Fostering emotional intelligence and intergroup empathy: an intervention program for Jewish and Arab adolescents

ABSTRACT

The current study examined a unique uninational intervention program, conducted separately for Jewish and Arab adolescents, with the aim of cultivating emotional intelligence skills and empathy. 287 adolescents aged 16–17 (115 Jews and 172 Arabs) participated in the program and the study to assess its initial effects. All participants completed self-administered questionnaires; the researcher conducted observations and focus groups. For the Arab participants, the findings showed an improvement in emotional intelligence, empathy towards Arabs and Jews, and relationships with Israeli Jews. Among the Jewish participants, although no statistically significant change in emotional intelligence was observed, there were positive changes in empathy, as well as relationships with Israeli Arabs. The degree of improvement was stronger among Arab participants.

KEYWORDS:

• Emotional intelligence
• intergroup empathy
• an intervention program
• adolescents
• Jewish and Arab

Introduction

A significant part of an individual’s self-perception stems from belonging to certain social groups, that is, definitions to which groups he belongs (internal groups) and to which he does not belong (external groups). In this personalization, people will prefer the members of the inner group and perceive them and their behaviour positively but will negatively perceive the members of their outer group (Tajfel, 1981). Since the middle of the 20th century, one of the most researched topics in various and socially diverse disciplines has been psychological between groups in general and between majority and minority groups in the country and those in conflict in particular. The Israeli population, and especially the relations between Jews and Arabs, have been studied extensively in connection with characterizing the factors that influence the attitudes and behaviours of the entire group towards members of the second group. These studies are specific both to the effects of being majority and minority groups that cause discrimination and more negative treatment of Arabs (see, for example, Suleiman, 2004) and to the impact of Israel’s conflict history with its Arab neighbours and the existing threats to Jewish-Arab relations in Israel.

In recent decades, various intervention programs have been conducted that have attempted to address the Jewish-Arab conflict and its consequences among various groups in Israel (Bar-Tal & Rosen, 2009). Many of them were based on the theory of contact according to which it is necessary to hold direct personal meetings between Jews and Arabs in order to increase knowledge and understanding of the other side improve attitudes and encourage connections between individuals from the two groups (Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). One framework in which such programs have been specifically made is the school through “Peace Education”. The programs in this framework were delivered to Jewish and Arab students in a single or bi-national framework and focused on learning and training skills that may support making peace and reduce conflict (such as: reflective and critical thinking, tolerance, empathy towards other groups, awareness and sensitivity to human rights) (see for example, Bar-Tal et al., 2010; Ramsey & Latting, 2005). These programs faced difficulties that stemmed in particular from the strength of each party’s national ethos that included negative attitudes towards the other people and the conflict between them, which often led to direct encounters intensifying and exaggerating participants’ attitudes. In addition, the differences in status and power between Jews and Arabs in society made it difficult to create a common balanced basis for holding meetings that were important in order to enable a real dialogue between them (e.g., Maoz, 2004; Sagy, 2002).

The long-lasting Israel-Arab conflict has had a profound effect on many aspects of Israeli society, both materially and psychologically (Gill, 2013; Kupermintz et al., 2007; Rouhana & Bar-Tal, 1998). Because Israel is defined as a Jewish state, the Arab minority is often discriminated against in many aspects of their lives. In addition, Israeli Arabs struggle to define their identity, torn between their identity as Israeli citizens and their identification with the Palestinian national ethos (Ghanem, 1998). This issue distinguishes them from Jewish Israeli citizens and leads many of them to see the Israeli-Arab citizens as a threat in the context of the national conflict (Ghanem, 1998; Yiftachel, 1993).

In the present study, an intervention program for Jewish and Arab adolescents was conducted that sought to overcome these limitations by conducting an uninitiated framework (separately Jews and Arabs) and focusing on cultivating emotional intelligence and empathy (emotional elements) rather than directly on the Arab Jewish conflict and its consequences. Previous studies (Bar-Tal et al., 2010; Khuri, 2004; Mostow et al., 2002) revealed that strengthening the emotional intelligence of the individual or group (one that encourages the identification and expression of emotions), leads to the reduction of negative attitudes towards members of other groups and improves relations with them. According to some previous studies (Batson, 2008; Davis, 1983; Hannigan, 1990), an empathic experience reduces prejudices and stereotypes and increases a desire to help other groups and be in contact with them.

Peace education

In societies that experience an ongoing conflict that seems to be unresolved, young people absorb in their socialization process, at home mainly and in other environments, opinions and attitudes that have a significant impact within the ethos of the conflict (Bar-Tal & Rosen, 2009). At the same time, in any society that is in this situation, there are often people or groups who run pioneering initiatives to change the positions that stand as an obstacle to peace. Such a change requires the restructuring of the image of the opposing side as human, with equal rights, and the creation of positive feelings towards the possibility of peace with a historical enemy is necessary. This role is supposed to be played by peace education, which researchers believe should be part of the schools’ ongoing program. Aware of the obstacles to changes in general public opinion, the perception is to strive for a change of consciousness in the education system, as a body that all children attend, and that has the tools and legitimacy to engage in this field. The activity at school occurs during the formative period in the child’s life, in which it is still possible to influence the crystallization of his or her future worldview (Maoz, 2000).

In order to implement peace education in schools, significant changes must be made to the curricula, which must receive support and understanding from the social environment, political and educational system. Societies that are in constant conflict should not expect all preconditions to be met, and they should run educational initiatives. In conditions of insufficient political and social environment, when direct peace education cannot be operated, the indirect peace education approach is required. According to this approach, we do not deal directly with the conflict, but with relevant themes, such as identity, ecological security, the meaning of violence, empathy, human rights, and conflict resolution skills (Kupermintz et al., 2007). This type of peace education refers to all the themes of the intractable conflict that contributed to the development and maintenance of the culture of conflict, and that served as barriers to its peaceful resolution (Bar-On, 2000). In the last few decades, several educational initiatives have attempted to cope with the reality of the Israeli-Arab conflict while reducing its negative effects on all Israeli citizens and facilitating co-existence (Agmon et al., 2005; Bar-Tal & Rosen, 2009; Oppenheimer, 2006). Most of these were based on intergroup contact theory, which states that direct personal encounters between group members are needed in order to improve mutual understanding, perceptions and attitudes (Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). In the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict, such interventions (e.g., Neve Shalom or Givat Haviva) that focused these encounters on open communication between participants had inconsistent effects. Some contributed to a reduction of stereotypes and better relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel (Maoz, 2000); others ended up radicalizing the national narrative of each group and strengthening the conflictual atmosphere between them (e.g., Maoz, 2004).

The main challenges these programs face are the inherent power imbalance between the Israeli Jews and Arabs, the strong national identity of the participants of each group, which can trigger intense emotions if perceived as threatened, and the program not being adapted to the Arab culture – particularly as it relates to coping with emotions (Maoz, 2004; Suleiman, 2004).

Cultural differences

There are some comprehensive cultural differences between Jews and Arabs. In general, Israeli Jews belong to the individualistic Western culture. This culture encourages autonomy, an independent and separate identity from others, and action for personal goals. Such a culture values competitiveness, assertiveness, personal achievement, self-promotion, and concern for oneself and one’s small nuclear family (Triandis, 1995). In contrast, the Arabs mostly belong to an authoritarian collectivist culture. In this culture, community or family goals or interests are prioritized over individual ones, and the preservation of group harmony is encouraged. This culture also encourages the individual to develop a self-based on interdependence with other people and concern for the welfare of family members, while providing mutual support (Seginer et al., 2007; Triandis, 1995). As a result, the Arab individual generally avoids expressing feelings in public. Any public expression of negative emotions or difficulties leads to shame and stigma on the part of the family and the community (Peleg-Popko et al., 2003; Shechtman et al., 2003).

Because of these differences between Jews and Arabs, several studies have found that Israeli Arabs experience higher levels of anxiety than Israeli Jews do. For example, in a study conducted on Israelis living in northern Israel following the Second Lebanon War, it was found that the Arab participants expressed a higher level of fear and anxiety, for themselves and their families, and assessed the risk of being harmed by the war as higher than that of the Jewish participants. Evidence of these differences between Jews and Arabs was also reported in studies conducted on adolescents, which found that Arab adolescents experienced higher levels of anxiety in general, and test anxiety in particular (Bodas & Ollendick, 2005; Peleg-Popko et al., 2003).

These differences between Jews and Arabs were also found to influence their behaviour in group processes. On the one hand, it was found that Arab participants revealed more of themselves and their feelings when they are in mixed groups, and not only those that included only Arabs. In a number of studies, it was found that in mixed groups, Arab participants revealed more details about themselves than the Jewish participants did. That is, it is possible that in view of their cultural characteristics and the scarcity of their opportunities to share their personal experiences, they had a greater need to do so and receive support, and therefore chose to do so in situations that would allow it, meaning where this behaviour would be perceived as acceptable (see, for example, Shechtman & Halevi, 2006; Shechtman et al., 2008). In order to overcome these issues, the present intervention was conducted separately for each national group (Israeli Jews and Arabs), and focused on fostering emotional intelligence and empathy. It aimed to foster the social-emotional skills perceived as necessary to improve interpersonal and intergroup relations. The basic premise of the study was that before Israeli Jews and Arabs meet each other – they need to learn to identify, understand and cope with their emotions, and be able to empathize with members of the other group. Arriving at the encounter with these skills would allow them to open up to the other group and understand how they see their reality.

Jewish-Arab intervention programs based on intergroup contact theory

For several decades, there have been a number of educational programs in Israel that organized encounters between adolescents and students of Jewish and Arab high schools, with the main organizations in this field being the Jewish-Arab Center at Givat Haviva, and the School for Peace - Wahat al-Salam - Neve Shalom. The meetings would be preceded by uni-national preparatory workshops at the respective schools, after which the students would meet for workshops that lasted from one to three days, usually in a neutral place, led by skilled Arab and Jewish facilitators (Hansen, 2006; Ozacky-Lazar, 2005).

These sessions, which had some very good and important aspects, such as personal acquaintance, exchange of information, joint learning of selected topics and sometimes – continued personal friendships, also had some difficulties. Research has found that the examined program was overall more beneficial for Jewish than for Palestinian participants (Shani & Boehnke, 2017).

In addition, the participants were quite often caught up in crises or tension between both peoples. The crises were usually related to combat or terrorist events that erupted at times close to the encounters. During crises of this kind, participants from both groups tended to describe the degree of their vulnerability and suffering, whether from exclusion or from terrorist activity. In addition, they tended to mutually accuse the corresponding group of belonging to the offending party (Agmon et al., 2005; Steinberg, 2004).

According to intergroup contact theory, in order for encounters between individuals from different groups to succeed, four conditions need to be met: equal status to all participants during the encounter, joint goals, intergroup cooperation, and institutional support. When these principles are adhered to, the encounter between members of different national groups has the potential to improve mutual recognition, understanding, and acceptance; limit bias and the perception that members of the other national group are the enemy; and help create meaningful social cross-group relationships (Ben-Ari, 2004; Emerson et al., 2002; Pettigrew, 1998; Pickett et al., 2014; Schroeder & Risen, 2014).

Several challenges diminish the potential outcomes of direct encounters between Israeli Jews and Arabs. First, the power differences between Jews and Arabs inherent in Israeli society make it difficult to create a balanced ground for interaction, which in turn makes it harder to allow a real dialogue between members of both groups (Maoz, 2000; Sagy, 2002; Suleiman, 2004). Moreover, violent events related to the Jewish-Arab conflict occur during encounters (Halabi & Sonnenschein, 2004), often radicalize each side’s national narrative and the perception of the other group as an enemy with illegitimate demands (Pickett et al., 2014; Pilecki & Hammack, 2014). Under such conditions, it is very difficult to have an open and direct dialogue between the members of both parties and bring them closer to each other. Another factor that limits the success of direct encounters lies in the fact that most are initiated by Jewish people and as such are conducted according to Jewish culture and norms, which are often not familiar with Arab culture and the needs of Arab participants. Therefore, a built-in bias in favour of Jewish participants is created, reducing the efficiency of such interactions (Suleiman, 2004).

One possible way to overcome these difficulties is to conduct uni-national encounters, where Jewish and Arab participants meet separately, but with the aim of increasing their openness and willingness to initiate or restore relations with members of the other national group. Earlier initiatives included such uni-national encounters at the start of the intervention program, as a preparatory step before conducting direct intergroup encounters. For example, Bar-Gal and Bar (1992) found that, for all participants, this process improved self-esteem and encouraged more openness towards members of the other group. Another program that included a combination of uni-national and binational encounters in order to improve relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel is Sadaka Reut. This program was conducted over two years with university students. It was found that, by initially conducting uni-national encounters, participants were able to increase their awareness and understanding of the life circumstances and motivations of members of the other national group – a process that set the stage for the joint encounters (Ross, 2013).

Thus, a uni-national setting provides an opportunity to foster key skills such as critical and reflective thinking, tolerance, empathy towards members of other groups, awareness and sensitivity to human rights, and conflict resolution tactics (Ramsey & Latting, 2005). This type of education can also include learning about other social groups in Israeli society (Bar-Tal et al., 2010) and changing the way students see members of a rival group by humanizing its members and legitimizing their needs and wishes (Bar-Tal & Rosen, 2015).

Emotional intelligence and empathy in the context of intergroup relations

The intervention program in the current research focused on providing Jewish and Arab adolescents with necessary social and emotional skills and capabilities, in the hope of bringing about an improvement in intergroup relations. This focus stemmed from previous research findings, which have shown that the inherent, mutual hate, anger, and fear rooted in relations between Jews and Arabs constitute a major obstacle to any improvement in the situation (Halperin, 2014). Specifically, the program sought to cultivate emotional intelligence and empathy.

Concerning emotional intelligence

In recent decades, research has emphasized the importance of emotional work in order to generate empathy and greater mutual acceptance between groups in multi-cultural societies (Khuri, 2004). Intervention in the plane of emotions allows, through the creation of links between cognition and emotion, lowering the level of prejudices and feelings of mutual threat (Khuri, 2004).

Therefore, working on developing personal empathy among members of a particular group may lead to a change and improvement in the attitude towards other groups that are defined as competitors or hostile (Batson & Ahmad, 2001).

In another study (Mostow et al., 2002), it was found that emotional intelligence as expressed in the knowledge and understanding of emotions was a mediating variable for the relationship between verbal ability and social skills. The findings of the study support the claim that experiencing and expressing positive and negative emotions underlie intimate relationships between people, facilitate meaningful social interactions between them, and strengthen mutual cooperation and trust (Fischer & Manstead, 2008).

The more the members of the group experience similar feelings, the stronger their feelings of commitment, loyalty, identification and belonging to the group, and the stronger the ties between them become. As a result, the boundaries of the group are sharpened, and people’s preference for their group members over members of other groups increases. On the other hand, awareness of the emotions of group members allows making a clearer distinction between it and other groups with an emphasis on its unique power (Fischer & Manstead, 2008). The feelings that the members of the group experience towards members of other groups affect the relationship between them.

Specifically, the literature refers to group emotional intelligence as expressing the ability of the group to recognize the emotions of its members, regulate them, and manage them so that they do not affect the work of the group negatively, and destructive emotions do not cause stagnation or injury in the course of work. That is, the norms in a group with emotional intelligence encourage taking into account the emotions, needs, concerns, preferences and resources of individuals from another group or groups who are interacting with its members, and establishing positive relationships with them (Dallasheh & Zubeidat, 2022; Druskat & Wolff, 2008, 2008; Salovey et al., 2001).

Concerning empathy

Empathy is closely related to emotional intelligence, and is largely part of it. Empathy is defined as a person’s ability to recognize and understand the emotional experience and feelings of others, and to experience their inner world personally as if it were their own (Davis, 1983; Goleman et al., 2002; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Some consider empathy as an innate and stable psychological trait (Davis, 1983) that influences the way a person reacts to other people and their emotions. Others perceive it as a significant process in a person’s interactions with other people, and in the communication between them, that are learned from the active observation of other people (Berger, 1962).

Empathy was previously found to have a bidirectional relationship with emotional intelligence (Brackett et al., 2009; Miville et al., 2006). Three distinct processes have been previously identified: resonance (the ability to experience the same emotional experiences and emotions as the other person); reasoning (understanding the thoughts and emotions the other person is having, thinking of the reasons for them, and concluding what they are a result of); and response (internal response motivating prosocial behaviour) (Zisman, 2009). A number of studies have shown that empathy towards a member of another group (especially following a request to examine an issue through the eyes of that person) reduces prejudice and stereotypes against his/her group members, increases the motivation to help them, and improves relationships with them (Buechel et al., 2018; Danielle, 2019; Eisenberg et al., 2010; Husnu & Crisp, 2014; Zhou & Jurgens, 2020; Zisman, 2009). McDonald et al. (2015) asked Israeli Jewish participants to describe their reaction to an anger-eliciting news story. Participants were then informed of the emotional response of an individual Arab Israeli or of Palestinians in general to the same news story. The shared emotional reaction induced by the study led the Israeli Jewish participants to humanize Israeli Arabs and Palestinians more, and to express greater support and tolerance towards them.

Social and emotional skills interventions in adolescence

Towards the 21st century, and under the influence of globalization, experts in the American education system and in other countries have concluded that the traditional view that has focused on promoting the cognitive development and academic success of students has not yielded sufficiently positive results. In light of this, they saw a need for educational reforms in both the study material and the learning processes in the classrooms in order to bring about an improvement in the schools’ emotional atmosphere. This approach led, for example, to the formation of the Emotional Literacy Movement, which primarily advocates attributing a similar degree of importance to imparting emotional skills as for academic purposes (Roffey, 2006).

In recent years, a number of intervention programs have been built and implemented for children and adolescents around the world that have been based on this approach. These programs are designed to enhance emotional intelligence and empathy, teach students how to identify and describe their own and others’ emotions, manage their emotions, verbally express their feelings, needs and desires, deal with conflicts, understand others’ perspectives and behaviour, and make decisions. These programs have been found to help adopt a more positive and balanced worldview, improve adolescents’ relationships with peers, and improve healthy behaviours (Zeidner et al., 2002).

The education system plays a role in making Israeli perceptions more pluralistic, and in changing the old stereotypes that exist between the two groups of citizens (Kaplan et al., 2001). The assumption that a change in the socio-psychological infrastructure that feeds the stubborn Arab-Jewish conflict can only be achieved through peace education, which can help children or adolescents create a new cultural repertoire, instead of “conflict culture”, which consequently enables peace-building.

In a study by Maoz (2000), an intensive program was conducted on Jewish and Palestinian adolescents (aged 15–16) in which they dealt with a variety of social, cultural, and political issues. Significant improvement was found in the stereotypical perceptions of the two groups towards the other people, as was a more positive and balanced change, a change that was more significant among Palestinians who in advance had held more negative attitudes towards Jews.

Over the last few years, educational institutions around the globe have implemented social and emotional learning interventions with the aim of cultivating skills associated with emotional intelligence and empathy (Castillo et al., 2013; Dolev & Leshem, 2016; Hodges & Kezer, 2021; Slaten et al., 2015):

1. Self-awareness: identifying, naming, and evaluating emotions and examining their causes and consequences.

2. Self-management: emotion regulation when coping with stress or conflict while controlling impulses and expressing emotions appropriately.

3. Social awareness: an ability to see things from the viewpoint of another, to express empathy towards him/her, and to identify and evaluate the similarities and differences between oneself and another person.

4. Relationship management: creating and preserving healthy and satisfying relationships that are based on cooperation, and adaptive non-violent interpersonal conflict management and resolution.

5. Responsible decision-making: decisions that contribute to the welfare of the person and take into account the possible ramifications of the chosen act.

These programs have resulted in improved social relationships among students, in empathy towards others, in prosocial behaviours, and in a reduction in anti-social and violent behaviours as well as prejudice and stereotypes against members of other groups (Castillo et al., 2013; Garaigordobil, 2004; Mendelson, 2016; Rea & Pedersen, 2007; Roffey, 2006). For example, Khuri (2004) showed that all of the participants in an intervention that aimed to promote dialogue between Israeli Jews and Arabs had changed the way they perceived the members of the other national group and were able to see them as fellow humans with their own needs and emotions.

Method

Principles underlying the intervention program

The current research presents a unique uni-national intervention program that was informed by a number of guiding principles. First, there was a need to create a safe and trusting environment where participants could learn and implement different skills that were relevant to intergroup. Second, the group moderators needed to have a non-judgemental empathic stance that reflected understanding, support, respect, and curiosity. Third, it was also important to build the program around a structured activity process that would gradually build trust and cooperation among participants, establishing open and free dialogue (Bar-Tal et al., 2010; Khuri, 2004). Finally, it was important to exclude from these encounters any direct reference to issues pertinent to the conflict itself – its reasons, history, costs or the different national identities (Bar-Tal et al., 2010; Ramsey & Latting, 2005). The rationale of this approach was that the skills and communication methods learned in a uni-national environment would be generalized to the attitudes and relationships between participants of different national groups. In other words, the basic research hypothesis was that, as a result of this process, participants would better understand what motivated them and affected their relationships with other people in general and with members of other national groups in particular; as such they would be more empathic towards the suffering and pain of the outgroup. Ultimately, mutual prejudice and negative attitudes would then diminish, enabling closer relationships between the groups.

Participants

The program was delivered to 287 junior and senior high school students (115 in four Jewish groups and 172 in five Arab groups), aged 16–17, at their respective schools in northern Israel. Among the participants in the Jewish groups 36.6% were boys and 63.4% were girls. Among the Arab groups 33.1% were boys and 66.9% were girls.

The program was delivered over 12 sessions of an hour and a half, during life skills lessons and classroom educator hours as part of the curriculum, in coordination with the school management and educational counsellors. Grades 10 and 11 were selected from high schools (the preference was for classes with flexible collaborative educators who believe in the counselling processes). The selection of the classes and students was carried out according to the recommendation of the school counsellors. The Jewish groups were led by a Jewish facilitator and an Arab facilitator, and the Arab groups were led by one Arab facilitator. The facilitators were educational counsellors who are also group facilitators not in those schools, recruiting on behalf of the author of the study. During the meetings, various methods of conveying the content were incorporated, such as the use of art (painting, sculpture, drama – including simulations and role-playing games, photography), watching films, and exposure to personal stories (of the other people) and discussions.

Program activities

The program included 12 encounters lasting 1.5 hours, focusing on the following skills:

1. Emotional intelligence: management and regulation of emotions; expressing emotions in a focused and clear manner; identifying the emotions and needs of other people and appropriate reactions.

2. Empathy: mirroring the emotions of others; active listening; giving an empathic and sensitive response to others without judgement or interpretation; coping with critical or judgemental messages directed towards them.

Following a successful approach from a similar intervention initiative (Garaigordobil, 2004), our program employed different methods, such as arts (drawing, sculpture, simulations, role-playing, and photography); movie viewing; exposure to personal stories (of mothers in the other national group); and discussions. This combination of different methods exposed the students to different aspects of themselves and other people around them (including members of other groups. The groups were moderated by school counsellors – external to the schools attended by the participants – who were also trained as group moderators. The Jewish groups had one Jewish and one Arab moderator, and the Arab groups had one Arab moderator. The structure and specific methods used in each encounter were pre-planned. The first encounters focused on creating a group contract to which all participants contributed and committed. It determined the types of communication and behaviours that would be acceptable to all participants during group meetings, such as active listening, mutual respect, giving feedback, and open expression of emotions. This stage established the group as a safe space for learning and experimenting in emotional skills, allowing the participants to be open without fearing others’ reactions.

Research design

The goals of the current research were to examine the implementation and initial effects of the intervention program. Specifically, it sought to identify any changes in the following areas: emotional intelligence, empathy, relationships with members of the other national group, and social relationships among members of the same national group and between groups.

The research design was mixed method, using both qualitative and quantitative tools. Qualitative tools (targeted observations and focus group interviews) were used in order to examine the program’s implementation: how the participants; which aspects of the program worked better for them and which had not perceived it; what they thought might hinder the successful implementation of the program; and how it affected them. These questions were answered through participant observations and focus groups. First, participatory observations were made by the researcher (who was also the group moderator) for seven Arab groups, and non-participatory observations were recorded for nine other groups (four Jewish and five Arab). Second, focus groups were conducted in three Jewish subgroups and six Arab subgroups, with four participants in each, who met three times at different points in the intervention program to discuss the open questions posed by the researcher. The interviews for the Jewish focus group were conducted in the Hebrew language, and the interviews for the Arab groups were conducted in the Arabic language.

Quantitative tools were used to assess changes in the variables following the program, and to identify any relationships between the variables in each group. Data collection involved administering a number of questionnaires to all participants in order to obtain information on the following aspects:

1. Demographic Profile.

2. Emotional Intelligence: The questionnaire, based on the emotional intelligence model developed by Salovey and Mayer (1990), included 33 items relating to different aspects of emotional intelligence, including evaluation and expression of self and others’ emotions; self and others’ emotional regulation; and use of emotions to solve problems (Schutte et al., 1998), Cronbach’s alpha .93. For each of these items participants were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale their degree of agreement (from 1 – strongly disagree to 5 – strongly agree). The internal reliability of the questionnaire was measured using Cronbach’s alpha, which was .92 among Jewish participants and .96 among Arab participants.

3. Ingroup Empathy: The questionnaire used was the Intergroup Empathy Scale developed by Zisman (2009). Cronbach’s alpha .90. This is a 20-item scale examining the three components of empathy: empathic resonance (e.g., “I notice when someone tries to conceal their true feelings”); empathic reasoning (e.g., “I can usually understand the view of another, even when I don’t agree with it”); and empathic response (e.g., “I become sad when I see a stranger in a group standing alone”). The Cronbach’s alpha value for this questionnaire was .89 among Jewish participants and .91 among Arab participants.

4. Outgroup Empathy: The same questionnaire mentioned above was used, with subjects asked to rate the items according to the level of empathy they have for members of the other national group.

5. Relationships with the other national group: This questionnaire included three separate subscales with different answering methods. The first subscale examined willingness for contact and social closeness with a member of the other national group (Schwarzwald & Cohen, 1982). Cronbach’s alpha .89. Each participant was asked to rate his/her willingness to do the following activities with an Israeli Arab/Jew: meet, study together, host in his/her home, live in the same neighbourhood, and be a friend – on a 5-point Likert scale between 1 (not at all) and 5 (definitely). The Cronbach’s alpha value for Jewish participants was .94 at the beginning of the study and .76 at its conclusion; for Arab participants the value was .90 at the beginning of the program and .81 at its conclusion. The second subscale of this questionnaire, which was based on Rosen’s study (2006), examined positive and negative stereotypes and images of members of the other national group. Participants were asked to rate the degree to which the item (e.g., smart, brave, stingy, violent) characterized members of the other national group on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (definitely). For this section, Cronbach’s alphas for Jewish participants at the beginning and at the end of the study were .86 and .87 respectively; the corresponding values for Arab participants were .77 and .84. In the third subscale, participants were asked to rate the degree to which they felt certain positive and negative emotions (e.g., hate, affection, guilt) towards members of the other national group. For Jewish participants, Cronbach’s alpha was .82 at the beginning of the program and .83 at its conclusion; the corresponding values for Arab participants were .68 and .73.

Findings

Quantitative results

Table 1 presents means and standard deviations for each scale and for each national group before and after the program. Regarding emotional intelligence, the changes exhibited by the Arab participants were more significant when compared with the Jewish participants (F = 8.29, p < .01). Regarding empathy towards their own national group, all participants exhibited improvements following the program, but these changes were more significant among the Arab participants (F = 6.02, p < .05). Regarding empathy towards the other national group, all participants experienced similar improvements following the program (time effect – F = 13.29, p < .001, interaction timeXgroup effect – F = 1.15, n.s) but the empathy levels among the Arab participants were lower both before and after the program (national group effect – F = 18.55, p < .001).

Table 1. Comparison of means (standard deviations) of research variables before and after the intervention in each of the groups with ANNOVA.

	Jews		Arabs		ANNOVA (F values)
Variable	Before M (SD)	After M (SD)	Before M (SD)	After M (SD)	Group	Time	Group X Time
Emotional Intelligence	3.79 (0.67)	3.76 (0.67)	3.73 (0.81)	4.11 (0.66)	*3.96	*5.94	**8.29
Empathy own	3.73 (0.57)	3.92 (0.63)	3.58 (0.63)	4.08 (0.56)	.03	***29.52	*6.02
Empathy other	3.13 (0.96)	3.7 (0.69)	2.58 (0.93)	3.44 (0.83)	***18.55	***58.26	2.36
Willingness for contact	2.57 (1.26)	2.91 (0.84)	3.08 (1.17)	3.62 (0.92)	***26.86	***13.29	1.15
Images others	3.07 (0.68)	3.31 (0.64)	2.86 (0.65)	3.49 (0.62)	.09	***36.29	**7.88
Feelings others	2.88 (0.69)	3.11 (0.57)	2.97 (0.52)	3.47 (0.6)	**11.98	***30.3	2

p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001×.

In addition, Pearson correlations were calculated separately for Jewish and Arab participants in order to examine relationships between the main variables. Among the Arab participants, significant relationships were found between levels of empathy towards Arabs and empathy towards Jews (r = .44, p < .01), and between empathy towards Jews and willingness to have contact with them (r = .49, p < .01). Among Jewish participants, a significant relationship was found between empathy towards Jews and empathy towards Arabs (r = .50, p < .01), but no significant relationship was found between empathy towards Arabs and willingness to have contact with them (r = .17, n.s).

In addition to examining the changes experienced by the participants after participating in the program, in order to examine the process of change, Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the connections between the main variables – separately among the Jewish group, and separately among the Arab participants. Among the Arab participants, a significant correlation was found between empathy towards Arabs and empathy towards Jews (r = .44, p < .01), and between empathy towards Jews and willingness to contact them (r = .49, p < .01). Among the Jewish participants, a significant association was found between empathy towards Jews and empathy towards Arabs (r = .50, p < .01), but no statistically significant association was found between empathy towards Arabs and willingness to contact them (r = .17, n.s.).

Qualitative findings

In the present section, most of the findings obtained from analysis of the interviews and observations throughout the sessions are presented.

Towards the end of the sessions, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the participants for open-ended focus groups randomly selected to examine what they had experienced in the intervention program, and how it had affected them and their relationships with other people from their internal and external group. Furthermore, observations were also made throughout the sessions. The purpose of this part of the study was to examine the extent to which the program was able to strengthen the emotional intelligence, empathy, and social connections of participants with other people in general, and addressed towards other peoples (Arabs/Jews) in particular.

Analysis of the qualitative findings of the interviews was done according to the categorical analysis method, which included a verbal analysis of the interviews.

Four key themes emerged in the qualitative analysis of the findings, which reflect the changes that occurred to some of the participants in the intervention program: improvement in emotional intelligence and self-confidence, strengthening social relationships and empathy towards their internal group members and their attitude towards the other people (Arabs/Jews).

The qualitative data gathered from the observations and focus groups suggest that participants experienced notable changes because of their involvement in the program. One of the most prominent changes observed was in the emotional intelligence of the participants. This improvement is expressed both in their ability to express freely and openly inner feelings and experiences (i.e., better narrative emotional expression) and in their ability to regulate their emotions. At the beginning of the program, the members of the Jewish group were particularly hard pressed to express themselves to their classmates and did not feel comfortable participating in the group conversation and sharing what they thought and felt. They feared that they would not be understood and rejected if they shared with their classmates what they personally experience. Evidence of this has emerged from their comments in the focus groups. For example: “I feel lonely in my classroom, it’s hard for me to connect with the girls in the classroom, there’s no common denominator between us, not in terms of the way we dress, the tendencies and the attitude. I often debated whether to change classes or schools, but my parents did not support me, and it is hard for me to share with anyone because they would not understand me. “We girls in our class are underprivileged, the boys won’t let us talk inside the classroom, we’re minority and therefore prefer to keep quiet, I wanted to have a place in the classroom but what’s happening is different”.

The Arab participants did not address mental difficulties at the beginning of the program as a tool in expressing themselves to their classmates, but expressed at this stage a fear of taking part in the group processes, both because of the lack of familiarity with the new moderator and because of the characteristics of their culture that is not encouraging and to some extent also disapproves of the exposure of personal feelings and experiences. For example: “It’s hard for me to connect with a new teacher (the supervisor within the group), so I didn’t initially join workshops within the classroom, and I preferred not to participate and sit aside and laugh at all kinds of things, friends and content”. “I don’t feel comfortable being a part of your meetings, I wasn’t raised or used to talking about myself and my personality, it’s not customary in my family or in school. “In my tutoring class, I would always stay on the sidelines and the teachers know that I’d rather not be part of their conversation”.

In contrast, in more advanced stages of the program, all participants revealed themselves more openly to others, expressing their thoughts, feelings, personal history, and attitudes to other group members and increasing their self-exposure.

In the Jewish groups, the social atmosphere and relationships between classmates were negative and even violent prior to program initiation. Following the program, the emotional resonance of the participants had improved and they were better able to see the desires and needs of the other children in the class, which contributed to a more positive and accepting approach towards the interactions between them. In addition, the program-helped participants learn to better regulate their emotions, reducing the potential to negatively influence other people. For example, at the beginning of the program the research participants (particularly in the Jewish groups) expressed strong anger and other negative emotions towards other classmates, the teacher, and the school. Later on, it was clear that they had learned to cope with these emotions more constructively, express themselves adaptively, and work towards direct conflict resolution, instead of the flight or fight responses they had used in the past. One manifestation of this change was an increase in their ability to openly share their thoughts, feelings, and personal history. For instance, one of the students opened up about the frequent fights her parents had had when she was a child, which led to their divorce when she was in second grade:

They did not know that my parents are separated and I live with just my father. This was the first time I shared information about my family with them. I was always embarrassed about what was going on in my house and angry at the constant fights between my parents. I used to do everything I could to hide it from my friends. Today I relate to it differently than I used to. I am more open and less reluctant to share. I have enough self-confidence to bring up personal matters inside the group and the listening ear I received from my friends was supportive.

Other students shared the frustration and difficulties they had experienced during a social boycott against them or other crises in school. Even students who at the beginning of the year were shy and refrained from sharing personal information became more active later on in the discussion and group activities. In addition, at the conclusion of the program the participants felt more empowered and self-confident, believed more in their abilities, and exhibited higher levels of self-efficacy. Similar changes were observed among the Arab participants, although they were less pronounced. This is because that even at the beginning of the program, the Arab groups expressed positive emotions towards other classmates, and the class atmosphere was mostly positive and accepting.

Another positive result of the current intervention program was that its participants learned of different groups in Israeli society and in their school, helping them to understand that, despite possible differences between them and members of other groups, all human beings have a lot in common. Specifically, during the program the participants’ perceptions of members of the other national group (Arabs/Jews) improved. At the beginning of the program, the Jewish group members exhibited negative generalized attitudes towards Arabs, saw them as one homogenous group, and resisted talking about them. During the program, especially after discovering that some of their classmates were Arabs (a fact they were not aware of) and while coping with an Arab moderator, their perception of Arabs became less narrow and more balanced. In other words, the Jewish group started seeing and treating Arabs as fellow human beings, in sharp contrast to their initial stereotypes against them. The two statements below, made by focus group participants, illustrate this change:

I will tell the truth. I always thought that Arabs were dirty, ignorant and lacked any understanding. This is how I was brought up and today I am ashamed of having had these thoughts all the time and of how it was presented in the news and papers.

At the start of the meeting, I admitted that I believed all Arabs were dirty, liars and ignorant, and today I see how I was so wrong with this attitude and it is not okay to generalize like that and say that all of them are this or that.

One of the processes that especially increased empathy and reduced prejudice towards Arabs in general was the exposure to the personal stories of Arab mothers.

Discussion

The current research examined the implementation and initial outcomes of a unique uni-national intervention program for Jewish and Arab adolescents. The basic premise of the study was that conducting the intervention separately with each national group and focusing on cultivating emotional skills and empathy – will contribute to stronger empathy towards the other national group and inter-group relations. Largely finding supported our hypotheses but the specific results regarding each part of the model will be discussed below while comparing between the effects of the program on its Jewish and Arab participants.

As hypothesized, the program’s focus on improving participants’ empathic abilities (i.e., empathic resonance, empathic feedback) – resulted not just in higher in-group empathy but also in higher outgroup empathy. In other words, the skills they learned and practiced in their own national group – of looking at reality from the viewpoint of the other person – were generalized and used with members of the other group. This finding is supported by studies that showed that asking people to look at reality through the eyes of another person (an in-group or outgroup member), leads them to experience similar emotions and to have a deeper understanding of the underlying motives for their behaviours (McDonald et al., 2017). As a result, these participants exhibited higher empathy towards that particular person and the group s/he was a member of (i.e., Dovidio et al., 2004; Vescio et al., 2003).

In addition, following the improvement in their empathy towards the members of the other nation (Arabs/Jews), there has also been an improvement in their images and feelings towards them, and in their willingness to be in contact with them. These findings support the existing theoretical knowledge regarding the effect of empathy on intergroup relations – about the way in which observing reality through the eyes of a member of an outgroup and experiencing emotions similar to those he feels, increases similarities between them, and reduces the perception of those people as significantly different (Brackett et al., 2011), strangers and threatening, which results in reduced stereotypes and increases willingness to relate to them (Yablon, 2007). However, the current study expands the existing knowledge in the field by showing for the first time that strengthening feelings of empathy, in general, can lead to an improvement in the attitudes and feelings of adolescents towards their out-group members and in their relationships (Husnu & Crisp, 2015). That is, contrary to previous studies, which showed, that empathy towards a member of a particular out-group is extended only to an empathic perception towards that group and not to other groups (Marquez et al., 2006).

Our findings went further and showed that learning and training in empathic skills can be generalized to members of outgroups. The Jewish and Arab adolescents that participated in the study exhibited similar improvements in empathy towards the other national group – even though at both time points the Jewish group’s empathy levels were higher than those of the other group. This might show that getting Arab adolescents, who live as a minority group that suffer discrimination, to see reality from the point of view of the Israeli Jews is harder to achieve than vice versa. Another possible explanation to consider is that for the Arab population, the workshop provided one of the first opportunities (if not the first) to talk about their emotions and learn how to cope with their own and other people’s state of minds. For these Jewish participants, emotional language is a more natural part of their everyday lives and as such, the emotional change they underwent following the program was different. An indication of that is the significantly larger changes in Emotional Intelligence and empathy towards their in-group that the Arab participants went through compared to the Jewish group. As a result, the Arab participants started the study with a lower empathy level and might have needed more time to implement their new learned skills in order to reach a higher level – more similar to the Jewish participants. The intervention was similar to the two groups, indicating that the intervention program achieved its goals and had a similar effect on the two groups, although there was a minimal difference in favour of the Jewish adolescent group and this explains the cultural differences for each group.

In addition, the program resulted in improved images, feelings towards and willingness for contact with members of the other national group (Israeli Jews/Arabs). For the most part, degree of improvement was related to level of empathy towards the outgroup. In other words, participants did not just generalize the empathy skills they learned in the program, but it actually changed the way they perceived and felt about the other group. This finding is supported by the theory of empathy according to which looking at reality through the eyes of another person, emphasizes the similarities between him/herself and the other person and how every human being is the same. This reduces the feelings that others might be a threat (Holt, 1989; Stephan & Finlay, 1999). As a result, stereotypical thinking and prejudice are reduced, there is a higher willingness for contact with members of that group and relationships between them are improved (i.e., Batson et al., 1997; Eisenberg et al., 2010). The only exception to the relation described was when it came to the association between Jewish participants’ empathy towards Arabs and improvement in their willingness for contact with them. It seems that the fear of Arabs among Israeli Jews is too intense to change their willingness for contact following empathy training – at least when it comes to adolescents (Ross, 2014).

However, in contrast to research hypotheses, emotional intelligence was not found as related to empathy towards outgroup or to images, feelings and willingness for contact with members of the other national group. These findings were similar in both groups even though the Arab participants experienced a large improvement in the Emotional Intelligence following the program. This might mean that fostering emotional intelligence – including the ability to identify and understand another person’s emotions – can bring about an improvement in intragroup social relationships, but it is not enough to effect a direct change in the attitudes and emotions towards members of another national group and to create empathy towards them – only indirectly through its relation with empathy.

The improvements found in reduced stereotypes and prejudice between Jews and Arabs following this program were similar and, in many ways, stronger than those found in previous studies that conducted direct encounters between Jews and Arabs based on the Contact theory (i.e., Emerson et al., 2002; Maoz, 2000). This demonstrates the clear advantage of conducting a uni-national intervention at least as a first step in any co-existence program. One of the major obstacles of previous interventions based on the Contact Theory was the intense hostilities between the Israeli Jews and Arabs, which made it hard to get them to see beyond the conflict and focus on the human side. Our findings showed that by conducting a uni-national intervention it was possible to bypass that problem and improve empathy towards members of the other group.

In conclusion, because of participating in the program, all participants improved their ability to express emotions and strong internal experiences openly and freely, regulate emotions, and control the extent and the way in which these will be expressed in their behaviour. However, because of participating in the program, all participants improved their ability to openly and freely express strong inner feelings and experiences, regulate emotions, and control the extent and the way they behave. However, according to the findings of the quantitative part of the study, this part of the hypothesis was only recovered among Arab participants, who showed an improvement in the level of emotional intelligence (in all dimensions examined) following participation in the program, findings that were not discovered by Jewish participants.

The differences between quantitative and qualitative findings may reflect different levels of internalization of the skills learned in both groups. A number of explanations can be offered for these differences. On one hand, it is possible that due to the general cultural differences between Arabs and Jews concerning feelings and expressions openly and freely, there were differences in how much they were given the opportunity to express their personal experiences and receive support. The Jewish participants, who come from a culture in which emotions and personal experiences are much more acceptable and perceived as a legitimate way of self-expression, usually had other opportunities to share with other people what they experience personally. On the other hand, Arab participants, who come from a culture that, like other collectivist cultures, does not encourage a person too freely and openly express his feelings for the sake of preserving group harmony, were given fewer opportunities.

Support for this explanation arises from the differences found between Jewish and Arab participants, prior to their participation in the workshop, in the Emotional Intelligence Index of Evaluation and Measurement of Emotions – a measure that was higher among Jewish participants. Another way in which these cultural differences may have caused Arab participants in the current study to produce more of the intervention program is that for them the workshop provided tools and skills that had no other way to learn and therefore the change they experienced in its wake was greater. By contrast, most Jewish adolescents had already learned at least some of the skills of emotional intelligence before the workshop and therefore experienced less change in its aftermath.

Conclusions, research limitations and recommendations for future research

The study showed for the first time that strengthening empathy skills can result in improvements in positive emotions, attitudes, and relations vis-à-vis the outgroup – and other groups in general, even in situations of conflict. These skills can create better social relationships and facilitate co-existence and comradeship between members of different groups, including those in a lengthy, intractable conflict (as is the case with Jews and Arabs in Israel). In other words, even when there is mutual suspicion, fear, and hostility, not to mention a long history of violence, a uni-national group intervention can promote willingness for contact and improve the attitudes and feelings of Jews towards Arabs and vice versa.

The current study had a number of methodological limitations. First, the moderating conditions for the Jewish and Arab groups were not identical. Whereas the Arab groups had one Arab moderator, the Jewish groups had two moderators-one Jewish and one Arab. As a result, the participants in the Jewish group had to cope not only with the intervention itself but also with the implication of interacting with a member of the other national group. Future studies could compare the results of interventions where moderators are of the same national group as the participants and interventions that include moderators from the other national group. In addition, because the study was conducted only with participants living in northern Israel during a set period, it did not allow an examination of the effects of certain participant characteristics or specific security incidents on the success of the program. Future studies should incorporate these factors to enable future programs to be adapted to specific participants and circumstances in order to increase effectiveness.

Future studies should also seek to broaden the findings of this initial research. First, it is important to examine in greater depth the influence that specific cultures with different norms (e.g., as regards expressing emotions, sharing personal history, or in interpersonal relationships) might have on the impact of similar intervention processes. Aside from deepening our theoretical understanding, such studies would enable the intervention program to be adapted to fit the culture of all participants (even if they come from different cultural backgrounds). Second, it would be useful to conduct longitudinal studies to examine the long-term effects of this type of program (e.g., 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-intervention) on participants’ attitudes and feelings towards members of the other national group. This could help ascertain to what extent the changes the participants experienced immediately after the program’s conclusion would be maintained over time, and whether any program effects manifest themselves only after a certain period has elapsed.

Another research limitation is that all the groups were conducted in the same period, so it was not possible to compare the degree of its influence in different periods from a security point of view. In light of the significant impact that the security events involving Israeli Arabs had during the program – on the attitudes and feelings of the Arab participants towards the Jews, it would be important to conduct follow-up studies to examine the effects of the program in the different periods of relevant security events, and to what extent they affect Arabs or Jews more. It can be assumed that during times of escalation of Israeli-Palestinian conflict or violent incidents by Arabs or Jews towards each other, the program would have less effect on the attitudes and feelings of the research participants towards members of the other nation.

It is suggested also to conduct several follow-up studies in order to expand the understanding of the connections between culture (collectivist or individualist), emotional intelligence, empathy, and intergroup relations. Beyond theoretical understanding, these studies will help adapt the program to the culture of the participants and their form of interpersonal communication. In addition to examining the effect of the program on the relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel, it would be useful in further studies to also examine the effects of the program on other areas of the teenagers’ lives – such as their social relationships (with people inside and outside their group), academic achievements, contact with parents and family, self-confidence, mental and physical health and behavioural problems including violence and drugs. Another factor that may well have an effect on the extent of the changes that will apply to the participants following the workshop is the extent to which each of the participants has personally experienced a negative event arising from the Israeli-Arab conflict (for example, was present in an attack or other nationalist event, was exposed to rocket fire, a member of his family was injured in a security event, etc.). This will probably have an effect on his readiness to participate in this type of workshop and how open he will be to changing his positions following it. In order to test the effect of this element, it would be worthwhile in a follow-up study to compare the workshop’s contribution to groups in Israeli society that differ from each other in the extent of their direct exposure to the results of the conflict (for example, between people living in Sderot or Ashkelon and those living in Tel Aviv).

Personality variables such as openness, self-esteem, self-monitoring, the focus of control, introversion/extroversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness may have an effect on the way participants will respond to the program and how much they will be affected by it. First, some of these variables have previously been found to have an effect on the emotional state of the participants.

The attitudes and worldviews of the people closest to a person can also have an effect on how open they are to intervention programs of this type and how willing they will be to change their attitudes and worldviews and the way they see reality. For example, regarding children and teenagers, it is important to check the attitudes of their parents, how they treat interpersonal relationships in general, and members of the other nation in particular. It can be assumed that when the parents hold consolidated extreme positions and it is important to them that their children hold similar positions and worldviews, this will have a significant effect on the degree of openness of the adolescent to changing his positions in this type of workshop.

Finally, it is hoped that future research into such interventions would attempt to locate the most effective and significant elements that contribute to an improvement in Jewish-Arab relations in Israel, incorporating these components into future programs.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).