Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Exposure to a media intervention helps promote support for peace in Colombia

Nature Human Behaviour volume 6, pages 847–857 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Whereas politicians broker peace deals, it falls to the public to embrace peace and help sustain it. The legacy of conflicts can make it difficult for people to support reconciling and reintegrating with former enemies. Here we create a five-minute media intervention from interviews we conducted with Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) ex-combatants in a Colombian demobilization camp and non-FARC Colombians in neighbouring communities. We show that exposure to the media intervention humanizes FARC ex-combatants and increases support for peace and reintegration. These effects persisted at least three months post-exposure, were replicated in an independent sample of non-FARC Colombians and affected both attitudes (for example, support for reintegration policies) and behaviour (for example, donations to organizations supporting ex-combatants). As predicted, the intervention’s effects were mediated by changing conflict-associated cognitions—reducing the belief that ex-combatants are unwilling and unable to change—beyond affective pathways (for example, increased empathy or reduced prejudice).

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Multivariate path analysis showing that beliefs about FARC members’ unwillingness and inability to change mediate the effect of condition (FARC-Integration v.1 versus the control) on dehumanization, support for peace and support for FARC reintegration policies in Study 2, controlling for empathy and prejudice.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data files that support the findings of the studies are available at https://osf.io/dnx7w/?view_only=39e2923b37464a7ba5a70f30991b1abf.

Code availability

All custom code that supports the findings of the studies is available at https://osf.io/dnx7w/?view_only=39e2923b37464a7ba5a70f30991b1abf.

References

  1. Allansson, M., Melander, E. & Themnér, L. Organized violence, 1989–2016. J. Peace Res. 54, 574–587 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bar-Tal, D. & Halperin, E. in Intergroup Conflicts and Their Resolution: A Social Psychological Perspective (ed. Bar-Tal, D.) 217–240 (Psychology Press, 2011).

  3. Casey, N. Colombia’s peace deal promised a new era. So why are these rebels rearming? New York Times (17 May 2019); https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/world/americas/colombia-farc-peace-deal.html

  4. Flores, T. E. & Vargas, J. F. Colombia: democracy, violence, and the peacebuilding challenge. Confl. Manage. Peace Sci. 35, 581–586 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. López López, W. et al. Forgiving former perpetrators of violence and reintegrating them into Colombian civil society: noncombatant citizens’ positions. Peace Confl. 24, 201–215 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Matanock, A. M. & Garbiras-Díaz, N. Considering concessions: a survey experiment on the Colombian peace process. Confl. Manage. Peace Sci. 35, 637–655 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Posada-Carbó, E. The difficult road to peace in Colombia. Curr. Hist. 116, 74–76 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ross, L. & Ward, A. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (ed. Zanna, M. P.) Vol. 27, 255–304 (Academic Press, 1995).

  9. Mousa, S. Building social cohesion between Christians and Muslims through soccer in post‐ISIS Iraq. Science 369, 866–870 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A. & Green, D. P. The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behav. Public Policy 3, 129–158 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Paolini, S., Harwood, J., Hewstone, M. & Neumann, D. L. Seeking and avoiding intergroup contact: future frontiers of research on building social integration. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 12, e12422 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 751–783 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Al Ramiah, A. & Hewstone, M. Intergroup contact as a tool for reducing, resolving, and preventing intergroup conflict: evidence, limitations, and potential. Am. Psychol. 68, 527–542 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tropp, L. R. in The Social Psychology of Intractable Conflict (eds Halperin, E. & Sharvit, K.) Vol. 1, 159–171 (Springer, 2015).

  15. Broockman, D. & Kalla, J. Durably reducing transphobia: a field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science 352, 220–224 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Amichai-Hamburger, Y. & McKenna, K. Y. A. The contact hypothesis reconsidered: interacting via the internet. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 11, 825–843 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bruneau, E., Hameiri, B., Moore-Berg, S. L. & Kteily, N. Intergroup contact reduces dehumanization and meta-dehumanization: cross-sectional, longitudinal and quasi-experimental evidence from 16 samples in 5 countries. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 47, 906–920 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Taylor, V. J., Valladares, J. J., Siepser, C. & Yantis, C. Interracial contact in virtual reality: best practices. Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci. 7, 132–140 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bruneau, E. G. & Saxe, R. The power of being heard: the benefits of ‘perspective-giving’ in the context of intergroup conflict. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48, 855–866 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Paluck, E. L. Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: a field experiment in Rwanda. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96, 574–587 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B. & Hewes, D. E. The parasocial contact hypothesis. Commun. Monogr. 72, 92–115 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bilali, R. & Vollhardt, J. R. Priming effects of a reconciliation radio drama on historical perspective-taking in the aftermath of mass violence in Rwanda. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49, 144–151 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bilali, R., Vollhardt, J. R. & Rarick, J. R. D. Assessing the impact of a media-based intervention to prevent intergroup violence and promote positive intergroup relations in Burundi. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 26, 221–235 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hameiri, B., Porat, R., Bar-Tal, D. & Halperin, E. Moderating attitudes in times of violence through paradoxical thinking intervention. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12105–12110 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Murrar, S. & Brauer, M. Overcoming resistance to change: using narratives to create more positive intergroup attitudes. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 28, 164–169 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Joyce, N. & Harwood, J. Improving intergroup attitudes through televised vicarious intergroup contact: social cognitive processing of ingroup and outgroup information. Commun. Res. 41, 627–643 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bruneau, E. G., Cikara, M. & Saxe, R. Minding the gap: narrative descriptions about mental states attenuate parochial empathy. PLoS ONE 10, e0140838 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bruneau, E., Lane, D. & Saleem, M. Giving the underdog a leg up: a counternarrative of nonviolent resistance improves sustained third-party support of a disempowered group. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 8, 746–757 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bruneau, E., Kteily, N. & Falk, E. Interventions highlighting hypocrisy reduce collective blame of Muslims for individual acts of violence and assuage anti-Muslim hostility. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 44, 430–448 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Taylor, L. K. Transitional justice, demobilization, and peacebuilding amid political violence: examining individual preferences in the Caribbean coast of Colombia. Peacebuilding 3, 90–108 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lees, J. & Cikara, M. Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 279–286 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hornik, R. & Woolf, K. D. Using cross‐sectional surveys to plan message strategies. Soc. Mark. Q. 5, 34–41 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wienand, S. & Tremaria, S. Paramilitarism in a post-demobilization context? Insights from the Department of Antioquia in Colombia. Eur. Rev. Lat. Am. Caribb. Stud. 103, 25–50 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Orosz, G. et al. What predicts anti‐Roma prejudice? Qualitative and quantitative analysis of everyday sentiments about the Roma. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 48, 317–328 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Goldenberg, A. et al. Testing the impact and durability of group malleability intervention in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 696–701 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Halperin, E., Russell, A. G., Trzesniewski, K. H., Gross, J. J. & Dweck, C. S. Promoting the Middle East peace process by changing beliefs about group malleability. Science 333, 1767–1769 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kteily, N. & Bruneau, E. Backlash: the politics and real-world consequences of minority group dehumanization. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43, 87–104 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kteily, N. S. & Bruneau, E. Darker demons of our nature: the need to (re)focus attention on blatant forms of dehumanization. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 26, 487–494 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kteily, N., Bruneau, E., Waytz, A. & Cotterill, S. The ascent of man: theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 109, 901–931 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bruneau, E. & Kteily, N. The enemy as animal: symmetric dehumanization during asymmetric warfare. PLoS ONE 12, e0181422 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Bar-Tal, D. & Hameiri, B. Interventions for changing well-anchored attitudes in the context of intergroup conflict. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 14, e12534 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Cohen-Chen, S., Halperin, E., Crisp, R. J. & Gross, J. J. Hope in the Middle East: malleability beliefs, hope, and the willingness to compromise for peace. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 1, 67–75 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Batson, C. D. & Ahmad, N. Y. Using empathy to improve intergroup attitudes and relations. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 3, 141–177 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of tree mediators. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 922–934 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tropp, L. R. & Pettigrew, T. F. Differential relationships between intergroup contact and affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31, 1145–1158 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Haddock, G., Zanna, M. P. & Esses, V. M. Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: the case of attitudes toward homosexuals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65, 1105–1118 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Capone, F. An overview of the DDR process established in the aftermath of the revised peace agreement between the Colombian government and the FARC: finally on the right track? Glob. Jurist 18, 20170007 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Paolini, S. & McIntyre, K. Bad is stronger than good for stigmatized, but not admired outgroups: meta-analytical tests of intergroup valence asymmetry in individual-to-group generalization experiments. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 23, 3–47 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Greenaway, K. H., Wright, R. G., Willingham, J., Reynolds, K. J. & Haslam, S. A. Shared identity is key to effective communication. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41, 171–182 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T. & Asuncion, A. G. Processing of persuasive in-group messages. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 812–822 (1990).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Maoz, I., Ward, A., Katz, M. & Ross, L. Reactive devaluation of an “Israeli” vs. “Palestinian” peace proposal. J. Confl. Resolut. 46, 515–546 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kubin, E., Puyear, C., Schein, C. & Gray, K. Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2008389118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Levy, A. Disarming the mind: reintegrating ex-combatants in Colombia. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05044-w (2018).

  54. Hameiri, B. & Moore-Berg, S. L. Intervention tournaments: an overview of concept, design, and implementation. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. (in the press).

  55. Milkman, K. M. et al. Megastudies improve the impact of applied behavioral science. Nature 600, 478–483 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Rosseel, Y. lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1–36 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Paluck, E. L., Porat, R., Clark, C. S. & Green, D. P. Prejudice reduction: progress and challenges. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 72, 533–560 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Newman, D. A. Missing data: five practical guidelines. Organ. Res. Methods 17, 372–411 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Graham, J. W. Missing data analysis: making it work in the real world. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60, 549–576 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Rydell, R. J., Hugenberg, K., Ray, D. & Mackie, D. M. Implicit theories about groups and stereotyping: the role of group entitativity. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 33, 549–558 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Frey, F. E. & Tropp, L. R. Being seen as individuals versus as group members: extending research on metaperception to intergroup contexts. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 10, 265–280 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Vorauer, J. D., Hunter, A. J., Main, K. J. & Roy, S. A. Meta-stereotype activation: evidence from indirect measures for specific evaluative concerns experienced by members of dominant groups in intergroup interaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78, 690–707 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Vorauer, J. D., Main, K. J. & O’Connell, G. B. How do individuals expect to be viewed by members of lower status groups? Content and implications of meta-stereotypes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75, 917–937 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Moore-Berg, S. L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L., Hameiri, B. & Bruneau, E. Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 14864–14872 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Haslam, N., Bastian, B., Bain, P. & Kashima, Y. Psychological essentialism, implicit theories, and intergroup relations. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 9, 63–76 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Tofighi, D. & Thoemmes, F. Single-level and multilevel mediation analysis. J. Early Adolesc. 34, 93–119 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Dovidio, J. F., Love, A., Schellhaas, F. M. H. & Hewstone, M. Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 20, 606–620 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Waytz, A., Young, L. L. & Ginges, J. Motive attribution asymmetry for love vs. hate drives intractable conflict. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 15687–15692 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Kteily, N., Hodson, G. & Bruneau, E. They see us as less than human: metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110, 343–370 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Moore-Berg, S. L., Hameiri, B. & Bruneau, E. The prime psychological suspects of toxic political polarization. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 199–204 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Casas-Casas, A., Mendez, N. & Pino, J. F. Trust and prospective reconciliation: evidence from a protracted armed conflict. J. Peacebuilding Dev. 15, 298–315 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Hurtado-Parrado, C. et al. Emotion regulation and attitudes toward conflict in Colombia: effects of reappraisal training on negative emotions and support for conciliatory and aggressive statements. Front. Psychol. 10, 908 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Maya-Jariego, I., De La Peña-Leiva, A., Arenas-Rivera, C. & Alieca, D. Personal networks, social media, and community cohesion in the strategies of peace-building agents in Colombia to counteract the segregation of displaced populations. J. Community Psychol. 47, 1300–1312 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by internal funding provided by the University of Pennsylvania to Emile Bruneau. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. We thank Pirata Films for their collaboration, the final creation of the media intervention videos and subtitling into English. We also thank the people from the Dabeiba reintegration camp and neighbouring communities for their hospitality and generosity.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Emile Bruneau, Andrés Casas, Boaz Hameiri, Nour Kteily.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Emile Bruneau, Andrés Casas & Boaz Hameiri

  2. The Center for Social Norms and Behavioral Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Andrés Casas

  3. Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Nour Kteily

Authors
  1. Emile Bruneau
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrés Casas
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Boaz Hameiri
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nour Kteily
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

E.B. initiated the research, with support from A.C. E.B., A.C., B.H. and N.K. contributed to the study design. E.B., A.C., B.H. and N.K. conducted the research. B.H. led the data analysis, with support from E.B. and N.K. E.B., B.H. and N.K. wrote the manuscript, and A.C. provided critical feedback.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Boaz Hameiri or Nour Kteily.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Human Behaviour thanks Laura Taylor and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods and Discussion, Figs. 1 and 2, Tables 1–19, and References.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bruneau, E., Casas, A., Hameiri, B. et al. Exposure to a media intervention helps promote support for peace in Colombia. Nat Hum Behav 6, 847–857 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01330-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01330-w

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing