Page 198 - Ana Kozina and Nora Wiium, eds. ▪︎ Positive Youth Development in Contexts. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2021. Digital Library, Dissertationes (Scientific Monographs), 42.
P. 198
positive youth development in contexts
as prejudice towards the other group might be more ingrained in people’s
cultural identity and stem from traumatic experiences such as armed con-
frontations during the Israel–Gaza conflict in 2014 and in May of this year
(Bilefsky, 2021).
Second, the qualitative analysis considered a small sample of studies
as only 10 prejudice-reducing interventions met the inclusion criteria. If we
were to compute only one effect size for each treatment group, we would
be unable to calculate the mean effect size and confidence intervals, which
meant we had to violate the assumption of independence between effect
sizes. Consequently, we could only speculate on the differences in inter-
vention effectiveness. The number of studies included was so small that the
one intervention with many significant results might have overshadowed
the results of the other interventions. Third, publication bias (i.e. the risk of
reporting only statistically significant results) was not evaluated. Since two
of the ten studies recorded mostly non-significant results, we estimate that
the risk of publication bias in this research area is low. Lastly, there remains
the possibility not all suitable studies were included in the review because
articles were drawn from just three databases.
The interventions included in this review were conducted almost ex-
clusively in Italy and Great Britain and by the same sets of researchers,
which makes it difficult to generalise the findings to all cultural settings.
The optimal ways to reduce ethnic prejudice might depend on the cultur-
al environment and specifics of the intergroup contact (Ülger et al., 2018).
Thus, future studies could be conducted in other European countries, like
for example Germany, that in 2016 recorded the biggest influx of migrants
into Europe (Eurostat, 2017) or Turkey, among non-European countries
(Canefe, 2016). Only one study that was included (i.e. Berger et al., 2016) ex-
plored ways of tackling the prejudice of ethnic minority students. Reducing
prejudice among members of ethnic minorities should not be overlooked
as that could help increase their motivation to engage in contact and sub-
sequently lead to more frequent intergroup contact (Glasford & Dovidio,
2011). Further research should also find ways of successfully conducting
interventions involving the adolescent population and assessing the long-
term effects of indirect contact interventions (Brown & Hewstone, 2005;
Christ et al., 2010).
In the future, studies should also consider more behavioural measures,
especially measures of actual behaviour (e.g. intergroup friendship 1 year
after the intervention like in Berger et al. (2016)), instead of hypothetical
198
as prejudice towards the other group might be more ingrained in people’s
cultural identity and stem from traumatic experiences such as armed con-
frontations during the Israel–Gaza conflict in 2014 and in May of this year
(Bilefsky, 2021).
Second, the qualitative analysis considered a small sample of studies
as only 10 prejudice-reducing interventions met the inclusion criteria. If we
were to compute only one effect size for each treatment group, we would
be unable to calculate the mean effect size and confidence intervals, which
meant we had to violate the assumption of independence between effect
sizes. Consequently, we could only speculate on the differences in inter-
vention effectiveness. The number of studies included was so small that the
one intervention with many significant results might have overshadowed
the results of the other interventions. Third, publication bias (i.e. the risk of
reporting only statistically significant results) was not evaluated. Since two
of the ten studies recorded mostly non-significant results, we estimate that
the risk of publication bias in this research area is low. Lastly, there remains
the possibility not all suitable studies were included in the review because
articles were drawn from just three databases.
The interventions included in this review were conducted almost ex-
clusively in Italy and Great Britain and by the same sets of researchers,
which makes it difficult to generalise the findings to all cultural settings.
The optimal ways to reduce ethnic prejudice might depend on the cultur-
al environment and specifics of the intergroup contact (Ülger et al., 2018).
Thus, future studies could be conducted in other European countries, like
for example Germany, that in 2016 recorded the biggest influx of migrants
into Europe (Eurostat, 2017) or Turkey, among non-European countries
(Canefe, 2016). Only one study that was included (i.e. Berger et al., 2016) ex-
plored ways of tackling the prejudice of ethnic minority students. Reducing
prejudice among members of ethnic minorities should not be overlooked
as that could help increase their motivation to engage in contact and sub-
sequently lead to more frequent intergroup contact (Glasford & Dovidio,
2011). Further research should also find ways of successfully conducting
interventions involving the adolescent population and assessing the long-
term effects of indirect contact interventions (Brown & Hewstone, 2005;
Christ et al., 2010).
In the future, studies should also consider more behavioural measures,
especially measures of actual behaviour (e.g. intergroup friendship 1 year
after the intervention like in Berger et al. (2016)), instead of hypothetical
198
