have less contact with other ethno-religious groups are more likely to support ethno- religious violence.
2.1.6. Memory of violence
The experience and memory of past violence affects how people see present social relations. The memories of atrocities, attacks and injustices play a vital role in motivating individuals to continue the struggle and to somehow resist peacemaking. Individual memory constitutes part of collective memory, since individuals have a shared memory of the past by virtue of being members of a community. Consequently, they may shoulder the community burden of past violence, which hinders their social relationship with other groups. Collective memories play an important role in creating or recreating conflict, and in reactivating it when people work through their past experiences in the present (Cairns and Roe, 2003: 3-5).
Daniel Bar-Tal (2003: 77-93) describes how protracted ethnic conflicts of long duration and deadly impact lead to a culture of violence. Such cultures tend to have characteristics in common, including particular memories about conflict, rivals and enemies, patriotism, and common practices such as rituals, ceremonies and memorials. When a culture of violence has arisen, it can play a major role in perpetuating the conflict and hindering peacemaking; examples are the cultures of Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, or of Arab states and Israel. In this study, it is clearly illustrated that the impact of past violence deeply influences present social relationships via collective memories.
Other studies of collective memories of past violence delve into the different attitudes of both victims and perpetrators towards their traumatic burden. The survivors of past violence never forget their bitter experiences; individuals who have lost their families or valuable belongings suffer deeper pain as a result of traumatic memories than those who have not. Their experiences are often shared within their group in an attempt to release the burden of the past, and to seek justice for their loss or suffering. Both victims and perpetrators strive to create historical narratives within their society by commemorating past events. The experience of atrocities persists in collective memory. Individuals who strongly identify themselves with their in-group tend to recall their groups’ histories by limiting their social identity. They are less likely than low identifiers to recall harm or wrongdoing committed by members of their in-group in the past (Sahdra and Ross, 2007: 384-386). Therefore, we propose that those who have experienced, or have memories of, past intergroup violence are more likely to support ethno-religious violence in the present.
2.1.7. Perceived discrimination
Perceived discrimination refers to individual or group perceptions of being treated differently (especially unfairly) by other groups, because of membership of a certain group. Discrimination arises from the threat that increasing out-groups may become dominant, and gain control of scarce resources. Ethnocentrism and out- group antagonism between over-privileged and under-privileged groups become strongly defined when the unequal division of scarce resources leads to social stratification (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Individuals of lower economic status tend to support discrimination more, and have more negative attitudes towards out-groups (Coenders and Scheepers, 1998).
Previous studies of the perception of discrimination and ethno-cultural variables show results consistent with social identity theory; perceived discrimination occurs more where there are negative attitudes towards out-groups. Perceived discrimination can be transmitted by a process of socialization – learning about injustice and unequal distribution from ancestors can make individuals more aware of it. Via ethnic affirmation, which constitutes a positive sense of belonging to an ethnic group, it brings about negative attitudes towards out-groups (Romero and Roberts, 1998: 652).
In another study, of the relationship between perceived discrimination and integration among the migrants of Moroccan and Turkish descent in Belgium, researchers found no clear support for either assimilation theory or ethnic competition theory (Vancluysen and Van Craen, 2010).25 This shows the difference,
in relation to integration, between perceived personal discrimination and perceived discrimination towards the ethnic group. Social-cultural integration seems to be negatively associated with perceived discrimination towards the group, but not to bear relation to personal experiences of discrimination. The findings for structural integration are also ambiguous. Perceived discrimination is higher among people with high-status occupations. The relationship between integration and perceived discrimination is complex and depends on the specific dimensions of integration, local context and the characteristics of the ethnic groups being studied.
Hence, perceived discrimination is proposed as an explanation for the relation between ethno-religious identification and support for intergroup violence. On the basis of earlier studies, it seems that the higher the level of ethno-religious identification, the stronger the perception of being discriminated against. This may therefore induce support for violence.
25 Assimilation theory states that the greater extent to which ethnic minorities integrate into the country of residence, the less discrimination they perceive. It is contradictive with ethnic competition theory, which proposes that the greater the integration of ethnic minorities, the greater their perception of unequal treatment.
2
2.1.8. Religiosity
According to Stark & Glock (1968: 14), religiosity refers to a personal attachment to religion in at least five dimensions: belief, practice, knowledge, experiences and consequences. Belief refers to personal faith experience, and practice involves the participation in religious rituals. Doctrinal knowledge refers to the whole set of representations of reality supported by religious institutions, while experiences relates to the personal relationship with what is seen as divine reality in all its forms and mediations. Several measurements of religious dimensions have been tested cross-culturally, mainly among Christian denominations in different contexts, but also occasionally among Muslims (Anthony et al., 2015). In their cross-cultural study in eleven European countries, Scheepers et al. (2002b) provide evidence for the relationship between different dimensions of religiosity and exclusionary attitudes, and more specifically prejudice. In this study, we measure several indicators of religious identification: religious self-definition, participation in religious practices (praying, attending religious services and reading Holy Scriptures), friends by religion, participation in religious ceremonies and membership of religious organizations. But alongside this general measurement, we will observe some additional important aspects of religiosity that may influence support for violence: religiocentrism, attitudes towards religious plurality and religious fundamentalism.
Religiocentrism refers to the combination of positive attitudes towards the religious in-group and negative attitudes towards religious out-groups; it is analagous with the concept of ethnocentrism, in which group-belonging refers to ethnicity. Religiocentrism is inherent in religions in which adherents favour themselves with positive characteristics of the religious in-group, while dissociating themselves from the negative attributes of religious out-groups (Sterkens and Anthony, 2008: 63).
Attitudes towards religious plurality refers to different interpretations of the truth claims of people’s own religions against a background of religious plurality. We have measured three different attitudes towards religious plurality: monism, pluralism and relativism (Anthony et al., 2005; Hadiwitanto & Sterkens 2012). Monism can take an inclusivistic or exclusivistic approach. Inclusive monism is an affirmation that there is partial truth in other religions, while maintaining that absolute truth is the provenance of one’s own religion, while exclusive monism affirms that one’s own religion is the only true religion in the world. Pluralism consists of commonality pluralism and differential pluralism. Commonality pluralism emphasizes the underlying common elements expressed by various religions in various ways. Differential pluralism acknowledges real differences between religions, and sees their particularities as sources for reciprocal enrichment and growth. Relativism is the attitude that different religious traditions are always equally valid, equally profound and equally humanitarian.
The third aspect of religiosity is religious fundamentalism. Earlier studies have defined fundamentalism as a meaning system through which adherents interpret the world and derive motivation via the sacred text of Holy Scripture. Fundamentalists may be militant, especially when “they react to a perceived threat as posed by the larger culture to their absolute beliefs – and even then, their resistance may take on forms that are non violent” (Hood et al., 2005: 5). This militancy can be seen as an exclusionary attitude via which fundamentalists support their in-group when intergroup conflicts occur. The current studies define fundamentalism as “an intra- textual disposition towards the text that a tradition holds as sacred”. Fundamentalism views the sacred text to hold an absolute, non-negotiable truth, which stands above individuals as a ground of objective reality in their understanding of life and experiences (Williamson et al., 2010: 722-723).
These dimensions of religiosity mediate the relationship between ethno- religious identification and support for violence. Moreover, we consider the ritualistic dimension as an important control: membership of a denomination and frequency of church or mosque attendance will therefore be included.
2.1.9. Nationalistic attitudes
Nationalistic attitudes are defined as favourable attitudes toward one’s own country and the national in-group. It has two dimensions: chauvinism and patriotism. Chauvinism is the view that one’s own country and people are unique and superior, thereby implying that other countries compare negatively. Patriotism refers to feelings of pride in one’s people and country. While chauvinism relates to a blind, uncritical attachment to the national group and country, patriotism stems from a more critical assessment of them (Coenders, 2001: 64; Coenders et al., 2004: 29- 32).
The results of a cross-national study in 22 countries by Coenders et al. (2004) show multiple dimensions to nationalistic attitudes. Both chauvinism and patriotism correlate differently to individual and contextual characteristics. While chauvinism is positively associated with perceptions of ethnic threat, patriotism shows a negative correlation. Chauvinism is stronger among individuals who live in inter- ethnic competitive socio-economic conditions, and national circumstances of rising inter-ethnic competition. It tends to exclude ethnic minorities. On the other hand, patriotism is stronger when the home country achieves high economic development. There are only minor differences in patriotism between individuals holding different socio-economic positions.
Todosijevic (2001) conducted another study of nationalist attitudes in Hungary and Yugoslavia. The result shows similar trends to those found by Coenders (2001), in that nationalistic attitudes were multidimensional. Nonetheless, the number and content of dimensions varied. In Yugoslavia, romantic and ethnocentric nationalism