1

Submitted to the European Journal of Social Psychology

May 22nd 2007

Ingroup and Outgroup Friendships and Campus Perceptions:

Comparing Israeli Arab and Jewish Students

Ruth Sharabany, Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz, Hilla Pertz,

University of Haifa, Israel

Tamar Zelniker, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Faisal Azaiza and Haggai Kupermintz

University of Haifa, Israel

Correspondence: Ruth Sharabany Department of Psychology, University of Haifa Haifa, Israel 31905

2

Phone: 972-4-8240-920 Fax: 972-4-8240-966

e-mail: ruthsh@psy.haifa.ac.il

Portions of this paper were presented at the International Association for Relationships

Research Conference (IARRC), July 7-13, 2006, University of Crete, Rethymno, Crete, Greece

3

Abstract

There is a growing recognition of the impact of different ethnic groups on university

campuses and the potential of multicultural universities to enhance equality and acceptance by

promoting positive contact and relationships between the different groups (Neimann &

Maruyama, 2005).The present study explored whether the nature of friendships with the

ingroup or the outgroup is related to how students evaluate their university experience. The

question was asked specifically within the context of belonging to a Jewish majority or to

Arab minority on an Israeli university campus. This is particularly challenging when the

groups on campus differ in nationality are involved in political conflict, as is the case in the

University of Haifa where our research was conducted.

Individual friendships and as well as group friendships were examined, and their

relation to the perception of the campus as supporting positive processes (i.e. accommodating

diversity and egalitarianism) or as supporting negative processes (i.e. fostering discrimination

and intolerance). Four processes that mediate group attitude change through contact were used

as conceptual framework (Pettigrew, 1998). Results indicated that contact between the two

groups does breed outgroup friendships on both the individual and group levels, which in turn

is related to how the university is perceived, depending on whether one is a member in the

minority or majority group.

4

Introduction

The reality that university campuses include students from diverse ethnic and religious

backgrounds makes them natural laboratories for the study of inter-group relations.

Researchers are asking whether diversity in the college experience contributes to an increase

in contact between groups and whether such contact can promote inter-group friendships and

positive changes in the perceptions of each other (Eller & Abrams, 2004; Hertz-Lazarowitz,

2003, 2006).

Little research has been conducted to determine whether such contact and interactions

foster outgroup friendships, and how it relates to positive or negative perception of the

campus. In this study, we focused on friendship with outgroup members on a university

campus. Specifically, we explored whether individual friendships and group friendships with

outgroup members would predict positive perceptions of the university as accepting and just

or negative perceptions of the university as rejecting and prejudiced towards certain groups.

This is particularly challenging when the groups on campus differ in nationality are involved

in political conflict, and have minority-majority status as is the case in the University of

Haifa, in Israel where our research was conducted.

The University of Haifa, has 16,000 students and is a highly diverse campus in terms

of nationality, religion, and ethnicity. Eighty percent of the students are Jewish, with the

majority born in Israel and approximately one-quarter immigrants, mostly from the former

Soviet Union (FSU) and Ethiopia. Arabs make up 20% of the student body and vary in their

religious affiliations. The majority are Muslims, alongside Christians and Druze. The

university is the first context for daily contact of Arab and Jewish students because the Israeli

5

educational system is segregated at both the elementary and the secondary schooling level (Al

Haj, 2004; Azaiza et al. 2006; Hertz- Lazarowitz & Zelniker, 2006).

For several decades, the University of Haifa has been the site of moderate peaceful

attitudes and coexistence, despite the occasional conflicts that erupt between groups of Arab

and Jewish students on various academic and national issues. Based on daily observations on

campus, it appears that although the two national groups are mostly separated socially, they

do share many academic and social activities, with ongoing daily contact and the potential to

develop closer relationships between them (Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1988; Hofman, 1988).

Pettigrew (1998) suggests that having even a single friend from an outgroup reduces

the level of blunt intolerance, as the feelings towards that person are generalized to the rest of

the outgroup members. The present study examined whether this claim holds true in Israel

within the context of the socio-political conflict between Jews and Arabs. Friendship was

measured on the two levels of individual friendship and group friendship, both with ingroup

and outgroup peers. The research aims were to examine whether friendships between Arab

and Jewish students exist on campus, and the ways in which these friendships are related to

the students’ positive or negative perceptions of life on campus. Following Pettigrew, we

hypothesized that having outgroup friends on campus would predict perceptions of the

campus as more positive, reflecting acceptance and equality, and would reduce negative

perceptions of the campus, reflecting rejection and discrimination (Pettigrew & Meertens,

1995, Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Stephan & Stephan, 2005). Before addressing these issues, a

brief overview of Israeli society and Jewish-Arab relations within it follows.

6

Background of Israeli society

Israel’s total population numbers seven million people (CBS, 2006), and this relatively

small number consists of a quite diverse population. Today, social scientists in Israel identify

four major divisions in Israeli society. Three of these are within the Jewish population, and

the fourth is between Arabs and Jews. The first is an ethnic division between Jews of Middle

Eastern origin (Sephardim) and Jews of European and American origin (Ashkenazim), which

are about equally divided. The second is a religious division between orthodox Jews (17%)

and the rest of the Jewish population, which is composed of “traditional” and secular Jews.

The third is a division between native-born Israelis and immigrants (17%), mostly from the

former Soviet Union (FSU). The fourth division is between Jews (80%) and Arabs (20%).

Arabs in Israel are defined by sociologists as a minority (Beilin, 1992; Ghanem, 2001, 2005;

Yiftachel, 2006).

The intensity of the three divisions within the Jewish majority group has become less

salient in recent years following policies of integration, particularly in the schools (Eshel,

Sharabany, & Bar-Sadeh, 2003) ANS as reflected by upward mobility and an increasing

number of intermarriages between Jews of all origins (Ayalon & Shavit, 2004;; Horowitz,

2003; Kalekin-Fishman, 2004; Kimberling, 2001; Smooha, 1997). The Jewish-Arab division

remains the most prominent split in Israeli society (see review of the culture, education,

language, and political context of Israeli society, in White-Stephan, Hertz-Lazarowitz,

Zelniker, and Stephen ,2004).

The involvement of Israeli Arabs and Jews in national and political tensions has been

influenced by the ongoing and occasionally violent conflicts between neighboring Arab

countries and Israel, as well as by peace agreements (Cleveland, 2004; Hofman, 1988). In

7

recent years, these tensions have also been affected by the increasingly violent conflict

between Israel and Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Following the short-

lived period of hope for peace in the wake of the Oslo Agreement, the conflict intensified with

the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish extremist in 1995 (Abu-

Nimer, 2004; White-Stephan, Hertz-Lazarowitz, Zelniker, & Stephan, 2004). Since the first

uprising of Palestinians ( the "Intifada") of 1989, and more so after the outbreak of the second

Intifada in 2000, the concern felt by Arab citizens of Israel for their Palestinian compatriots in

the West Bank and Gaza has fueled criticism of political and military actions taken by the

Jewish majority government against the Palestinians and has led many Arabs to reconstruct

their identity. Whereas before the Intifada, Arab citizens of Israel tended to express their

identity in terms such as ‘Arabs’ or ‘Israeli Arabs,’ following the Intifada they now express

their identity more often as ‘Palestinian Arabs’ or ‘Arab Israeli Palestinians.’

Arab society within Israel: Socio-cultural and political aspects

The Arab population in Israel is composed of a Muslim majority (82%) alongside

Christians (8%); Druze, Bedouins, and Circassians (5%); and other small groups (5%) (CBS,

2006). Most Jews live in Jewish cities, while most Arabs (90%) live in Arab villages. There

are eight mixed Arab-Jewish cities in Israel (Ghanem, 2001; Halabi & Sonnenschein, 2004;

Rouhana, 1997). Within Israel, relations between Jewish and Arab citizens are characterized

by coexistence and conflict. There is an unequal allocation of infrastructure and educational

resources, though not according to official policy. This inequality leads to increasing Arab

dissatisfaction with the government and creates dissatisfaction on the part of Arab leadership

in general and its educational leadership in particular (Al Haj, 2004; Kalekin-Fishman, 2004).

8

Through their representatives in the Knesset and numerous non-government organizations

Arab citizens struggle to achieve greater equality of civil rights and more equal allocation of

resources by the State. The Jewish-Arab division within Israel has persisted since 1948, with

issues of identity, civic equality, and domination at the fore.

Culturally, Arab society has a collectivistic core characterized by a strong sense of

belonging to the community and priority of the community over the individual in terms of

interests and decision making (Oyserman, Coon, & Kimmerling, 2001; Triandis, 1995). While

the Jewish sector functions primarily as a modern industrial and urban society, the Arab sector

is now in a rapid process of modernization (Al Haj, 2004). This transition from traditional

values and customs to a greater degree of individualism is reflected, for example, in an

increased emphasis on the nuclear family and the reduced role of extended families (Dwairy,

1998, 2004). A significant factor in this process of change is the increasing number of Arabs

in general, and young women in particular, who are entering universities and becoming agents

of change and empowerment (Gilat, 2006; Hertz-Lazarowitz & Shapira, 2005; Rabinowitz &

Abu Baker, 2002). Recent research found that the common style of parenting among Arabs is

more modern, authoritative (combining authority with warmth), and authoritarian (power

oriented) only among villagers (Sharabany, Eshel & Hakim, in press). Similarly, female Arab

university students were found to be similar to their Jewish peers in the degree of

individualism and collectivism reported (Ben-Shaul, Sharabany, & Kurman, 2004; Oyserman,

Coon, & Kimmerling, 2001).

9

The University of Haifa (UH): An "Umwelt" for inter-group contacts

The term “Umwelt” was defined by Lewin (1935) as the physical environment

crossing its social meaning. In Israel, the University of Haifa is such an Umwelt, reflecting

the physical and social characteristics of Israeli society. Haifa is one of the eight mixed Arab-

Jewish cities in Israel. Since the establishment of the University in the mid-1960s, the

proportion of Arabs on campus has been reflective of their proportion in the population. These

Arab students are native-born and aspire to pursue higher education (Al-Haj, 1998; Hertz-

Lazarowitz & Zelniker, 2006; Mar’i, 1978). Three-quarters of the Jewish students are also

native Israelis, while the remaining one-quarter is comprised of immigrants, mostly from FSU

countries and some from Ethiopia and other countries.

The noticeable presence of Arab students on campus in this unique mixed Umwelt,

and the salience of their language, apparel, and culture, provides them with a sense of power

and an expressed quest for respect which was lacking in their segregated schooling.

Conversely, it makes many Jewish students feel threatened by the loss of power and the

weakening of their identity in the Umwelt. As such, the University of Haifa is one of the

leading educational institutions in which the advancement of the Arab population takes place

within the constraints of Jewish majority control (Al Haj, 1998).

Thus, the University of Haifa campus can be perceived as a natural laboratory for studying the

unique nature of Arab-Jewish intergroup relations and friendship. Over the years, Jewish and

Arab students have become actors in an ongoing social drama on campus (Harre, 1978), with

daily life on campus characterized primarily by routine educational activities conducted in

peaceful coexistence, but occasionally punctuated by conflict (Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1988, 2006).

Arab and Jewish students study together in classes live together in the university dormitories,

10

and each group has its own representatives in the Student Union. Individuals from both

national groups share a common goal to advance their education and obtain an academic

degree. They interact regularly on campus throughout their academic experience. The

University officially supports diversity and has established a few centers, such as the Jewish–

Arab Center, aimed to increase contact between the two groups. Moreover, the University of

Haifa is perceived as a significant environment for the development of future academic and

political leadership among both Jews and Arabs. All of this background may be conducive to

the development of intergroup personal relationships and perhaps friendships.

However, factors on the macro level (Bronfenbrenner, 2005), the socio political level,

both in the country and in the region are far from supporting intergroup closeness or friendship.

Those include dissatisfaction over unequal civic rights for the Arab citizens of Israel; the Israeli

occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; the long history of wars, conflict and violence

within and between Israel and the Arab states in the region; the growing threat to and fear for

their existence among the Jews in Israel; and the growing fear among Arab citizens of Israel

about their future. The daily life of Arab and Jewish students is constantly affected by these

contextual multidimensional threats (Hertz-Lazarowitz 1988, 2003). Thus, it is not clear that

intergroup friendships on campus will be found.

The contact hypothesis: Jews and Arabs studying together

There is renewed interest in the potential of universities that have a diverse body of

students to enhance equality and acceptance by promoting positive contact and relationships

among the various groups that often hold mutual prejudices (Niemann & Maruyama, 2005).

Since the 1940s and early 1950s, it has been generally assumed that the mere opportunity for

11

ingroup contact would improve mutual attitudes and increase positive relations among groups

with a history of conflict. The premise is that contact provides an opportunity for mutual

acquaintance, which enhances understanding and acceptance among the interacting group

members. This efficacy of contact theory has been supported by empirical experimental

findings, as summarized and reviewed by Allport (1954), Amir (1969), Miller and Brewer,

(1984), and more recently by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006), concluding that contact often (but

not always) positively changes attitudes and relations between diverse ethnic groups.

The main conditions needed for positive change in relationships, as initially proposed

by Allport (1954), include: (1) support and encouragement of inter-group contact by authority

figures significant to the persons participating in the contact; (2) equal status of the interacting

groups; (3) cooperation between members of interacting groups; and (4) enjoyable and

intimate encounters that foster meaningful interaction between the participants. These

conditions are found to be important in many types of inter-group contact, including Arab-

Jewish relationships in Israel (Ben-Ari & Amir, 1985, 1989).

This approach, known as the Contact Hypothesis, has been criticized almost since its

very conception, specifically in relation to Jewish-Arab groups. The argument is that even if

research were successful in identifying all the conditions promoting successful inter-group

contact, the reality is that establishing and maintaining the conditions needed for effective

contact is often impossible. This is particularly true in the Jewish-Arab case, where the inter-

group political macro level conflict makes it very difficult to bring these two populations

together to participate in a contact situation and even more difficult to maintain the necessary

conditions to ensure the positive effects of such contact (Ben-Ari, 2004). For these reasons the

12

existence of inter-group friendships and their relation to how the campus is perceived merit

investigation.

Pettigrew (1998) suggested that Allport’s (1954) four conditions and an additional

fifth one, friendship potential, are essential situational factors for attitude change towards

members of the outgroup. Pettigrew suggested that four processes mediate attitude change

through contact: 1) learning about the outgroup members; 2) generating affective ties; 3)

inter-group reappraisal; and 4) changing behavior. Quality of contact, such as expressed in

attitudes of group friendship and especially in having an individual close friend, appears to be

pivotal in achieving attitude change (Eller & Abrams, 2004). This is the main theoretical

framework of inter-group friendship used in the present paper.

University of Haifa: A context for potential positive

contact and friendship between Jewish and Arab students

To date, there has been little research conducted on close relationships in the Arab

culture in general, and even less about inter-group friendships of adolescents and young adults

(Sharabany, 2006; Sharabany, Eshel, & Hakim, in press; Scharf & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2003;

Hertz-Lazarowitz et al., 2004). Research on intergroup friendship has been conducted in the

USA mainly within the framework of race theories (Hallinan & Williams, 1989; Quillian &

Campbell, 2006); in Europe as related to multicultural understandings (Verkuyten &

Martinovic, 2005); and in cross-cultural studies mainly using individualism-collectivism

concepts (French, Bay, Pidada, & Lee, 2006). In Israel, interethnic friendships and interethnic

attitudes were studied following the integration of Jewish secondary schools in the seventies

(Eshel, 1993; Klien & Eshel, 1980; Sharan, Kussel, & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1984). Most of the

13

research conducted globally points to the fact that cross-racial and cross-ethnic friendships

increase with school diversity.

We predict that the University of Haifa does provide potential, to some extent, for

positive interaction, contact and friendship between Arab and Jewish students, despite the

presence of factors that may inhibit the formation of close relationships between group

members. Since the Arab students constitute a minority group, we expect, based on previous

studies of school integration in Israel, that their aspiration for contact with the majority group

will be higher than vice versa (Eshel, 1993; Eshel, Sharabany, & Bar-Sadeh; Klein & Eshel,

1980).

Hypotheses:

1. Due to contact on campus, individual and group friendships will be found between Arab

and Jewish students of campus.

2. Arab students, being minority will report a larger number of individual outgroup friends

and greater closeness to them, as well as greater friendship with Jewish students as a

group.

3. For both national groups, higher outgroup friendship will predict more positive

perceptions of the campus as a place of equality, acceptance, and tolerance.

4. For both national groups, having at least one close individual outgroup friend will

predict stronger positive campus perceptions.

5. For both national groups, a higher level of ingroup friendship, a larger number of

ingroup friends, and a greater degree of closeness to them will predict more positive

campus perceptions.

14

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 784 students, including 40% Jewish and 60% Arab students, 61% of

whom were women and 39% men. Among the Arab group, all of whom were born in Israel,

57% were Muslims, 29% Christians, and 14% Druze. Among the Jewish group, 56% were

born in Israel, 22% were born in the former Soviet Union (FSU), and 22% were born in

Ethiopia. The mean age for the total sample was 24.5, and the majority (80%) were single and

in their second or third year of undergraduate studies in various faculties and departments of

the university.

Measures

Three questionnaires were used, one pertaining to positive and negative perceptions about life

on campus and two pertaining to group and individual friendships, as described below:

1. Perception of life on campus: This questionnaire included two parts, each having 22

items rated on a Likert scale.

A. Positive perception of campus life: Positive aspects of campus life, including

opportunities for academic and social contacts; exposure to different cultures; an atmosphere

of democracy; and a feeling of acceptance. For example: “On our campus, the encounter

between different cultures teaches tolerance.” The alpha Cronbach for this part of the scale

was .86.

B. Negative perception of campus life: Negative aspects of campus life, including

feelings of tension, discrimination, and being stereotyped. For example: “On our campus,

there is political tension between different groups.” The alpha Cronbach for this part of the

scale was .78.

15

2. Individual friendship: Each participant was asked to provide the names of up to 10

close friends, indicating nationality and indicating on a five-point Likert scale the degree of

closeness to each one. From this grid, five indices were created as follows: a.“Existence” of

an outgroup friend having at least one friend named from the outgroup; Based on the

literature, this measure was considered to be important and indicated crossing a qualitative

threshold of meaningful involvement with the outgroup (Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew &

Meertense, 1995; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). b. “Number” of friends listed from the ingroup

and number from the outgroup; c. Degree of “closeness” to ingroup and to outgroup friends.

3. Group friendship: This scale measures attitudes to friends as a group, referring

separately to the ingroup and to the outgroup, with items rated on a Likert scale.

a. Group Friendship: The first 10 items were based on the dimensions of the

Sharabany Intimacy Scale (Sharabany, 1994). The original eight dimensions of the scale are:

frankness and spontaneity; sensitivity and knowing; attachment; exclusivity; helping and

sharing; receiving and imposing; common activities; trust and loyalty. An adaptation of this

scale was used by Hertz-Lazarowitz, Rosenberg, and Guttmann (1989). An example item is:

“I speak with them about personal things.”

b.. Academic cooperation: The second part of the scale contains an additional 10

items, focusing on instrumental common activities related to the academic context, including

four dimensions: cooperation and help; consulting; receiving information; and extending the

relationship beyond the university (Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2004). An example item is: “We study

together for exams.” Since the two parts were highly correlated, they were combined to form

a single scale of 20 items (alpha Cronbach .90) measuring group friendship with ingroup and

outgroup.

16

4. Background data: Information about background data included age, gender,

residence (city vs. village), and academic background (degree, level, and faculty).

Procedure

Arab and Jewish students from the Faculty of Education distributed the questionnaires on

campus in various courses that had a diverse composition of students. The questionnaires

were presented in Hebrew, as it is the formal teaching language used at the University of

Haifa and all the Arab students studying on campus have mastery of the language.

Results

Jewish and Arab students compared on individual and group friendships:

A series of t-tests compared the scores of the Jewish and Arab students on six measures:

number of ingroup and number of outgroup individual friends; closeness to these individual

friends; and group friendships, both ingroup and outgroup. The t-tests indicated that the Arab

students had a significantly larger number of individual outgroup friends (t= -5.65; p= .001;

M= 1.43 M=.74, respectively). Furthermore, they rated their group friendships with the

ingroup (t= 2.31; p= .05; M= 3.70 M=3.59, respectively) as well as with the outgroup

significantly higher than did the Jewish students (t= 6.16; p= .001; M= 2.89 M=2.53,

respectively). Both Arab and Jewish students were similar in the number of ingroup friends

listed and the degree of closeness to those ingroup friends (see Table 1).

--Insert Table 1 about here---

The frequency of having at least one friend from the outgroup, “Existence of an

Outgroup Friend,” was calculated as a score of zero or one. A significantly larger percentage

17

of Arab students (56%) named at least one outgroup friend (n=216), as compared to 33% of

the Jewish participants (n=103). A χ2 test was significant at the p<.001 level.

Correlates of ingroup and outgroup friendships

Pearson correlations were computed for the measures of group and individual friendships.

The matrix of correlations was examined as exploratory information: (see Table 2)

1. To what extent the three friendship measures are correlated among them for ingroup?

With regard to in group: For both Arabs and Jew, number if friends and closeness to them

are negatively correlated ( -.11, -.32 respectively); and closeness to friends is correlated

positively with group friendship(.21, .32 respectively). However, while for the Arabs

closeness to friends is also correlated to group friendship, for Jews it is not. (.21, -.07

respectively). In other words: fewer friends mean more closeness to them and closeness

to friends means also closeness to the in group. Tentative conclusion is that the friendship

measures capture different aspects, and show that the friendship map is different for the

two groups.

---Insert Table 2 about here---

2. To what extent the three friendship measures are correlated among them for out

group?

For both Arabs and Jews the more friends from the outgroup, the more group friendship

with the out group (.26, .38 respectively, see table 2); also more closeness to the

individual out group friends is correlated with more group friendship with the outgroup

(.27, .53 respectively). However, while for Arabs number of out group friends is not

correlated with closeness to them, for Jews it is correlated (.04, .19 respectively).

3. To what extent the same measures are correlated for in group and out group?

18

For both Arabs and Jews number of friends from in group and out group correlated

negatively (-.14, -.23 respectively); while closeness to in group friends and out group

friends correlated positively (.30, .51 respectively). However, while for Arabs their group

friendships are not correlated, for Jews it did (.06, .15 respectively).

Predicting positive and negative perceptions of the campus

A regression analysis employed negative perception and positive perception of campus as the

dependent variable. The predictors were gender along with seven relational measures:

Existence of at least one outgroup friend; number of ingroup friends listed; closeness to

ingroup and outgroup friends listed; and group friendships with ingroup and outgroup. An

initial regression analysis indicated that there was a difference based on nationality (β = .17;

p<.01). Therefore, regressions were run separately for the Jewish and Arab groups.

Arab participants

Positive perception of campus was predicted by outgroup friendship with Jewish students (β =

.39; p<.01) and the existence of an outgroup friend (β = .27; p<.001). The model accounted

for 29% of the variance (see Table 3). The model for negative perception was not significant;

thus, none of the friendship indicators predicted negative perception.

Jewish participants

Positive perception of campus was predicted by group friendship with the ingroup (β = .38;

p<.01) as well as by group friendship with the outgroup (β = .25; p<.01); closeness to ingroup

friends (β = .26; p<.01); and the existence of at least one outgroup friend (β = .13; p<.01). The

model explained 45% of the variance (see Table 3). Negative perception of campus was

predicted by the dummy variable of gender (β = -.22; p<.05), with females reporting a more

positive perception. Additional variables contributing to negative perception were: fewer

19

ingroup friends (β = -.37; p<.01); more outgroup friendships (β = .26; p<.01); existence of an

Arab friend (β = .11; p<.05); and lower closeness to individual Arab friends (β = -31; p<.05).

Overall, 34% of the variance was explained by the model (see Table 3).

--Insert Table 3 about here--

In summary, in regard to the group friendship measures, high scores for both ingroup and

outgroup friendships among the Jewish participants predicted positive perception towards the

University; however, high outgroup friendship also predicted negative perception. For the

Arab participants, high outgroup friendship predicted positive perception, while none of the

group friendship measures predicted negative perception.

In regard to individual friendship measures among the Jewish participants, individual

friendships with Arab students predicted both positive and negative perceptions of the

University. The existence of an Arab friend predicted positive perception of the University,

and the degree of closeness to the individual outgroup friends predicted reduced negative

perception. In addition, the degree of closeness to Jewish friends predicted positive perception

of the University. For the Arab participants, only the existence of a Jewish friend predicted

positive perception towards the University, and none of the other friendship measures

predicted negative perception.

Background variables, such as age, residence (city vs. village), and academic

background (faculty and degree level), were examined as potential sources of contribution to

perception. As they were not found to be a source of difference, they were not entered into the

regression analyses described above.

20

Discussion

This study examined the association between the existence of various friendships and

the way in which a university campus is perceived. Overall, the findings support the validity

of contact theory and its recent theoretical developments. The study documents that group and

individual friendships with outgroup members are present on the diverse campus of the

University of Haifa, despite the presence of political conflict, as reported by both Arab and

Jewish students (Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2003; Hertz-Lazarowitz & Zelniker, 2004). Perhaps this

effect is general, and contact between potentially antagonistic groups on campus does make

possible group and individual friendships. This finding is especially significant given the

context of a tense conflict zone where students live in an ongoing intractable conflict, both

within and outside the campus.

Hypothesis 1 was supported, documenting a naturally occurring development of

friendship that brings with it positive experiences for Arab-Jewish relationships. Results show

that 56% of the Arab participants and 33% of the Jewish participants had at least one

individual outgroup friend.

Hypothesis 2 was supported on two of the three measures. The Arab students, who are

the minority group, listed significantly more outgroup individual friends than did the Jewish

students, and also scored significantly higher on outgroup friendships as compared to the

Jewish students. However, both groups reported a similar level of closeness to their individual

friend.

Hypotheses 3 and 4, predicting that higher outgroup friendship and having at least one

close individual outgroup friend would predict more positive and less negative perceptions of

the campus among both Jewish and Arab students, were partially confirmed. We found two

21

models. In the model for the Arab minority, two variables predicted positive perceptions of

the campus as more egalitarian, accepting, and tolerant: the existence of an individual Jewish

friend and a high score for group friendship with the outgroup. We may speculate that for the

Arab students, friendship with the majority group affords an overall positive experience.

However, the friendship measures did not predict reduced negative perception of the campus.

Thus, we may speculate that the friendship of a minority member with majority may be

related to a mixture of decreased and increased negative perception of the campus, as it

underscores various social and political discrepancies in comparison to the Jewish students.

For the Jewish majority, the model is more complex in two way – in that there were

aspects of outgroup friendship contributing to negative perception of the campus, and there

were ingroup friendships also involved. Specifically: positive perception was predicted by

existence of at least one outgroup friend and having higher outgroup friendship as well as

closeness to ingroup friends. Negative perception of campus was predicted having at least one

outgroup friend, having more outgroup friends, but being less close to the individual Arab

friends, and having fewer ingroup friends.

Among the Jewish majority only, we also found a gender effect in that being male

predicts a more negative perception of the university. It may be that the perceptions of Jewish

males who arrive at the university are affected by their preceding army service, but this

interpretation calls for further study. Thus, the main conclusion is that individual and group

friendships predict the degree of perceived positive and negative diversity in the university,

depending on one’s membership in the minority or majority group.

The finding that friendship predicts positive perception of a non-discriminatory

campus follows Pettigrew’s (1998) conceptualization of the four processes that mediate

22

outgroup attitude change through contact. The first process described by Pettigrew is gaining

knowledge about the outgroup. From previous interviews with Arab and Jewish students, we

found that a process of contact related to studying together generates interactions and

intensive learning about the “other” (Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2003, 2006).

The second process described by Pettigrew (1998) and elaborated by Eller and

Abrams (2004) as generating affective ties with outgroup members, occurs when study

relationships are extended into friendships that include those from a different group. The

group friendship measure used in this study primarily measures affective ties, as it assesses

aspects of intimate interactions, such as liking, trust, and helping (Sharabany, 2006;

Sharabany & Schneider, 2004). The finding reported earlier that academic friendship was

highly correlated with intimate friendship supports the interpretation that the affective ties

established between Arab and Jewish students were most likely derived from studying

together after class hours.

For the Jewish students, unlike their Arab counterparts, ingroup friendship is an

additional predictor of more positive and less negative perceptions about the campus.

Interestingly, the existence of an individual outgroup friend predicts both positive and

negative perceptions about the campus. Their endorsement of negative statements suggests

that for some Jewish students, the close individual contact may be a double-edged sword,

increasing both positive and negative perceptions of the diversity on campus (Stephan &

Stephan, 2005). Examples of such negative statements are: “Diversity creates tension at the

university, and this causes confrontations, friction and political demonstrations” and “Meeting

different groups on campus deepens the alienation between Arabs and Jews.”

23

The third process, described by Pettigrew (1998) and elaborated by Eller and Abrams

(2004), is changing behaviors. Having at least one individual outgroup friend and having

close relations with that friend can be considered as a significant move from general affective

ties, which describe the relationship with a group (as measured by group friendship). Thus,

the transition from group friendship to individual friendship is perhaps a crucial behavioral

change.

Pettigrew’s fourth process of ingroup reappraisal assumes that the perception of the

ingroup also expands following the experience of diversity. Thus, according to Eller and

Abrams (2004), students who report meaningful positive interactions with peers from diverse

cultures tend to also have “cultural awareness, interest in social issues, development of a

pluralistic orientation and race-based initiatives and perspective-taking skills” (pp. 602-3).

We may speculate that these processes are gradual and developmental, moving from

gaining knowledge about the outgroup to generating affective ties with outgroup members,

reappraising the outgroup with a more positive evaluation, and finally changing behaviors by

developing individual friendships with the outgroup. However, the sequence described above

is taking the theory one step further, and without longitudinal research to confirm it, these

processes might just as well be occurring simultaneously.

In the present study, we found that among the Jewish students, but not among the Arab

students, friendship with the ingroup contributed to predicting both more positive and less

negative perceptions about the campus. It is possible that being satisfied socially within one’s

own majority group contributes to a more positive outlook of the university. In contrast,

members of the Arab minority have to base their judgment of the campus partly on their

relationships with members of the Jewish majority. It may be that for them, outgroup

24

friendship plays an important role in their adjustment to the diverse nature of the campus.

This interpretation is partly supported by the finding that the minority group was found to be

more invested than the majority group in creating outgroup friendships.

The finding that Arabs report having more individual Jewish friends than vice versa

can be explained by a few factors. First, as a minority group, their opportunity to have a large

selection of ingroup friends is limited. This is one reason for seeking outgroup friends, as also

reported in many studies of integrated schools (Quillian & Campbell, 2006). Second, seeking

majority friends is an instrumental strategy for adjustment and a successful academic

experience (Eshel, Sharabany, & Bar-Sadeh, 2003). Indeed, other studies show that Israeli

Arabs show a higher readiness for relationships with the majority and a greater wish for

integration into the majority than do Jews towards the minority Arab society (Smooha, 2005).

Accordingly, Arab students reported a greater willingness to be integrated into campus life

(Kurman, Eshel, & Sbiet, 2005) and a higher motivation to study the majority language of

Hebrew (Azaiza et al., 2006).

Many Arab and Jewish students express a genuine need and desire to use the years of

their studies on a diverse campus as an experience of connecting to the “other” and as an

opportunity to be enriched by getting to know and relating to the other group. This motive is

documented in many studies of intergroup closeness in schools and campuses, where contact

is initiated by members of different groups as one outcome of being in social proximity

(Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2006; Hurtado, 2005). Hurtado (2005), who studied intergroup relations

on college campuses, claimed that: “Students’ interaction with diverse peers during college

results in changes in students’ cognitive, social, and democratic outcomes by the second year

of college.” (Alwin, Cohen, & Newcomb, 1991, cited by Hurtado, 2005, p. 599).

25

The friendships that occur as a result of the academic-social interactions on the

University of Haifa campus, may have an applied meaning. Planned interventions and

support by the University for meaningful and respectful inter-group contacts may create

bridges and facilitate more positive and less discriminatory perceptions of diversity on

campus. This gives some hope for high conflict zones, demonstrating that the contact

hypothesis is viable even where there are groups in social-political conflict, such as on college

campuses in Israel.

Limitations of the present study and recommendations for future research

One limitation is the specific setting of the study, which should be replicated in other

universities so as to determine whether the findings can be generalized beyond the University

of Haifa to other universities in Israel, as well as in other countries. In addition, investigating

the direction of the specific processes that occur is important. It should be emphasized that

while contact theory emphasizes a specific directionality (i.e., close contact as contributing to

improved inter-group perceptions and relationships), it may be that in reality the phenomenon

also happens in the reverse direction. Additional follow-up should be undertaken to establish

directionality.

Another limitation of the present study is that it is based solely on self-reports of the

participants. Additional measures would shed light from other viewpoints. For example, in

comparing dyads of friends, particularly of mixed ethnicity, we would expect to find

discrepancies in their perceptions. However, the perspectives and subjective experiences of

the participants revealed in this study have significance and value in and of themselves.

Finally, both the Arab group and the Jewish group consist of various sub-groups, the

former in terms of religion (e.g., Druze, Muslim, Christian) and the latter in terms of country

26

of origin (e.g., former Soviet Union, Ethiopia, native-born). The present paper did not

examine these differences, as they require multidimensional distinctions that are beyond its

scope, among others the fact that Druze youth are integrated into the Israeli army, Christians

are more connected to European culture, etc. Thus, further inquiry is needed to take these

factors into account.

27

References

Abu-Nimer, M. (2004). Education for coexistence and Arab-Jewish encounters in Israel:

Potential and challenges. Journal of Social Issues 60 (2), 405-423. Special Issue of

Journal of Social Issue: Arab-Jews Coexistence programs. R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, T.

Zelniker, C. White Stephan & W. Stephan (Eds.)

Al-Haj, M. (1998). Education among the Arabs in Israel: Control and change. Jerusalem:

Magnes Press, Hebrew University, and Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies.

Al-Haj, M. (2004). Immigration and ethnic formation in a deeply divided society: The case of

the 1990s immigrants from the Former Soviet Union in Israel. Leiden: Brill Academic

Publishers.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Amir,Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin,71, 319- 342. Alwin, D.F. , R.L. Cohen and T.M. Newcomb (1991). Political attitudes over the life-span:

The Bennington women after fifty years. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Ayalon , H., & Shavit Y.(2004) Educational reforms and inequalities in Israel: The MMI

hypothesis (Maximally Maintained Inequality) Revisited. Sociology of Education, 77,

2, 103-120.

Azaiza. F., Mor, A., Zelniker, T., and Hertz-Lazarowitz, R ( 2007). A critical multicultural

perspective: The segregated educational SAGA of the state of Israel 1948-2006. The Journal

for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS), (in press).

Bellin, Y., (1992). Israel: A concise political history. North Pomfret, VT: Trafalgar Square

Publishing.

28

Ben-Ari, R & Amir, Y. (1985). Contact between Arab and Jewish youth in Israel: Reality and

potential. In: M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.). Contact, conflict and intergroup

encounters. Pp. 45-58. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Ben-Ari, R & Amir, Y. (1989). Intergroup contact, cultural information and change in ethnic

attitudes. In: W. S troebe, A. W. Kruglanski, D. Bar-Tal, & M. Hewstone (Eds.). The

social psychology of intergroup conflict. (151-165). Berlin, Germany: Springer-

Verlag.

Ben-Ari, R. (2004). Planned Encounters Between Jewish and Palestinian Israelis: A Social-

Psychological Perspective. Journal of Social Issues. 20, 2, 323-338. Special Issue:

Arab-Jewish Coexistence programs. R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, T. Zelniker, C. White

Stephan & W. Stephan (Eds.)

Ben-Shaul, T., Sharabany, R., & Kurman, J. (2004) Intimacy in close

relationships as a function of three autonomy concepts and culture:

Arab and Jewish young adult women. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the

International Society for the Study of Behavior Development, Gent, July.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on

human development. London: Sage Publications.

Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). (2006). Israel 2006: Population, by Religion and

Population Group (Table 2.1). http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton57/st02_01.pdf

Cleveland, W. (2004). A history of the modern Middle East. (3rd edition). Boulder, Co:

Westview Press

Dauite. C., Fine. M. (2003). Youth perspective on violence and injustice. Journal of Social

Issues. 59, 1-14.

29

Dwairy. M. (1998). Cross cultural counseling: The Arab Palestinian case. New York:

Haworth Press.

Dwairy, M. (2004). Culturally sensitive education: Adapting self-oriented assertiveness

training to collective minorities. Journal of Social Issues, 60(2), 323-335. Special

Issue: Arab-Jewish Coexistence programs. R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, T. Zelniker, C. White

Stephan & W. Stephan (Eds.)

Eller, A. & Abrams, D. (2004). Come together: Longitudinal comparisons of Pettigrew’s

reformulated intergroup contact model and the common ingroup identity model in

Anglo-French and Mexican-American contexts. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 34(3), 229-256.

Eshel, Y. (1993) Openness to dyadic ethnic contact and student outcomes. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin,. 19, (2), 206-212.

Eshel, Y. Sharabany, R. Bar-Sade E. (2003). Reciprocated and unreciprocated dyadic peer

preferences and academic achievement of Israeli and immigrant students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Social Psychology, 143(6), 746-762

French, D., Bay, A., Pidada, S. & Lee, O. (2006). Friendship of Indonesian, South Korean

and U.S. college students. Personal Relationships, 13, 69-81.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup

identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Ghanem, A. (2001). The Palestinian-Arab minority in Israel 1948-2001: A political study.

Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

30

Ghanem. A. (2005). Challenging Domination: The struggle against Ashkinazi domination in

Israel. Ramallah, MADAR (The Palestinian Center for Israeli Studies). In Arabic

Gilat, A. (2006). Women experience of empowerment through University studies: The case of

Jewish and Muslim religious and non-religious Women. PhD dissertation submitted to

Haifa University.

Halabi, R., & Sonnenschein, Nava. (2004). The Jewish-Palestinian encounter in a time of

crisis. Journal of Social Issues, 60 ,2, 373-389. Special Issue: Arab-Jewish

Coexistence programs. R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, T. Zelniker, C. White Stephan & W.

Stephan (Eds.)

Hallinan, M.,& Williams, R,A. (1989).Interracial friendship choices in Secondary schools.

American Sociological Review,54,67-78.

Harre'. R . (1979). Social Being. London: Blackwell Publishers.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1988). Conflict on campus: A social-drama perspective. In:

Hofman, J.E. (Ed) Arab-Jewish Relations in Israel. Bristol: Wyndham Hall Press, pp.

271-301.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2003). Arab and Jewish youth in Israel: Voicing national injustice on

camps. Journal of Social Issues, 59, (1), 51-66. Special issue: Youth perspectives on

injustice and violence.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2004). Participatory Action Research (PAR). Lessons learned from

within:Life on the diverse campus of the University on Haifa. Unpublished

manuscript.

31

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2006). Acceptance and rejection at Haifa University: The source of

conflict between Arab and Jews. In: C. Daiute, Z. Beykont, C. Higson-Smith, and L.

Nucci. (Eds). Global Perspectives on youth conflict and resilience. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Rosenberg, M. & Guttman, J. (1989) Children of divorce and their

intimate relationships with parents and peers. Youth and Society, 21 (1), 85-104.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Zelniker, T. (2004). Can peace education be enhanced via

Participatory research? Three case studies at Haifa University 2001-2003. Peace Research,

36, 1, 119-134.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Zelniker. T. Kupermintz, H. Azaiza, F. Sharabany, R, Peretz, H. (2005).

The relationship between identity construction of Arab and Jewish students and their

attitudes towards their experiences on Campus. Paper presented at the conference of

International Association of Cross Cultural Psychology, University of Granada, San

Sebastian, Basque Country, Spain.11-15 of July.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R,. Zelniker, T,. (2007). Education in the state of Israel: Multicultural

approach. In: A. Pinter & A. Gramigna (Eds.). Multicultural Education. Rome: Anicia

Press (Italian).

Hofman, J. E. (1988). (Ed.). Arab-Jewish relation in Israel: A quest in human understanding.

Bristol: Wyndham Hall Press.

Horowitz, T. (2003). Increasing political power of immigrants from the FSU in Israel: From

passive citizenship to active citizenship, International Migration, 41(1), 47– 75.

32

Hurtado, S. (2005). Research shows benefits of linking diversity and civic goals. Diversity

Digest, 9(1). (p.6) Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and

Universities.

Kagitçibasi, Ç. (1994). A critical appraisal of individualism and collectivism: Toward a new

formulation. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, Ç. Kagitçibasi, S.-C. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.),

Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 52-65).

Thousand Oaks: Sage

Kalekin-Fishman, D. (2004). Ideology, policy and practice: Education for immigrants and

minorities in Israel today. Dordrecht: The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Kimberling, B. (2001). The end of Ashkenazi hegemony. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing house

(Hebrew).

Klein, Z., & Eshel, Y. (1980). Integrating Jerusalem schools. New York: Academic Press

Kurman, J., Eshel, Y. & Sbiet Kh. (2005). Acculturation attitudes, perceived attitudes of the

majority, and adjustment of Israeli-Arabs and Jewish-Ethiopian students to an Israeli

University. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 5, 593-613

Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mar'i, S. (1978). Education in Israel. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Miller N. & Brewer, M. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on

desegregation. In N. Miller & M. Brewer (Eds.) Groups in contact: The psychology of

desegregation (pp. 281-302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2001). Rethinking individualism

33

collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological

Bulletin, 128, 3–72

Quillian, L.,& Campbell, M.E. (2006). Beyond black and white: The present and future of

multiracial friendship segregation. American Sociological Review, 68(4), 540-566

Pettigrew, T.F. & Meertens R. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57-75.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact: Theory, research and new perspectives. Annual

Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 1–33.

Rouhana, N. N. (1997). Palestinian citizens in an ethnic Jewish State: Identities in conflict

NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.

Scharf, M., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2003). Social networks in the school context: Effects of culture

and gender. Journal of Personal Relationships, 20, (6), 843-859.

Rabinowitz, D., Abu-Baker, K,. (2002) The stand-tall generation. Jerusalem: Keter

Publishers

Sharabany, R. (1994b). Intimate friendship scale: Conceptual underpinnings, psychometric

properties and construct validity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11,

49-469.

Sharabany, R. (2006) Peer relationships and intimate friendships among Arab

and Kibbutz children in Israel. In Schneider, B. Xinyin, C., French, D.

(Eds.) Peer Relationships in Cultural Context (p.452-478) New York: Cambridge

34

University Press.

Sharabany, R., Eshel, Y. & Hakim, C. (in press) Boyfriend, girlfriend in a traditional society:

parenting styles and development of intimate friendships among Arabs in school.

International Journal of Behavioral Development.

Sharabany. R., & Schneider B. (2004). On the study of friendship in childhood and

adolescence: A view from the bridge(s). International Society for the Study of

Behavioral Development Newsletter, 2, 46, 1-5

Sharan, S., Raviv, S., Kussell, P. & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1984). Cooperative and

competitive behavior. In: Sharan et al (Eds.)Cooperative learning in the classroom:

Research in desegregated school. New Jersey & London: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates Publishers, pp. 73-102.

Smooha, S. (1997). Ethnic democracy: Israel as an archetype. Israel Studies, 2 (2), 198- 241.

Smooha, S. (2005). Arab Jewish relation index 2004. The University of Haifa: The Jewish

Arab Center. http://soc.haifa.ac.il/~s.smooha

Stephan. W. (1999). Reducing prejudice and stereotyping in schools. New York: Teacher

College Press.

Stephan, W.C., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Zelniker, T., and Stephan, Walter. G. (2004).

Introduction to improving Arab-Jewish relationship in Israel: Theory and practice in

coexistence education programs. Journal of Social Issues, 60(2), 237-252. Special

issue Arab-Jewish coexistence programs. R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, T. Zelniker, C. White

Stephan & W. Stephan (Eds.)

35

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. . (2005). Intergroup relations program evaluation (pp. 431-

446). In J. Dovidio. P. Glick, and L. Rudman (Eds.), Reflecting on the nature of

prejudice. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Niemann, Y-F., & Maruyama,.G. (2005). Inequities in Higher Education: Issues and

Promising Practices in a World Ambivalent about Affirmative Action. Journal of

Social Issues, 61, 3, 407-426.

Verkuyten, M. & Martinovic, B. (2005). Understanding multicultural attitudes: The role of

group status, identification, friendship and justifying ideologies. International Journal

of Intercultural Relations, , 30, 1, 1-18

Yiftachel, O. (2006). Ethnocracy: Land and identity politics in Israel/Palestine. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press.

36

Table 1

T-tests comparing Arab and Jewish Students on

Measures of Ingroup and Outgroup Friendships (Means and SD)

Outgroup Ingroup

Group

friendship

Closeness

to friends

Number

of Friends

Group

Friendship

Closeness

to Friends

Number

of Friends

2.53

(.81)

3.58

(1.04)

.74

(1.46)

3.59

(.66)

4.06

(.63)

5.76

(3.49)

Jews

M

Sd

2.89

(.70)

3.55

(.92)

1.43

(1.77)

3.70

(.66)

4.07

(.76)

5.68

(3.05)

Arabs

M

Sd

-6.16**

-.07

-5.65**

-2.31*

.30

.34

t

Jews-

Arabs

p<.001 p<.05

37

Table 2

Friendship measures correlations for Arab and Jewish students:

Upper diagonal Arabs, Lower diagonal Jews

Ingroup Outgroup

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Ingroup

1. Number

Individual Friends

== -.11** .12** -14** -.40** -.03

2. Closeness-

Individual Friendship

-.32** == .21** -17** .30** .03

3. Group Friendship -.07 .32** == -.06 -.01 .15**

Outgroup

4. Number

Individual Friends

-.23** -.05 -.10 == .04 .26**

5. Closeness-

Individual Friendship

-.42** .51** .38** .19** == .27**

6. Group Friendship -.10** .24** .06 .38** .53** ==

**p<.001

38

Table 3

Regression summary (Enter model) for positive heterogeneity and

negative heterogeneity for Jewish and Arab students

Positive Perceptions Negative Perceptions

Jews Arabs

Jews

Arabs

T β T β T β T β

Gender 1.86 .16 1.15 .07 -.26 -.22* .41 .03

Group Friendship IG 3.93 .38** 1.78 .11 .55 .06 1.55 .10 Group Friendship

Group Friendship OG 2.49 .25* 6.34 .39** 2.30 .26* .63 .04

Existence of an OG

friend

2.36 .13** 1.99 .27** 3.00 .11* .84 .04

Number of individual

friends IG

1.78 .18 1.24 .08 -3.21 -.37** .48 .03

Closeness to

individual friends IG

2.32 .26* 1.23 .08 1.02 .13 .70 .05

Individual

Friendship

Closeness to

individual friends OG

.61 .07 -.23 -.02 -2.39 -.31* 1.03 .08

F 9.19** 9.60** 4.51** 1.77

R² (% variance

explained)

.45 .29 .34 .05

IG= Ingroup OG=Outgroup