et al. (2015), experimentally investigated how acculturation concordance influenced host society’s attitudes towards immigrants. Results showed that especially concordance of desire for contact played an important role in determining the host society’s attitudes towards immigrants and triggered the most favourable attitudes. In line with these results, other studies also found that host society members show more positive attitudes towards immigrants when they perceive concordance regarding the desire for contact dimension (Celeste et al., 2014; Kosic et al., 2005). However, there is limited research focusing on the concordance/discordance of minorities’ perceptions regarding their own and the host society’s acculturation orientations, and even less focusing on the potential impact of concordance/discordance on their adaptation. Zagefka et al. (2011) examined how minorities’ perceptions of host society’s acculturation orientations affect their own acculturation orientations. The findings showed that minorities’ perception that the host society desires both culture maintenance and contact (i.e., integration) was associated with minority group members’ own preference for integration.

Perceived Identity Threat According to social identity theory, it is important for people to maintain a positive social identity as much as having a positive personal identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Much like one’s personal identity can be threatened by unfavourable social

Acculturation of Syrian Refugees

133

comparisons, one’s social identity can be threatened when one’s ingroup is devalued. Since experiencing discrimination causes devaluation of one’s social identity, it threatens minority groups’ identity (Branscombe et al., 1999). Several studies have used perceived discrimination as an indicator of identity threat in various intergroup settings (Baysu et al., 2011; Fleischmann et al., 2019). Research conducted with Turkish Belgian young adults showed that dual identifiers (both high ethnic and national identification) were more likely to disengage from school when they reported high levels of perceived identity threat (i.e., discrimination, Baysu et al., 2011). Recently, longitudinal findings further supported the detrimental impact of perceived discrimination on minority youth’s identification with the national group (Fleischmann et al., 2019). Building on these findings, we used perceived discrimination as an indicator of perceived identity threat in the current research. We defined perceived discrimination as the perception that one has received differential or negative treatment due to being a member of a group considered to be undesirable in society (Bourguignon et al., 2006). Perceived discrimination’s detrimental impact on minorities’ well-being and adaptation has robust meta-analytical evidence (Wilson et al., 2013). The relation between acculturation and perceived discrimination has received attention in acculturation research (e.g., Verkuyten & Thijs, 2002; Ward et al., 2001). However, while some studies focused on perceived discrimination as an antecedent of acculturation orientations (e.g., Vedder et al., 2006), others frame it as an outcome of the acculturation process (Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2003) or, as a moderator variable (Berry & Sam, 1997). For example, in line with the Rejection Identification Model (Branscombe et al., 1999) and the Rejection-Disidentification Model (Jasinskaja‐Lahti et al., 2009), perceived discrimination may predict acculturation orientations. That is, it may lead immigrants to strengthen identification with their own ethnic/cultural group, moving away from the group that rejected them (host society) and ultimately affect their psychological and sociocultural adaptation negatively (Al-Issa, 1997). Consistent with this proposal, in a large-scale study among immigrant youth from 13 different nationalities, Vedder et al. (2006) found that perceived discrimination negatively affected psychological and sociocultural adaptation. However, most research linking perceived discrimination and acculturation was conducted with immigrants, and there is limited evidence among refugees. Yet, recent theoretical developments (PARI, Echterhoff et al., 2020) emphasise that the forcedness of migration is a key factor among refugees, creating drastically different psychological conditions for refugee integration than those encountered among immigrants. Therefore, it is important to be mindful that these differences between immigrants and refugees might influence the interplay between perceived discrimination and acculturation. The scarce research conducted with refugees suggests that perceived discrimination and acculturation orientations are also relevant to explain their adaption to the host society. For example, research conducted with Iranian refugees showed that perceived discrimination was associated with increased orientation towards the ethnic group and was also detrimental for both sociocultural and psychological

134

İmge Terzi et al.

adaptation (Te Lindert et al., 2008). Qualitative research conducted with refugees in the United Kingdom showed a similar pattern, revealing the detrimental consequences of discrimination for refugee’s marginalisation and psychological stress (Phillimore, 2011). In line with these findings, a recent study conducted with Syrian refugees in Turkey showed that perceived discrimination was negatively related to their psychological well-being (Bagci & Canpolat, 2020). Thus, perceived discrimination, as a source of identity threat, seems to be detrimental for refugees’ adaptation, and in some cases, to impact their acculturation orientations.

Present Research Despite the strong evidence supporting the key role that discrimination and acculturation orientations play in predicting immigrants’ well-being, there is scarce research on the impact of these social-psychological variables on well-being among Syrian refugees in Turkey (see Bagci et al., 2020 for an exception). The current research aimed to extend previous research, focusing on both psychological adaptation (i.e., specifically on life satisfaction, a cognitive component of subjective well-being focusing on one’s general sense of satisfaction with life as a whole; Pavot & Diener, 2009) and sociocultural adaptation of Syrian refugees living in Turkey. Besides considering the role of refugees’ own acculturation orientations towards culture maintenance and contact with the Turkish society, we also aim to extend previous research by examining the impact of (dis)concordance of own acculturation and meta perceived acculturation orientations from the Turkish host society. Based on the CMA (Piontkowski et al., 2002), we explored if perceived discordance of acculturation and identity threat (i.e., perceived discrimination) were related to refugees’ psychological and sociocultural adaptation.

Hypotheses Specifically, based on previous findings, we proposed that Syrian refugees’ desire for culture maintenance is positively related to their psychological adaptation (H1a), whereas the desire for contact is positively related to their sociocultural adaptation (H1b). Perceived discrimination is negatively associated with both psychological and sociocultural adaptation (H2). Finally, perceived discordance of acculturation orientations is negatively related to both psychological and sociocultural adaptation (H3a) and positively related to perceived discrimination (H3b).

Method Participants and Procedure One hundred twelve participants took part in the study. Three incomplete questionnaires (> 75% blank) were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 109 participants. All participants were Syrian refugees living in Turkey; 51 were males (47.2%), 56 females (51.9%) and two did not indicate their sex.

Acculturation of Syrian Refugees

135

The mean age of the participants was 32.62 years (SD = 10.5, range: 18-61). The mean length of their residence in Turkey was 3.94 years (SD = 2.06). Regarding the educational level, 35.6% had less than a high school diploma, 27.9% had a high school degree, 28.8% had a Bachelor’s degree and 7.7% had a Master’s degree. Most of the participants were unemployed (53.4%), 30.1% were employed, 11.7% were students and the remaining indicated “other” (4.9%). Participants represent a vulnerable population (refugees, minority group), thus following APA recommendations, all materials were carefully reviewed and approved by the ethics committee at the host institution of the first and second authors. The main criterion for selecting participants was being an adult Syrian refugee living in Turkey. We reached the participants through four different non-governmental organisations working with refugees in Ankara. All organisations were informed about the goals of the project and agreed to participate. Prior to data collection, we informed the participants about the goals of the study and its voluntary, anonymous and confidential character and they provided their informed consent to participate. We obtained all data with paperpencil questionnaires. Participants did not receive any compensation or reward for their participation. The questionnaire and informed consent were presented in Arabic. The original measures were in English, and the Arabic versions were prepared using the translation/back-translation method. The questionnaire included different sets of scales assessing the main variables of interest and socio-demographic questions. The order of presentation was the following: demographics, own and perceived acculturation orientations, perceived identity threat, sociocultural and psychological adaptation. Socio-demographics Participants answered questions regarding their age, country of origin, sex, education level, current employment status and residence status. Own and Perceived Acculturation Orientations Participants’ own and perceived acculturation attitudes towards culture maintenance and desire for contact were assessed with 10 items adapted from Zagefka and Brown (2002). Participants were asked to express their agreement on 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 7 (totally agree). Own culture maintenance orientation (CM) was assessed with three items (Cronbach’s α = .73, e.g. “I think it is important that Syrians in Turkey maintain their culture”.) Own desire for contact (DC) was assessed with two items (r = .69, p < 0.01, e.g. “I think it is important that Syrians have Turkish friends”). We computed two mean indexes: one for the CM and one for the DC, where higher values mean stronger desire towards the acculturation dimension. Perceived CM was assessed with three items (Cronbach’s α = .73, e.g. “Turks think that Syrians should have the possibility to maintain their own way of living”.). Perceived DC was assessed with two items (r = .77, p < 0.01, e.g. “I believe the Turks think it is important that Syrians have Turkish friends”.).

136

İmge Terzi et al.

We computed two mean indexes, one for perceived CM and one for perceived DC, where higher values mean stronger agreement with the perceived orientation towards both acculturation dimensions. Also, we computed the indexes for discordance of both acculturation dimensions (CM and DC) by subtracting the perceived orientation score from their own orientation score, where values higher than “0” indicate higher levels of discordance. Perceived Discrimination Perceived discrimination was assessed with a scale assessing both perceived personal and group discrimination (Bourguignon et al., 2006). Participants indicated their agreement with seven statements on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not agree at all) to 7 (totally agree). One item (“As a Syrian, I have rarely felt personally discriminated against”) was dropped due to low correlation with other items. An index score was calculated by averaging the remaining six items, with higher scores indicating a higher level of perceived discrimination (Cronbach’s α = .78, sample items are “I have personally met with difficulties because I am Syrian” and “I think that Syrians are undervalued in Turkish society”)1. Sociocultural Adaptation An 11-item version (Cronbach’s α = .89) of the original sociocultural adaptation scale was used to measure the cognitive and behavioural ability of the participants to “fit in” to the host culture (SCAS; Wilson et al., 2017; sample item “Building and maintaining relationships”.). All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = “not at all competent” to 7 = “extremely competent”). We computed a mean index where higher values indicate higher levels of sociocultural adaptation. Psychological Adaptation To measure psychological adaptation, we used the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985, sample item “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal”, Cronbach’s α = .79), a five-item scale (measuring global life satisfaction based on participants’ cognitive self-evaluation. Participants were asked to rate their responses on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater life satisfaction.

Results Zero-order correlations, means, and standard deviations are presented in Table 7.1. Overall, mean levels were above the scale midpoint, suggesting that participants revealed moderate/high endorsement of own and perceived CM, own and perceived DC, perceived discrimination and sociocultural and psychological adaptation. Overall, own CM was negatively related with

Own CM Own DC Perceived CM Perceived DC Perceived discrimination Sociocultural adaptation Psychological adaptation Discordance of CM Discordance of DC Age Education Sex ***

3

.150 −.036 −.215 * .307 ** .065 .244 * −.107

−.211 *

.421 ** .006 .335 ** −.393 ** .036

CM = Culture maintenance, DC = Desire for contact.

−.668 ** −.232 * .019 −.260 ** −.223 *

.031

.080

.196 * – .309 ** .353 ** −.027 .039

–

2

−.154

– −.011 .394 ** −.022 .178

1

Notes ** p < .001. * p < .05. *** Dummy-coded: 0 = female; 1 = male.

8 9 10 11 12

7

6

1 2 3 4 5

Variable

−.366 ** −.810 ** .024 .039 −.180

.248 *

.265 **

– −.259 **

4

.099 .239 * .045 .001 .042

−.248 *

−.147

–

5

7

−.198 * −.259 ** −.083 .121 .099

.406 ** – −.202 * −.170 −.240 * .246 * −.065

–

6

9

.235 * – .243 * −.001 −.065 .119 .256 ** .095

–

8

– −.095 .137

10

– .013

11

1.30 1.46 32.62 2.08 .47

3.25

4.79

5.84 6.20 4.53 4.76 4.70

M

Table 7.1 Pearson Correlations, Means and Standard Deviations for Perceived Discrimination, Adaptation Variables, Socio-demographic Variables and Acculturation Orientations

1.52 1.79 10.51 .97 .50

1.38

1.22

1.23 1.12 1.50 1.79 1.33

SD

Acculturation of Syrian Refugees 137

138

İmge Terzi et al.

psychological adaptation, such that the more participants favoured maintaining their heritage culture, the lower were their levels of psychological adaptation. However, perceived CM was unrelated to psychological adaptation. Own DC was unrelated to psychological adaptation, whereas perceived DC was positively related to psychological adaptation. Perceived discrimination, perceived discordance of CM and perceived discordance of DC were negatively related to psychological adaptation. Perceived discordance of DC was positively related to perceived discrimination, however perceived discordance of CM was not. Neither own DC nor own CM was related to sociocultural adaptation. Perceived CM was unrelated to sociocultural adaptation, but perceived DC was positively related to sociocultural adaptation. Discordance of CM was negatively related with sociocultural adaptation while discordance of DC was not significantly associated with sociocultural adaptation. Perceived discrimination was not significantly related to sociocultural adaptation. Finally, we also found several significant correlations with socio-demographic. Specifically, the age of the participants was positively related to own desire for CM and discordance of CM but negatively associated with sociocultural adaptation. Participants’ education level showed a positive association with own DC and sociocultural adaptation, and a negative association with own CM and perceived CM. Predicting Psychological and Sociocultural Adaptation: Own and Perceived Acculturation Orientations and Perceived Discrimination We conducted hierarchical multiple regression analyses to examine the relative contribution of own CM, own DC, perceived CM, perceived DC and perceived discrimination in predicting Syrian refugees’ psychological adaptation (Model 1) and sociocultural adaptation (Model 2, additionally including sociodemographic controls). Model 1 coefficients are presented in Table 7.2. In Step 1, including own acculturation orientations only, the overall model did not explain a significant amount of variance in psychological adaptation (R2 = .046, F(2,102) = 2.457, p = .091); still, own CM was negatively related to psychological adaptation. In Step 2, perceived CM and perceived DC orientations were added, which significantly increased the explained variance (12%, R2 = .120, F(4,100) = 3.399, p = .012; ⊗R2= .074, p = .018). Regression coefficients indicated that this increase was driven by the positive effect of perceived DC. In Step 3, perceived discrimination was added, which slightly improved explained variance (R2 = .143, F(5,99) = 3.301, p = .008; ⊗R2= .023, p = .105) even though this variable was not significantly related to psychological adaptation. Contrary to the hypothesised (H1a), own CM showed a negative effect on psychological adaptation at the limit of the conventional threshold for statistical significance (p = .052). In contrast to that, the positive association of perceived DC with psychological adaptation remained significant. Finally, contrary to the predicted (H2), perceived discrimination did not significantly predict psychological adaptation. Model 2 coefficients are presented in Table 7.3. In this model, two demographic variables (education and age) that significantly correlated with sociocultural

Acculturation of Syrian Refugees

139

Table 7.2 Model 1. Hierarchical Regression Coefficients for Variables Predicting Psychological Adaptation Step

Variables

B

SE

1

(Constant) Own CM Own DC (Constant) Own CM Own DC Perceived CM Perceived DC (Constant) Own CM Own DC Perceived CM Perceived DC Perceived discrimination

4.932 −.238 −.047 4.549 −.255 −.160 .048 .204 5.249 −.230 −.150 .060 .166 −.168

.988 .109 .119 .970 .117 .122 .103 .081 1.053 .117 .121 .102 .084 .102

2

3

β −.211 −.038 −.227 −.131 .053 .264 −.205 −.122 .065 .216 −.161

t

p

4.993 −2.185 −.398 4.689 −2.183 −1.316 .471 2.508 4.986 −1.965 −1.240 .589 1.988 −1.638

.000 .031 .692 .000 .031 .191 .639 .014 .000 .052 .218 .557 .049 .105

Note. CM = Culture maintenance, DC = Desire for contact.

Table 7.3 Model 2. Hierarchical Regression Coefficients for Variables Predicting Sociocultural Adaptation Step

Variables

B

SE

1

(Constant) Age Education (Constant) Age Education Own CM Own DC (Constant) Age Education Own CM Own DC Perceived CM Perceived DC (Constant) Age Education Own CM Own DC Perceived CM Perceived DC Perceived discrimination

5.035 −.025 .281 4.358 −.027 .244 .001 .126 3.976 −.026 .274 −.009 .030 .046 .158 4.277 −.026 .285 .005 .032 .053 .141 −.079

.482 .011 .122 .954 .012 .137 .111 .109 .943 .012 .136 .117 .114 .094 .073 1.009 .012 .137 .118 .114 .095 .076 .092

2

3

4

Note. CM = Culture maintenance, DC = Desire for contact.

β −.219 .225 −.230 .196 .001 .117 −.225 .219 −.009 .027 .057 .233 −.225 .228 .005 .030 .066 .207 −.086

t

p

10.457 −2.250 2.308 4.570 −2.221 1.786 .013 1.158 4.216 −2.196 2.014 −.079 .261 .492 2.179 4.240 −2.191 2.081 .045 .280 .563 1.860 −.850

.000 .027 .023 .000 .029 .077 .990 .250 .000 .031 .047 .937 .795 .624 .032 .000 .031 .040 .964 .780 .575 .066 .398

140

İmge Terzi et al.

adaptation were included in Step 1, explaining 10,8% of the variance (R2 = .108, F(2,95) = 5.742, p = .004). Specifically, being older was related to lower levels of sociocultural adaptation and having higher education level was related to higher levels of sociocultural adaptation. In Step 2, adding acculturation orientations did not significantly increase the explained variance (12%, R2 = .121, F(4,93) = 3.189, p = .017; ⊗R2(2,93) = .013, p = .512), and the positive effect of education became non-significant. In Step 3, adding perceived acculturation orientations significantly increased the explained variance (18%, R2 = .180, F(6,91) = 3.326, p = .005; ⊗R2(2,91) = .059, p = .042), and age, education and perceived DC significantly predicted sociocultural adaptation. In Step 4, perceived discrimination was included and the seven predictors together explained 18.6% of the variance (R2 = .186, F(7,90) = 2.945, p = .008; ⊗R2(1,90)= .007, p = .398) but only age and education significantly predicted adaptation, whereas perceived DC became non-significant. Overall, contrary to hypothesised, nor own DC (H1b), nor perceived discrimination predicted sociocultural adaptation (H2b). Predicting Psychological and Sociocultural Adaptation: Perceived Discordance of Acculturation Finally, the relative impact of perceived discordance of CM and perceived discordance of DC was examined in two linear regressions with psychological adaptation (Model 3) and sociocultural adaptation (Model 4) as outcomes. In Model 3 (see Table 7.4), the two variables explained a significant amount of variance in psychological adaptation (R2 = .087, F(2,102) = 4.864, p = .010). Regression coefficients indicated that this effect was driven by the perceived discordance of DC. That is, the more discordance between participants’ own DC and their perception of how much the host society wants them to have contact, the lower the score on psychological adaptation. In Model 4, neither perceived discordance of CM nor perceived discordance of DC significantly predicted sociocultural adaptation (see Table 7.5).

Table 7.4 Model 3. Perceived Acculturation Orientations Predicting Psychological Adaptation Variables

B

SE

β

t

p

(Constant) Perceived discordance of CM Perceived discordance of DC

3.677 .132 .174

.191 .088 .075

.145 .225

19.262 1.490 2.314

.000 .139 .023

Note. CM = Culture maintenance, DC = Desire for contact.

Acculturation of Syrian Refugees

141

Table 7.5 Model 4. Perceived Acculturation Orientations Predicting Sociocultural Adaptation Variables

B

SE

β

t

p

(Constant) Perceived discordance of CM Perceived discordance of DC

5.099 .137 .088

.173 .080 .068

.171 .130

29.554 1.714 1.299

.000 .090 .197

Note. CM = Culture maintenance, DC = Desire for contact.

Discussion The present chapter examined the psychological and sociocultural adaptation of Syrian refugees living in Turkey. Relying on the interactionist approach to acculturation, specifically on the proposals of the CMA (Piontkowski et al., 2002), we extended previous research by examining the role of refugees’ own acculturation orientations, meta perceived acculturation orientations from the Turkish host society, perceived (dis)concordance and perceived discrimination in predicting psychological and sociocultural adaptation. Although the zero-order correlations showed some initial support for the hypotheses, suggesting that refugees’ own and perceived acculturation orientations, as well as discordance, were associated with their adaptation outcomes, most of these effects disappeared in the regression analyses. Partially in line with the hypotheses, perceived discordance of desire for contact was negatively related to psychological adaptation. Similarly, the discordance of desire for culture maintenance was negatively associated with sociocultural adaptation, but this effect became non-significant in the regression model. Also, partially in line with the hypothesis, perceived discrimination was positively correlated with the discordance of desire for contact; however, it was not significantly correlated with discordance of culture maintenance. Overall, these findings are in line with the proposal of the CMA (Piontkowski et al., 2002) that more than own acculturation orientations, it is the perceived orientations of the mainstream society, as well as the (dis)concordance between own and perceived orientations that impact intergroup relations. Our findings are also consistent with previous research showing the detrimental impact of discordance of acculturation among majority host groups (e.g., Grigoryev et al., 2018; Rohmann et al., 2006, 2008), and extend them by showing the detrimental impact of discordance on adaptation, specifically among a minority group. This is the most consistent finding in the current study and it extends the current knowledge on interactionist approaches to acculturation to an under-researched group, the refugees, since most studies on the CMA were conducted with majority groups. Regarding own and perceived acculturation orientations, for psychological adaptation, the only effects that remained significant were the unpredicted negative association of desire for culture maintenance and the positive association of perceived desire for contact. Contrary to previous research results (e.g., Berry et al., 2006), the more Syrian refugees in our sample favoured culture

142

İmge Terzi et al.

maintenance, the lower was their psychological adaptation, that is, the lower their general life satisfaction. This finding also contradicts findings from recent research which shows that Syrian refugees’ desire for culture maintenance is positively associated with life satisfaction and functional well-being (Bagci & Canpolat, 2020). One particular reason for the discrepancy might be the local context. Specifically, in Bagci and Canpolat’s study, refugees were recruited from Şanlıurfa, where they represented 22% of the overall city population, constituting one of the Turkish provinces with the highest number of refugees. In the current research participants were recruited in Ankara, where they represent a lower % of the city population (around 2%). The familiarity with Syrians and the Syrian culture might have been higher in Şanlıurfa, given its geographical proximity with the TurkishSyrian border. Also, although no specific information is provided in the study of Bagci and Canpolat (2020), the samples of the two studies may have differed regarding the refugees’ length of stay in Turkey. In the current research, the average length of stay in Turkey was approximately four years. One could speculate that longer exposure to the host community makes refugees more vulnerable to experience exclusion and discrimination from the host society and ultimately impact the protective role of identifying with their heritage culture. Future studies could aim to replicate our findings, specifically comparing diverse samples regarding the length of residence, keeping all other factors constant and comparing diverse geographical locations, controlling for length of stay. Extending the current literature on refugees’ psychological adaptation, our findings showed the important positive role of perceived desire for refugees’ life satisfaction. Specifically, the more they felt that the host society members are willing to contact them, the more they were satisfied with their lives. Regarding sociocultural adaptation, contrary to the expected, our results did not reveal any significant association between one’s own desire for contact and refugees’ sociocultural adaptation. This finding is not consistent with previous research suggesting that contact with the host society is a key factor for immigrants’ cultural learning and, accordingly, for their sociocultural adaptation (Masgoret & Ward, 2012; Ward et al., 2001). In line with this, recent research conducted with Syrian refugees in Turkey showed the beneficial impact of positive vs. the detrimental impact of negative contact with the Turkish host society. Whereas positive contact with Turks was associated with less perceived discrimination, higher identification with the host society and higher life satisfaction, negative contact was related to higher perceived discrimination, lower identification and lower life satisfaction (Ozkan et al., 2021). Besides direct contact, positive extended contact with Turks has also been associated with Syrian refugees lower return migration intentions (see Bagci et al., Chapter 13 for a review). Also, previous research conducted with immigrant youth showed that a mainstream orientation was positively related to sociocultural adaptation (Schachner et al., 2016, 2018). However, this research did not focus on immigrants’ desire for contact but rather on culture adoption (orientation towards the mainstream culture). Research assessing different dimensions of acculturation (desire for contact, as

Acculturation of Syrian Refugees

143

proposed by Berry, or culture adoption, as proposed by Bourhis et al., 1997) result in different acculturation preferences (Berry & Sabatier, 2011; Ward & Kus, 2012). For example, minority groups in Belgium preferred an integration strategy when acculturation was assessed using Berry’s original proposal of culture maintenance and contact, but favoured separation when acculturation was assessed with culture maintenance and adoption dimensions (Snauwaert et al., 2003). A review study concludes that research using the culture maintenance–contact measures reports a higher proportion of participants favouring integration than research using the culture maintenance-adoption measures (Ward & Kus, 2012). Thus, future studies could further explore if different acculturation dimensions of desire for contact and desire for culture adoption are differently related to Syrian refugees’ sociocultural adaptation. Importantly, the finding we discuss above can also be possibly explained by the unique characteristics of the current sample (adult Syrian refugees). Previous research linking acculturation dimensions and adaptation have mainly focused on immigrant youth. Since “Unlike refugees, who are forcibly ‘pushed’ into an alien environment, migrants are ‘pulled’ towards a new country in pursuit of personal, familial, social, financial and political goals” (Ward et al., 2001, p. 192), differences regarding the acculturation outcomes might be explained by the different characteristics of the immigrants and refugees. Indeed, research comparing refuges and migrants mental health, sense of belonging and discrimination experiences in Canada showed that the two groups differ. Refugees revealed lower mental health than migrants, and perceived discrimination and sense of belongingness to the origin country were more detrimental for their mental health than for migrants’ mental health (Beiser & Hou, 2017). Similar to the findings regarding psychological adaptation, perceived desire for contact positively predicted sociocultural adaptation, but this effect became non-significant once other variables were included in the regression model. On the other hand, contrary to the findings of Wilson et al. (2017), age was a significant predictor of refugees’ sociocultural adaptation. That is, the older the participants were, the lower the reported levels of sociocultural adaptation. Although previous findings regarding the association of adaptation and age are generally inconsistent, one hypothesis is that that culture learning is more difficult for older people who have less resources to deal with cultural transition (Ward et al., 2001). With age, cultural patterns may become less flexible and adaptability may decrease, making it harder for older participants to acquire new cultural patterns; this could explain why older participants in our sample showed poorer socio-cultural adaptation. Thus, overall, refugees’ own acculturation orientations were not associated with their adaptation, whereas refugees’ perceptions of the acculturation orientations of the Turkish society, especially regarding desire for contact, emerged as an important predictor. Future research could replicate this finding with a larger sample, and further explore the differential impact of perceived acculturation orientations vs. own acculturation orientations among refugees. Contrary to the predicted, refugees’ perceptions of discrimination were not associated with their sociocultural adaptation. Overall, the detrimental impact

144

İmge Terzi et al.

of discrimination among Syrian refugees was found only for their psychological adaptation and this effect became non-significant in the regression analysis. The lack of association between perceived discrimination and adaptation is not in line with previous research (cf., Wilson et al., 2013), including a recent study showing the negative correlation between perceived individual discrimination and the sociocultural adaptation of Syrian refugees living in Turkey (Kunuroglu & Tok, 2020). The relatively small sample size of our study might explain the lack of a significant relation between perceived discrimination and adaptation. However, correlation results revealed a different noteworthy relationship: refugees’ perceived desire for contact was negatively associated with perceived discrimination. That is, the more Syrian refugees perceived that Turkish society members are willing to have contact with them, the less they perceived discrimination. It could be, therefore, that the variance shared by perceived desire for contact and perceived discrimination was why the effects of perceived discrimination were not present in the regression; the perception of whether the mainstream society is willing to have contact with refugees could simply be more relevant for our participant’s adaptation. This suggests that, as proposed by the CMA, perceptions of host society’s acculturation preferences are an important factor when examining acculturation conditions and outcomes. Future research could further explore this finding, focusing on the potential protective role of perceived acculturation orientations with a larger sample. Overall, the current findings were consistent with previous research conducted in Turkey, showing that both refugees’ own desire for culture maintenance and perceived discrimination were negatively related to life satisfaction (Bagci & Canpolat, 2020; Safak-Ayvazoglu & Kunuroglu, 2019). Importantly, however, these findings did not replicate previous results for sociocultural adaptation, an aspect that deserves further attention in future research. Extending previous research, refugees’ perceived acculturation orientations from Turkish citizens, particularly perceived desire for contact, emerged as an important positive predictor, especially for psychological adaptation. In sum, our findings supported and extended the scarce research focusing on Syrian refugees living in Turkey, highlighting the important role of perceived acculturation orientations (i.e., perceived discordance), supporting the importance of considering a mutual approach of acculturation when aiming to understand the social-psychological predictors of refugees’ adaptation. One of the main limitations of this study is the small sample size, which is likely the reason why some effects, although otherwise consistent, show p-values close to the conventional threshold of significance. Therefore, future research is needed to replicate our findings in a larger, well powered sample. Another limitation regarding the generalisability of the study is related to participant recruitment method. Participants were reached through organisations that support refugees in Ankara, Turkey. Although all participants were included in the study randomly without any further criteria, the sample of the study consists of Syrian refugees who applied to these organisations as beneficiaries and the Syrian refugees who work as volunteers there. Thus, the positive experiences

Acculturation of Syrian Refugees

145

with the Turkish organisations may have affected their reported discrimination and adaptation. Future research could replicate the findings with a more diverse sample of refugees, specially involving those who may feel less supported by the host society. Finally, this study is cross-sectional, thus not allowing to infer causality between the proposed predictors and Syrian refugees’ adaptation. Considering the current “causality crisis” in acculturation research, it is crucial to use longitudinal designs to draw more solid conclusions on the causal direction of the reported effects (Bierwiaczonek & Kunst, 2021; Kunst, 2021). Considering the high number of Syrian refugees currently living in Turkey, it is imperative to investigate the factors that improve their psychological and sociocultural adaptation, as well as the factors that impede successful adjustment, with the goal of creating solutions for both current and future societal problems. Despite the above-mentioned limitations, the current research has the potential to provide practical implications that can support this goal. Insights into the dynamic nature of refugees’ own and perceived acculturation orientations and their perceived discrimination are important for providing a more comprehensive picture of refugees’ adaptation. Such insights may serve practitioners (e.g., governmental and non-governmental organisations working with refugees) to develop better interventions aiming at facilitating sociocultural and psychological adaptation of refugees, and ultimately fostering their integration in the host society. Specifically, interventions based around shaping positive perceptions of the host society as a welcoming environment may be a fruitful avenue; these, however, may not be reliable if such perceptions are disproved by the social reality. That is, fostering actual welcoming attitudes of the public opinion towards refugees might be a pre-requisite. Overall, this finding points out the importance of developing interventions to strengthen and reinforce positive communication and expectations between refugees and the host society. To conclude the current study extended the scarce research focusing on Syrian refugees living in Turkey, highlighting the key role of perceived acculturation orientations (i.e., perceived discordance), ultimately supporting the importance of considering a mutual approach of acculturation when aiming to understand the social-psychological predictors of refugees’ adaptation.

Note 1 The intergroup anxiety scale (Stephan & Stephan, 1985) was also included for exploratory purposes and it was not included in the reported analyses.

References Acarturk, C., Cetinkaya, M., Senay, I., Gulen, B., Aker, T., & Hinton, D. (2018). Prevalence and predictors of posttraumatic stress and depression symptoms among syrian refugees in a refugee camp. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 206(1), 40–45. Akar, S., & Erdoğdu, M. M. (2019). Syrian Refugees in Turkey and Integration Problem Ahead. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 20(3), 925–940.

146

İmge Terzi et al.

Al-Issa, I. (1997). The psychology of prejudice and discrimination. In I. Al-Issa & M. Tousignant (Eds.), Ethnicity, immigration, and psychopathology (pp. 17–32). Plenum Press. Allen, J., Vaage, A. B., Hauff, E. (2006). Refugees and asylum seekers in societies. In Sam, D. L., Berry, J. W. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 198–217). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Arends-Tóth, J., & Vijver, F. J. R. van de. (2006). Issues in conceptualization and assessment of acculturation. In Acculturation and parent-child relationships: Measurement and development. Bagci, S. C., & Canpolat, E. (2020). Group efficacy as a moderator on the associations between perceived discrimination, acculturation orientations, and psychological wellbeing. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology. Bagci, S. C., Türnüklü, A., & Tercan, M. (2020). Positive intergroup contact decreases the likelihood that prejudicial attitudes become avoidant behavioral tendencies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 597–613. 10.1002/ejsp.2646. Baysu, G., Phalet, K., & Brown, R. (2011). Dual identity as a two-edged sword: Identity threat and minority school performance. Social Psychology Quarterly. Beiser, M., & Hou, F. (2017). Predictors of positive mental health among refugees: Results from Canada’s General Social Survey. Transcultural psychiatry, 54(5–6), 675–695. 10.1177/1363461517724985 Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation Attitudes in Plural Societies. Applied Psychology. Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, J. Pandey, M. H. Segall, & Ç. Kâğıtçıbaşı (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology: Social behavior and applications (pp. 291–326). Allyn & Bacon. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology. Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(6), 697–712. Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied psychology, 55(3), 303–332. Berry, J. W., & Hou, F. (2017). Acculturation, discrimination and wellbeing among second generation of immigrants in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 61, 29–39. Berry, J. W., & Sabatier, C. (2011). Variations in the assessment of acculturation attitudes: Their relationships with psychological wellbeing. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(5), 658–669. Bierwiaczonek, K., & Kunst, J. R. (2021). Revisiting the integration hypothesis: Little meta-analytic evidence for acculturation predicting cross-cultural adaptation. Psychological Science, 32(9), 1476–1493 10.1177/09567976211006432 Bourguignon, D., Seron, E., Yzerbyt, V., & Herman, G. (2006). Perceived group and personal discrimination: Differential effects on personal self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology. Bourhis, R. Y., Moïse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology. Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. Social Identity: Context, Commitment, Content. Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 135–149.

Acculturation of Syrian Refugees

147

Celeste, L., Brown, R., Tip, L. K., & Matera, C. (2014). Acculturation is a two-way street: Majority–minority perspectives of outgroup acculturation preferences and the mediating role of multiculturalism and threat. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 43, 304–320. Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. Echterhoff, G., Hellmann, J. H., Back, M. D., Kärtner, J., Morina, N., & Hertel, G. (2020). Psychological antecedents of refugee integration (PARI). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 856–879. 10.1177/1745691619898838 El Khoury, S. J. (2019). Factors that impact the sociocultural adjustment and well-being of Syrian refugees in Stuttgart – Germany. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 47(1), 65–80. Fleischmann, F., Leszczensky, L., & Pink, S. (2019). Identity threat and identity multiplicity among minority youth: Longitudinal relations of perceived discrimination with ethnic, religious, and national identification in Germany. British Journal of Social Psychology. Grigoryev, D., van de Vijver, F., & Batkhina, A. (2018). Discordance of acculturation attitudes of the host population and their dealing with immigrants. 10.1080/17475759. 2018.1497678 Green, M., King, E., & Fischer, F. (2021). Acculturation, social support and mental health outcomes among Syrian refugees in Germany. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34, 2421–2433. 10.1093/jrs/fez095 Horenczyk, G., Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Sam, D. & Vedder, P., (2013). Mutuality in Acculturation Toward an Integration. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 221, 205. Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., Horenczyk, G., & Schmitz, P. (2003). The interactive nature of acculturation: perceived discrimination, acculturation attitudes and stress among young ethnic repatriates in Finland, Israel and Germany. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(1), 79–97. Jasinskaja‐Lahti, I., Liebkind, K., & Solheim, E. (2009). To Identify or Not To Identify? National Disidentification as an Alternative Reaction to Perceived Ethnic Discrimination. Applied Psychology, 58(1), 105–128. Kaya, E., Kiliç, C., Karadaǧ Çaman, Ö., & Üner, S. (2019). Posttraumatic Stress and Depression among Syrian Refugees Living in Turkey: Findings from an Urban Sample. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 207(12), 995–1000. Kosic, A., Mannetti, L., & Lackland Sam, D. (2005). The role of majority attitudes towards out-group in the perception of the acculturation strategies of immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Kunuroglu, F., & Tok, E. S. (2020). The Impact of Personality and Perceived Discrimination on the Sociocultural Adaptation Processes of Syrian Refugees in Turkey. In H. Uzun (Ed.), Recent Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (1st ed., pp. 79–94). Gece. Kunst, J. R. (2021). Are we facing a “causality crisis” in acculturation research? The need for a methodological (r) evolution. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 10. 1016/j.ijintrel.2021.08.003 Kurt, G., Acar, İ. H., Ilkkursun, Z., Yurtbakan, T., Acar, B., Uygun, E., & Acarturk, C. (2021). Traumatic experiences, acculturation, and psychological distress among Syrian refugees in Turkey: The mediating role of coping strategies. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 81, 214–225. 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.02.001

148

İmge Terzi et al.

Masgoret, A.-M., & Ward, C. (2012). Culture learning approach to acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology (pp. 58–77). Cambridge University Press. Matera, C., Stefanile, C., & Brown, R. (2015). Majority-minority acculturation preferences concordance as an antecedent of attitudes towards immigrants: The mediating role of perceived symbolic threat and metastereotypes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Montgomery, J. R. (1996). Components of refugee adaptation. International Migration Review, 30(3), 679–702. Nguyen, A.-M. D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2013). Biculturalism and Adjustment: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(1), 122–159. Özkan, Z., Ergün, N., & Çakal, H. (2021). Positive versus negative contact and refugees’ intentions to migrate: The mediating role of perceived discrimination, life satisfaction and identification with the host society among Syrian refugees in Turkey. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 31, 438–451. 10.1002/casp.2508 Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2009). Review of the Satisfaction With Life Scale (pp. 101–117). Dordrecht: Springer. Phelps, J. M., Ommundsen, R., Türken, S., & Ulleberg, P. (2013). Intergroup Perception and Proactive Majority Integration Attitudes. Social Psychology, 44(3), 196–207. Phillimore, J. (2011). Refugees, Acculturation Strategies, Stress and Integration. Journal of Social Policy, 40, 575–593. Piontkowski, U., Rohmann, A., & Florack, A. (2002). Concordance of Acculturation Attitudes and Perceived Threat. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5(3), 221–232. Piontkowski, U., Rohmann, A., Florack, A., Piontkowski, U., Rohmann, A., & Florack, A. (2002). Group Processes & Intergroup Relations Concordance of Acculturation Attitudes and Perceived Threat, 5(3), 221–232. Rohmann, A., Florack, A., & Piontkowski, U. (2006). The role of discordant acculturation attitudes in perceived threat: An analysis of host and immigrant attitudes in Germany. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Rohmann, A., Piontkowski, U., & van Randenborgh, A. (2008). When attitudes do not fit: Discordance of acculturation attitudes as an antecedent of intergroup threat. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(3), 337–352. Safak-Ayvazoglu, A., & Kunuroglu, F. (2019). Acculturation Experiences and Psychological Well-Being of Syrian Refugees Attending Universities in Turkey: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. Şafak-Ayvazoğlu, A., Kunuroglu, F., & Yağmur, K. (2021). Psychological and sociocultural adaptation of Syrian refugees in Turkey. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 80, 99–111. Schachner, M. K., Noack, P., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Eckstein, K. (2016). Cultural Diversity Climate and Psychological Adjustment at School—Equality and Inclusion Versus Cultural Pluralism. Child Development, 87(4), 1175–1191. Schachner, M. K., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Noack, P. (2018). Acculturation and School Adjustment of Early-Adolescent Immigrant Boys and Girls in Germany: Conditions in School, Family, and Ethnic Group. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 38(3), 352–384. Snauwaert, B., Soenens, B., Vanbeselaere, N., & Boen, F. (2003). When integration does not necessarily imply integration: Different conceptualizations of acculturation orientations lead to different classifications. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 231–239. 10.1177/0022022102250250

Acculturation of Syrian Refugees

149

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity of intergroup behavior. In Psychology and intergroup relations. Te Lindert, A., Korzilius, H., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Kroon, S., & Arends-Tóth, J. (2008). Perceived discrimination and acculturation among Iranian refugees in the Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(6), 578–588. UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). (2019). Global Trends - Forced Displacement in 2019. In UNHCR Global Trends 2019. https://www.unhcr.org/5ee200e37.pdf UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). (2020). UNHCR Turkey Operational Update April 2020. https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/details/76727 Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Prins, K. S., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Attitudes of minority and majority members towards adaptation of immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(6), 995–1013. Vedder, P., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Liebkind, K. (2006). Predicting Immigrant Youths’ Adaptation Across Countries and Ethnocultural Groups. In J. W. Berry, J. S. Phinney, D. L. Sam, & P. Vedder (Eds.), Immigrant Youth in Cultural Transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national contexts (pp. 143–166). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2002). Multiculturalism among minority and majority adolescents in the Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(1), 91–108. Ward, C. (2013). Probing identity, integration and adaptation: Big questions, little answers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(4), 391–404. Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The Psychology of Culture Shock. Routledge. Ward, C., & Geeraert, N. (2016). Advancing acculturation theory and research: the acculturation process in its ecological context. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 98–104. Ward, C., & Kus, L. (2012). Back to and beyond Berry’s basics: The conceptualization, operationalization and classification of acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(4), 472–485. Wilson, J., Ward, C., Fetvadjiev, V. H., & Bethel, A. (2017). Measuring Cultural Competencies: The Development and Validation of a Revised Measure of Sociocultural Adaptation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Wilson, J., Ward, C., & Fischer, R. (2013). Beyond Culture Learning Theory: What Can Personality Tell Us About Cultural Competence? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Yoon, E., Cabirou, L., Galvin, S., Hill, L., Daskalova, P., Bhang, C., Ahmad Mustaffa, E., Dao, A., Thomas, K., & Baltazar, B. (2020). A Meta-Analysis of Acculturation and Enculturation: Bilinear, Multidimensional, and Context-Dependent Processes. The Counseling Psychologist, 48(3), 342–376. Yoon, E., Chang, C. T., Kim, S., Clawson, A., Cleary, S. E., Hansen, M., Bruner, J. P., Chan, T. K., & Gomes, A. M. (2013). A meta-analysis of acculturation/enculturation and mental health. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(1), 15–30. Zagefka, H., & Brown, R. (2002). The relationship between acculturation strategies, relative fit and intergroup relations: Immigrant-majority relations in Germany. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(2), 171–188. Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Broquard, M., & Leventoglu Martin, S. (2007). Predictors and consequences of negative attitudes toward immigrants in Belgium and Turkey: The role of acculturation preferences and economic competition. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(1), 153–169. Zagefka, H., González, R., & Brown, R. (2011). How minority members’ perceptions of majority members’ acculturation preferences shape minority members’ own acculturation preferences: Evidence from Chile. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(2), 216–233.

8

Acceptance of Syrian Refugees in Turkey: The Roles of Perceived Threat, Intergroup Contact, Perceived Similarity and Temporary Settlement Şenay Yitmen, Maykel Verkuyten, Borja Martinovic, and Murat Erdoğan

There are more than 5.5 million Syrian refugees worldwide and Turkey hosts the highest number of these refugees in the world (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNHCR, 2020). The instability in Syria escalated especially after 2012 (İçduygu, 2015) and the number of Syrians in Turkey increased dramatically (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNHCR, 2020). In the beginning of the Syrian civil war, Turkey adopted an open-door policy in accepting Syrians into the country. In its 10th year the presence of Syrian refugees in Turkey raises many urgent questions, especially regarding Syrians’ future stay in Turkey. It is still unclear whether most Syrian refugees will return to their country or stay in Turkey permanently. According to a recent survey among Syrian refugees (N = 1418), 57.7% want to have both Turkish and Syrian citizenship and 51.8% think that they will not return to Syria. A survey among Turkish citizens (N = 2271) also shows that 48.7% believe that none of the Syrian refugees will return to Syria (Erdogan, 2020). Considering the forced stay of Syrian refugees and the uncertainty about their future presence in Turkey, an important question is whether Turkish people have an ‘open-door’ attitude towards Syrian refugees. Recent research shows that around three in five Turkish citizens are hesitant to accept Syrians into their own social circles (Erdogan, 2020). And some reports reveal that Syrians are the new target group for hate speech in Turkey. Research on how people react towards immigrants and refugees tends to focus on these sorts of negative reactions, and prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behaviour in particular (e.g., Lee & Fiske, 2006; Landmann et al., 2019; Rucker et al., 2019). In contrast, in this chapter we discuss our research that examines the willingness of Turkish citizens to accept Syrian refugees into their social circles, support their integration and their intention to provide help. Studying positive attitudes and behavioural intentions towards refugees is important because the well-known positive-negative asymmetry indicates that positive evaluations and behaviours differ from negative ones (Mummendey & DOI: 10.4324/9781003182436-10

Acceptance of Syrian Refugees in Turkey 151 Otten, 1998; Otten & Mummendey, 2000). For Turkish reactions towards Syrian refugees, researchers have found that positive attitudes and intentions are not simply the counter-image of negative attitudes and intentions (Yitmen & Verkuyten, 2018). Thus, studying only negative reactions and ignoring more positive ones is one-sided and does not present a fuller picture of how Turkish citizens respond to the presence of Syrian refugees (Pettigrew & Hewstone, 2017). Furthermore, research shows that not all host-refugee dynamics are negative and that there are opportunities for positive interactions between members of both groups (e.g., Thravalou et al., 2020. For instance, intergroup contact can be important for more positive reactions and considering a host population that shares cultural similarities with Syrian refugees might help us to understand under what conditions cultural similarity predicts more positive attitudes. The perceived permanent or rather temporary stay of Syrian refugees in Turkey might be especially important for understanding whether and why Turkish people tend to socially accept these refugees. The aim of the current research, therefore, is to investigate whether intergroup contact and perceived similarity between Turkish citizens and Syrian refugees are associated with social acceptance, whether lower perceived threat accounts for this association and whether the association between perceived similarity and social acceptance depends on Turkish citizens’ perception of the settlement (permanent, temporary) of Syrian refugees. We will explain the different theoretical propositions in the next sections and we tested these empirically by analysing three large sample surveys.

Intergroup Contact and Perceived Similarity There are various reasons why people accept and support refugees, such as feelings of sympathy (Thravalou et al., 2020) and empathy (Glen et al., 2019; Vassilopoulos et al., 2020) and the endorsement of humanitarian values (Verkuyten et al., 2018; Yitmen & Verkuyten, 2018). In addition intergroup contact and perceived intergroup similarities might be particularly relevant (Allport, 1954; Callens et al., 2019; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2010; Poslon & Lasticova, 2019). Syrian refugees increasingly live in urban areas where they have more contacts with Turkish citizens (Erdogan, 2020) and this might lead to more positive attitudes among the Turks (Bağcı et al., 2020). Additionally, perceived similarity is likely to be important because people might perceive Turks and Syrian refugees as sharing their Islamic religion with the related cultural values and practices (Yitmen & Verkuyten, 2017). Focusing on both contact and similarity allows us to examine whether these two intergroup factors play a similar role in predicting social acceptance of Syrian refugees. Most research to date has examined the role of intergroup contact for outgroup attitudes and these studies predominantly focus on the reduction of prejudice (Hewstone, 2009; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011; Turner et al., 2007). There are only a few empirical studies that show that intergroup contact can actually increase positive reactions such as outgroup helping intentions

152

Şenay Yitmen et al.

(Johnston & Glasford, 2018), support for migrants (Graf & Sczesny, 2019) and social acceptance (see Güler, Ünver, & Çakal, in this volume; Koç & Anderson, 2018). According to intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954; Hewstone, 2015; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011), contact enables group members to learn about each other and to improve outgroup feelings and beliefs In line with this reasoning, we expect that more frequent contact between Turkish citizens and Syrian refugees will foster mutual understanding and acceptance and will therefore be associated with higher acceptance of Syrians in one’s own social circles. Similar to studies on intergroup contact, research on perceived similarity often focuses on the negative effect of dissimilarity on intergroup attitudes such as increased group distinctiveness (Brown & Lopez, 2001; Jetten & Spears, 2003) and ingroup favouritism (Roccas & Scwartz, 1993). However, perceived similarity is also found to improve attitudes towards immigrants (Ford, 2011; Heath & Richards, 2019; Rodriguez et al., 2017) and more so than actual similarity (Mallett et al., 2008; Pinel & Long, 2012). One explanation for the association between perceived similarity and positive attitudes is offered by belief-congruence theory (Rokeach, 1960) which posits that similarity in beliefs between the self and others triggers more positive intergroup attitudes and behaviours. This is in line with similarity-attraction theory which suggests that similarity confirms our worldview which makes similar others more attractive (Montoya et al., 2008). Further, self-categorisation theory posits that people expect to agree with those who are considered similar to the self (Turner, 1991). Therefore, we expect perceived similarity to be associated with Turkish citizens’ social acceptance of Syrian refugees.

Perceived Threats Refugees typically need settlement services, affordable housing, access to healthcare and jobs and may require other scarce resources that can invoke feelings of threat in members of the host society (McLaren, 2003; Schneider, 2008). In addition, refugees might have a different cultural identity and other traditions and beliefs than members of the host community. Perceptions of threat are one of the most important predictors of negative outgroup attitudes (Croucher et al., 2013; Stephan et al., 2005; Velasco González et al., 2008), and different potential sources of threat (whether real or imagined) can affect people’s attitudes and behavioral intentions towards refugees (Blinder, 2015; Landmann et al., 2019). For example, if members of the receiving society believe that immigrants take away jobs and other economic resources, they tend to have more negative attitudes towards newcomers (Card et al., 2005; Esipova et al., 2015). Thus, investigating whether intergroup contact and perceived similarity are associated with reduced feelings of perceived threat is relevant for understanding and fostering more positive attitudes. Additionally, contact promotes mutual understanding and familiarity between groups (Hewstone, 2015) and reduces uncertainty and anxiety about how to behave towards outgroup members (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Stephan &

Acceptance of Syrian Refugees in Turkey 153 Stephan, 2000). For example, a study by Koç and Anderson (2018) showed that (vicarious) contact increases social acceptance through reduced intergroup anxiety among Syrian refugees and American citizens. Another study found that intergroup contact between Turkish people and various outgroups in Turkey reduced perceived threat which in turn increased social acceptance of these outgroups (Bilali et al., 2018). Hence, we expect that intergroup contact will be associated with reduced feelings of threat from Syrian refugees which, in turn, will be associated with higher social acceptance. Likewise, feelings of threat are less likely if one considers someone to be similar to oneself and thereby more familiar. For instance, one study revealed that perceived similarity led to group level interactions by reducing feelings of anxiety (West et al., 2014). Other studies also found that intra-group interactions pose less stress and anxiety than inter-group interactions (Dovidio et al., 2002; Pearson et al., 2008; Trawalter et al., 2009). In line with this reasoning, we expect perceived similarity to be related to lower feelings of threat which, in turn, will be associated with increased social acceptance of Syrian refugees, support to their rights and helping intentions towards them.

The Role of Perceived Refugee Settlement Intentions Research has examined if the associations between perceived similarity and contact with social acceptance of minority groups depend on whether the intergroup context is competitive or not (Brown, 1984; Grant, 1993; González & Brown, 2003; Kuchenbrandt et al., 2013). Intergroup contact theory suggests that when ingroup and outgroup members are not in a competitive relationship, contact is more likely to lead to more positive intergroup attitudes because of lower feelings of threat (Allport, 1954; Kalogeraki, 2019). If Syrian refugees are seen as permanent residents of Turkey, Turkish citizens may view them more as long-term competitors for scarce resources, as having a greater cultural impact on Turkish society and as being more likely to claim equal rights and challenge the social status of Turkish citizens. In contrast, if Turks believe that refugees are only temporarily in Turkey, they may not consider these refugees as long-term competitors, for example, on the labour market and for various provisions. Furthermore, when Syrian refugees are perceived as temporary residents, short term concerns – such as being hospitable and wanting to help Muslim brothers (Yitmen & Verkuyten, 2018) - may be more important than long term competitive considerations (Thravalou et al., 2020). And the perception of Syrian refugee settlement as temporary may go together with the belief that one’s ingroup position and status is stable and that the group boundaries are not challenged. This reasoning implies that we can expect Turkish citizens to show more social acceptance of Syrian refugees when they perceive these refugees as temporary rather than permanent settlers. Perceiving Syrians as temporarily or permanently settled is also likely to have an impact on the expected associations between similarity, threat and acceptance. Specifically, perceived permanency

154

Şenay Yitmen et al.

of Syrian refugee settlement can imply that Turkish citizens view a more competitive future relationship with Syrians, compared to Turkish citizens who think that Syrians will only stay in Turkey temporary. Therefore, it is likely that perceived similarity is more strongly associated with reduced feelings of Syrian refugee threat and therefore with higher social acceptance among Turkish citizens who think that Syrian refugees will stay temporary in Turkey, compared to those who think that they will settle permanently in the country. Thus, even though Turkish citizens might perceive Syrian refugees as being culturally similar, this may not translate into social acceptance if they perceive Syrian refugees as permanent settlers in Turkey.

The Current Research We investigated whether intergroup contact and perceived similarity between Turkish citizens and Syrian refugees are associated with social acceptance through perceived threat, and whether the association between perceived similarity and social acceptance depends on Turkish citizens’ settlement perception of Syrian refugees. We empirically tested the different predictions with three large sample surveys. Study 1 (N= 605) focused on the frequency of contact between Turkish citizens and Syrian refugees and whether contact predicts more social acceptance through perceived threat. Study 2 (N= 2649) goes beyond Study 1 and focuses on whether perceived similarity is associated with social acceptance, support for integration and actual behaviour (help). Study 3 (N= 1861) examines whether perceived similarity translates into less perceived threat which in turn relates to less social acceptance, especially for those who view Syrian refugees as temporary rather than permanent settlers.

Study 1 In Study 1, we examined whether more frequent contact with Syrian refugees is associated with higher social acceptance of these refugees, and whether perception of outgroup threat accounts for the association between contact and social acceptance. Method Data and Participants Data were collected by the research company Optimar in 2015 (April and May) by means of face to face surveys that took about 20 minutes to complete. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from Utrecht University ethical board. Respondents (N = 605), all of whom participated voluntarily, were Turkish citizens aged between 18 and 81 (M = 39.6, SD = 14.4) and 56.4% were female. A large majority (87.6%) ethnically self-identified as Turks, but other ethnicities were also represented (6.9% Kurds, 1.5% Arabs, 0.8% Zaza and 3.1% other).

Acceptance of Syrian Refugees in Turkey 155 Participants were reached through a two-stage cluster sampling method and the addresses of the participants were obtained from the Turkish Statistical Institute. At the first stage, clusters were formed that involved 100 addresses and at the second stage 10 addresses were selected through systematic sampling from each cluster. Data were collected in six Turkish cities, namely, Istanbul (33.4% of participants), Antalya (22.3%), Gaziantep (13.7%), Adana (13.4%), Samsun (8.9%) and Kilis (8.3%). These cities vary in terms of the ratio of the Syrian refugee population to the host population: Gaziantep and Kilis have a relatively high number of Syrian refugees (14% and 41%, respectively), Adana and İstanbul have a lower ratio of Syrian refugees (2.5% and 2.6% respectively) and Samsun and Antalya have a much lower number of Syrian refugees (0.1% and 0.5%, respectively) (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2016; Ministry of Interior, Directorate General of Migration Management, 2017). Measures Our data consisted of one single-item measure (frequency of contact) and two latent constructs (perception of outgroup threat and social acceptance of Syrian refugees). The questions were first formulated in English and then translated to Turkish. Frequency of contact was measured by the following item: “How often do you meet and get in contact with a Syrian refugee?” Participants responded to this item on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 2 = once, 3 = a few times, 4 = regularly and 5 = often). Perceived threat was assessed with the following items based on previous research and which assess the cultural dimension of threat (Stephan et al., 2000; Stephan & Stephan, 1996): “The cultural identity of Turkey is being threatened by the increasing number of Syrian refugees”, “The norms and values of Turkey are being threatened due to the presence of Syrian refugees”, “The Syrian refugees are undermining the culture of Turkey”. Participants responded to the items on a 5-point agree-disagree scale ranging from (1) = certainly disagree to (5) = certainly agree, and an average score for these items was computed (α = .94). The dependent variable social acceptance was measured by the following three items adapted from the social distance scale (Bilali et al., 2018; Bogardus, 1967; Koç & Anderson, 2018) to capture positive behavioural intentions: “I would share the same table with a Syrian refugee”, “I would become friends with a Syrian refugee”, “I would add a Syrian refugee on Facebook as a friend”. Participants responded to the items on a 5-point agree-disagree scale ranging from (1) certainly disagree to (5) certainly agree and an average score for these items was computed (α = .87). Control variables were age, gender (1= male, 0 = female), city of residence (1= Istanbul, 0 = other cities) and ethnicity (1= Turkish, 0= other ethnicities) as these are found to be associated with contact and attitudes towards refugees and therefore might as third variables account for the associations found (e.g., Yitmen & Verkuyten, 2018).

156

Şenay Yitmen et al.

Results Measurement Model To check whether the items measuring perceived threat and social acceptance form separate latent constructs, we ran a confirmatory factor analysis using the Maximum Likelihood estimator in Mplus version 8.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017). The two-factor model had a good fit: χ²(8) = 14.872; CFI =.997; SRMR = .013; RMSEA [90% CI] = .038 [.00, .067]. All items loaded on the designated factor with standardised loadings higher than .72.1 This shows that perceived threat and social acceptance are two empirically distinct constructs. Descriptive Results The mean scores and correlations of the variables are displayed in Table 8.1. One sample t-tests showed that perceived threat of Syrian refugees was significantly above the mid-point of the scale t(596)= 9.08, p