INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY 119
prejudice, negative stereotypes, intergroup ignorance, suspicion and perceptions of
solid group boundaries. Paradoxically, intergroup contact may also increase negative
attitudes and segregation as it causes group membership identities to solidify.
Although salience – the awareness of group differences – is needed for contact effects
to generalise to the wider group and not simply remain between individuals, by
emphasising differences, it creates anxiety and avoidance (Islam and Hewstone 1993;
Voci and Hewstone 2003). The optimal condition, “opportunities to cooperate”, is
closely linked to “common goals”, as this active interaction is necessary to achieve
such goals, but must occur without intergroup competition (Pettigrew 1998: 67).
Cooperation to achieve common goals is demonstrated in various cross-community
projects (Odena 2010). As will be explained, the four optimal conditions are
interlinked and the absence of one may negatively affect the others.
“Support of institutions” involves the support of “authorities, law or custom”
(Pettigrew 1998: 67) and is evident in integrated schooling and Shared Education
initiatives across the country, long-standing support from church leaders (Frazer and
Fitzduff 1986) and in power-sharing government. Institutional support, while it does
exist, is limited in the schools system, as 94 percent of schools in Northern Ireland are
religiously segregated (Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education 2008).
Attending university can often be a young person’s first experience of intergroup
contact (Nelson, Dickson and Hargie 2003: 780), meaning many grow up
experiencing at least two decades separated from the other community. Resultantly,
feelings of fear, suspicion and concern about perceived threats from the out-group are
still prevalent, especially among those living in the most segregated areas (Hughes et
al 2007). This limits opportunities not only for cooperation, but also working towards
common goals, as communities view themselves distinctly, with differing values and
traditions. Aughey (2012: 154) points out that although the end of sustained violence
allowed a political process to develop, the resulting government has been unyielding
and inflexible in reaching positive solutions for each community, often producing
deadlocked outcomes and suppressing opportunities for improvement in the
democratic system. This was demonstrated by frequent suspension in the early days
of the Northern Ireland Assembly. One of the main problems, Aughey (2012: 154)