| Summary: | <p>Intergroup biases are correlated with an erosion of civil society, uneven distribution of public goods, sub-optimal economic outcomes, political corruption, and intergroup conflict. These negative consequences have inspired generations of researchers to devise theories to understand the nature of bias and to develop methods to mitigate such bias. The objective of this book is to apply these theories to the Lebanese context to understand the extent and nature of biases among Lebanese sectarian groups. Specifically, this book explores intergroup relations among Lebanese Christians, Shias and Sunnis. The book then tests whether bias mitigation strategies that were developed in Western contexts may ameliorate intergroup biases in Lebanon.</p>
<p>This book uses two studies to make five principal contributions to the literature. The first study administers conjoint and lab-in-the-field investment experiments to students in four Lebanese universities. The second study uses similar experimental instruments and captures a broader swath of the Lebanese population in towns and village dispersed throughout the country. The evidence from these studies shows that bias exists among sectarian, partisan, and religious groups. Furthermore, bias along partisan lines is substantially stronger than bias along sectarian lines. This finding is in line with a growing literature on the primacy of affective polarization in Western context. The book then assesses three possible ways to mitigate intergroup bias. First, this book tests the contact hypothesis in Lebanese universities, finding limited evidence that intergroup contact in the university context has a positive effect on students' attitudes and behaviors. Second, the book assesses whether variation in social geography creates opportunities for intergroup reconciliation or triggers intergroup threat perceptions. Finally, this book tests whether an episode of a unifying national narrative that transcends partisan and sectarian divisions is capable of diminishing intergroup bias. Results for the positive effects of a unifying national narrative are suggestive, but muted.</p>
|
|---|