1

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM DIRECTORATE

An Effect of Inter-ethnic Conflict on Psychosocial Problems of Ethiopian Society

MA Seminar Assignment

Getahun Guluma

College: Education and Behavioral Sciences

Department: Psychology

Program: MA in Social Psychology

Major Advisor: Mr. Yirgalem Alemu (Assistant professor)

August, 2019

Haramaya Universty, Haramaya

 2

Abstract 2
1. Introduction 3
2. Literature review 6
2.1 What is ethnicity 6
2.2 Is Ethnicity an inherited or invented entity? 8
2.2.1 Primordial’s 9
2.2.2 Constructivism 9
2.3 Race versus Ethnicity 9
2.4 Social Identity Theory 10
2.5 Effects of inter-ethnic conflict on psychosocial problems of the society 12
3 Discussion 12
3.1 Direct contact 12
3.2 Moderators and mediators of direct contact 14
3.3 Extended’ contact 14
3.4 Imagined contact 15
3 References 16
 3

Abstract
Empirical evidence suggests that an ethnic division in a society leads to negative outcomes in
adolescents psychosocial development, civil conflict and economic development, among others.
It is often argued that the lack of shared social identity, that is, the dominance of sub national
(particularly, ethnic) identities over national identity, lies behind the negative outcomes. If shared
national identity is important, how can it be realized? Some stress the effectiveness of "nation-
building" policies in strengthening national identity. Meanwhile, there exist conflicting theses on
effects of the modernization of a society on national identity in political science, the classic
thesis arguing positive effects and the competing thesis arguing negative effects. Which thesis is
more relevant under what conditions? How does modernization affect identity, conflict, and
development? How do policies such as "nation-building" policies affect the outcomes?

In order to examine these questions theoretically, this paper develops a model of social identity,
ethnic conflict, and development. In the model, individuals choose a sector to work (between the
modern sector and a traditional sector), social identity (between ethnic identity and national
identity), and contributions to ethnic conflict. Thus, the degree of modernization (and output),
identity, and conflict interact with each other.

Keywords: ethnic conflict, social identity, psychosocial development

 4

1. Introduction
Africa is the second largest continent next to Asia in terms of land and population, but at the
same time it is the most under developed region in the world. While the continent has immense
natural resources, old civilization, abundant human capital, autonomous political, economic,
social, as well as cultural indigenous institutions, its development has been trickle down
especially after independence. Researchers pointed out that the legacies left by colonial powers,
illiterate population, corrupt governments, border demarcation problems as well as ethnic based
civil wars are the major factors for the under development (Simensen,2008). Even though it is
now 50 years since majority of African nations gained their independence, the issue of tribalism,
ethnicity, regionalism, nationalism and their overwhelming outcomes including violence, civil
war, cleansing and migration still continued as the challenges of state building in the continent.

While many of the global parts advocate about the issue of global village and regional
integration, still in many parts of Sub Saharan Africa fighting along ethnic and tribal lines is a
noticeable fact. Example can be taken from the Crisis of Somalia, the South Sudan ethnic
conflict, the Niger Delta crisis, Central African Republic civil war and Tuareg rebellion in Mali.
These conflicts are destructing thousands of lives and forcing people to displace from their home
land which make state building in Africa so complex through exerting massive pressure on the
local, regional and international community.

Since ethnicity is the most relevant political identity in modern Africa, discontents and conflicts
erupt everywhere. This leads the so called ‘central’ governments to become fragile and powerless
in maintaining peace and order. Thus, underdevelopment, hopelessness, poverty, inequality,
forced migration, hunger and other synonym words have been the manifestation of the continent
at large. In many literatures the problems of ethnicity and related concepts such as violence,
fractionalization, ethnocentrism and diversity have been mentioned audaciously as the root
causes of Africa’s instability and its negative effects on development

As stated by Chichuri (2009), Africa is like an exhibition continent that is constructed and
destroyed now and then. Chichuri tried to emphasis the inconsistent policies implemented by
successive governments over period of times as a cause for African underdevelopment. He meant
that African underdevelopment is the result of “try and error” policies constructed by succeeding
political holders.
 5

Similar to Chichuri’s symbolization, Osaghae etel (2005), underlined that scholars of ethnicity
and conflict management regard Africa as “a major laboratory for experimentation and theory
building” being a home of various conflicts, wars, poverty, diseases, and instability. Even though
civil wars, state crisis, civil strife and separatist struggles were the manifestations of Africa
before and after independence, the post-Cold war period is the one African states have
experienced relentless violent and intractable conflicts, genocide and ethnic cleansing, separatist
movements as well as minor and major civil wars.

Examples include Rwanda, Burundi, Liberia, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo,
Sudan, Cote d’Ivoire, Somalia, Nigeria, Cameroon, Senegal, Ghana, Zambia, and Benin.
According to Porter 2011), the fertile ground for ethnic civil war before and during the Cold War
was the fact that African rulers were “blindly assisted and this gave them a total liberty to
manage ethnic differences as they wanted to, and often in violence”.

With his comparative analysis on ethnic conflict management issues in Nigeria and South Africa
Irobi (2005), pointed out economic factors especially competition for scarce resources as one of
the major causes of conflict among different ethnic groups in Africa. He also sketched out in
multi-ethnic societies it is common to see that ethnic groups fiercely compete for property, rights,
jobs, education, language, social services and good health care facilities.

In addition to structural ethnic consciousness and colonial factors, competition for

economic and political power, as stated by Obioha (1999; para.19), has been a source of
persistent conflicts among ethnic groups in Africa. This has been manifested when the “wealth
producing ethnic groups feel cheated or marginalized ” which may lead to pro-independence
movementsContrary to the above suppositions Elbadawi and Sambanis (2000), assumed that
African civil wars are not caused by religious and ethnic differences but rather to high levels of
poverty, failed political institutions, and economic dependence on natural resources. They argue
that Africa’s ethnic diversity helps for the establishment of the inter-group bargaining processes
which is important for the emergence of stable development. These processes can be peaceful if
ethnic groups feel adequately represented by their national political institutions and if the
economy provides opportunity for productive activity.
 6

Similarly, the World Bank under lined that Africa's conflicts do not stem from ethnic diversity.
Rather, in a pattern found around the world, conflicts are driven by poverty, underdevelopment,
and lack of economic diversification, as well as by political systems that marginalize large parts
of the population. The Bank advices Africa to improve governance and resolve conflict as
perhaps the most basic requirement to foster development. Long run peace building and political
reforms should be taken in to account in order to reverse the vicious circle of poverty -conflict
dimensions. With success in these areas, countries can grow rapidly, and flight capital can return
(World Bank, 2000).

Previous researches on the topic mainly address the causes and expenses of ethnicity and ethnic
conflict as well as how ethnic diversity became a curse for African development. Only limited
literatures pointed out how the ethnic diversity can be managed and switched to over all
progress. There is also a little saying about countries which achieved rapid and all rounded
economic development with their ethnic diversity like Botswana & Mauritius. This directly
affects the dimension of literatures to be negative, partial and shady when ones talk about ethnic
diversity and related issues in Africa broadly and in Ethiopia specifically.

Thus this seminar will try to explore the effect of inter-ethnic conflict on Ethiopian adolescent’s
psychosocial development.
 7

2. Literature review
In this chapter the researcher going to deal with material explore about ethnicity like concept and
definition of ethnicity, is ethnicity inherited or invented entity, race versus ethnicity , theories of
ethnic conflict specifically social identity theory and the like.

2.1 What is ethnicity

As many scholars pointed out the term ethnicity has not universal definition. It is not surprising
many scholars puzzled with the term ethnicity as it is not straightforward as we verbalize. For
example Max Weber disgusted with the definition of ethnicity by stating “the whole conception
of ethnicity is so complex and so vague that it might be good to abandon it altogether” (Weber,
1978; p.389). Abandoning or throwing away the word “ethnicity”, according to Weber, is better
than to define it. Bolaf et al. (2002), labeled the word ethnicity as “scientifically ambiguous and
vague”. But they recognize its role as descriptive tool either in adjective or noun form.

Green (2006), on the other hand believed that the definition of ethnicity is suffering from two
sides “polysemy” whereby it has multiple definitions and “synonymy” whereby it is close in
meaning to other terms like “caste” and “race.” He symbolized ethnicity as a “mine field” where
by scholars have proposed an incomprehensible variety of approaches towards its definition.
Ethnicity must be viewed as a plastic and malleable social construction, deriving its meanings
from the particular situations of those who invoke it… Ethnicity has no essence or center, no
underlying features or common denominator (Smith 1998: 204; cf. Wallerstein 1987) as
cited on Green (2006, p.4). But this doesn’t mean that the definition of ethnicity fills empty. One
can extract diverse definitions and capture some common elements to form a group together

So what is Ethnicity in common?

As Ostergård (1992) defined and cited on (Jenkins, 2008) the word ethnicity is derived from the
Greek word “ethnos”, which encompasses a wide range of situations where by human beings
lived and acted collectively. Even though the definition didn’t mention which are the wide
ranged situations it provides living or acting together as one component of ethnicity. On the other
hand Bolaf et al. (2003) believed that the adjective `ethnic' stands for either for common
characteristics or unique traits as well as features associated to a certain people. They gave an
example of an ancient Judaeo Christians who are non-monotheistic populations.
 8

The meaning identified religion as a distinctive element of ethnicity. Different researchers,

dictionaries and institutional web pages put their own definitions of ethnicity in different
manners. For example The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy defines
ethnicity in three ways relating to or characteristic of a human group having racial, religious,
linguistic, and certain other traits in common, relating to the classification of mankind into
groups, especially on the basis of racial characteristics and denoting or deriving from the cultural
traditions of a group of people.

The Free Dictionary on the other hand puts ethnic traits, background, allegiance, or association
as the meanings of ethnicity. Merriam-Webster dictionary labeled ethnicity as “ethnic quality or
affiliation”. Similarly United Nations Cyber school bus website describes that “ethnicity is a
membership in a particular cultural group defined by shared cultural practices, including but not
limited to holidays, food, language, and customs”. Esman (2004), on his part defined
ethnicity in terms of sharing traits by a group including a common origin, historical memories,
culture and connection to a certain geographical entity where as Basedau (2011; para.4), labeled
it in terms of primordialist approach. He stated that “ethnicity is the notion of a common ancestry
and are associated with a variable set of objective identity markers such as language, religion,
and physical appearance”.

The list can go on as far one able to explore. But, there are some common elements among the
lists which are able to define ethnicity in general manner. And it is wise full to put the
components rather than putting it in a single paragraph.

The first component is common ancestry which refers to two or more people claim a share
descent, origin and connection to a certain geographical entity. The second one is ethnic
affiliation which is an association based on general markers for multistage purposes e.g. political
association, economic membership, social inclusion etc. The third includes those shared cultural
practices including holidays, food, sexual intercourse, marriage, dressing style, customs etc.
Finally objective identity markers which include language, religion, color or physical appearance
are considered as components of ethnicity. Similar to the above general expression; Smith
(1988), tried to define ethnicity by listing six essential attributes. These are collective name,
common myth of descent, shared history, distinctive shared culture (comprising language,
religion), institutions and/or other cultural characteristics with a specific territory, and
 9

lastly a sense of ethnic solidarity which is recognition of each other as members of the same
ethnic group.

2.2 Is Ethnicity an inherited or invented entity?

Concerning ethnicity there are two paradigms. The first one is primordialism (inherited) and the
second one is contextualism/constructivism (invented).

2.2.1 Primordial’s
Primordialism Ethnic groups here, have their own peculiar features like culture, tradition,
history, physical traits, language repertoires, religion, etc which will not change over time and
consistently maintained across generations. ‘Extended kinship relations’ with their emotional
power are the bonding elements that stick the ethnic group together (Hale, 2004). According to
Geertz (1963) and cited on Osaghae & Suberu (2005) primordial attachments are mainly
“ascriptive” in which the groups are related in “the givens” of life like “tribe, kinship, and
ethnicity”. Similarly Bandarage (2009) asserted that the primordial classification based on blood
ties and ascriptive group identities is a base for deep human attachments. It sees ethnicity as a
fixed, biological phenomenon which cannot be changed or modified or constructed over time,
place or situation. They are common types of ties in the post-colonial African and Asian states.

2.2.2 Constructivism
Contextualism this classification on the other hand, as Geertz defined, includes civil ties which
encompass “industrial society-type aggregations like class, political party affiliation, interest
group membership” Osaghae&Suberu(2005:p.6). Likewise for Jennifer Widener (1999) ethnic
identities are communally created, greatly flexible, and contextually defined as cited on
Sisay(2005). Barth (1969) on his part stated that “group membership criteria and group
membership itself tend to change over time as people come and go and develop new traditions
and ways of life, but a group itself nevertheless endures as a way of structuring social life” as
quoted on (Hale, 2004).This classification stresses the altering nature of ethnic
characteristics which is a socially constructed over periods of times. Here USA can be a perfect
example (Bandarage, 2009)
 10

2.3 Race versus Ethnicity

We use (as others have used) the terms race and ethnicity somewhat interchangeably in this
article, but it is important to note that these concepts are not always interchangeable. Some prefer
to use the term ethnicity when attempting to denote cultural groupings and “race” when
attempting to denote groupings defined by physical markers such as skin tone. As noted
previously, however, this distinction reflects a problematic understanding of race, and thus we
will not perpetuate it here. Instead, we offer the following: Ethnic categories tend to be
subordinate to racial categories for the most part (except on the US Census, where it depends on
racial category; Hochschild et al. 2012). Nevertheless, we agree that ethnicity does tend to refer
to cultural heritage more so than does race, which instead tends to reflect sociopolitical
groupings. For instance, whereas Asian American is a common umbrella or pan-ethnic racial
category in the United States, it means nothing in most other countries and, importantly, little in
terms of personal social identification for many individuals.

Instead, the national origin of one’s ancestors for Asian Americans (e.g., China, Japan) and
Latinos (e.g., Mexico, Columbia) or tribal affiliation for American Indians (e.g., Choctaw,
Navaho) is often a more salient source of identification and better informs people’s lived
experiences (Flores & Huo 2013). Moreover, although often overlooked, the racial category
“black” is also composed of various ethnic subgroups in the United States (Waters 1999),
including individuals from different Caribbean nations (e.g., Haiti), individuals from different
African nations (e.g., Nigeria) and, of course, individuals with direct ties to chattel slavery in the
United States.

The tendency to think in terms of racial rather than ethnic categories can also yield troubling
forms of miscategorization. For instance, stereotypical beliefs and associations regarding
Chinese Americans are often applied to all Asian Americans much as beliefs regarding Mexican
Americans tend to be applied to all Latinos, to the chagrin of targets and embarrassment of
perpetrators. Further, these types of categorization errors can trigger negative affect and
undermine positive interracial interactions (Flores & Huo 2013, Trujillo et al. 2015).
Interestingly, the use of ethnic (e.g., African American, European American), rather than racial
(e.g., black, white) labels can even result in the expression of different levels of racial bias (Hall
et al. 2015, Morrison & Chung 2011). Although the confusion regarding race versus ethnicity is
 11

not something that is likely to be resolved in the near future (Hochschild et al. 2012), it is
nevertheless important to recognize that decisions regarding the categorization of individuals
into these different racial and/or ethnic categories is multiply determined and can come with any
number of unexpected downstream consequences

2.4 Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory suggests that people sort others rapidly and with minimal effort (Allport
1954, Tajfel & Turner 1986), resulting in categories colloquially distinguished as “we” and
“they” based on whether the category does or does not include the self. This basic distinction
between one’s in-groups and out group influences perception, cognition, affect, and behavior in
ways that systematically produce and reinforce pervasive intergroup biases (Dovidio & Gaertner
2010). Specifically, classic research, often utilizing the minimal group paradigm, offers
compelling evidence that merely classifying individuals into categories even when arbitrarily
assignedis sufficient to engender bias. According to social identity theory, ingroup favoritism
emerges, at least in part, because individuals are motivated to protect and affirm the self, an
affordance also extended to their ingroups (Brewer 1999).

Although in part a product of evolution (Cosmides et al. 2003), ingroup favoritism is

nevertheless a potent form of intergroup bias (Greenwald & Pettigrew 2014). All that is
necessary to maintain, if not create, disparities in any number of outcomes is for members of the
dominant, high-status group to trust, cooperate, and work for the betterment of their in-group
more than for out groups (De Dreu 2010). Further, as the influence of explicit racial bias seems
to be on the decline in many social arenas, recent theoretical and empirical work argues that it is
everyday discrimination in the form of ingroup favoritism that maintains racial disparities, for
instance, in employment (DiTomaso 2013) and many legal outcomes (Sommers & Marotta
2014).

Competition over seemingly scarce resources shifts intergroup biases from in-group favoritism to
those involving the derogation of competing out-groups (Stephan & Stephan 2000). Most
notably, perceived threat particularly of the loss of valued resources, whether realistic or
symbolic associated with different out-groups is thought to trigger negative intergroup reactions
(Mackie & Smith 2002). For instance, the perceived threat of disease has been found to predict
heightened bias toward immigrants (Faulkner et al. 2004), the perceived threat of
 12

violence/physical danger increases antagonism toward black and Mexican Americans (Cottrell &
Neuberg 2005), the potential loss of group status promotes bias toward other racial groups more
generally (Craig & Richeson 2014), and the perceived threat to the dominant (white) American
cultural worldview can fuel a variety of racial biases (Greenberg & Kosloff 2008). Further,
although often overlooked, the perceived threats associated with being outnumbered (Schaller &
Abeysinghe 2006) and with past and current discrimination (Monteith & Spicer 2000) contribute
to racial minorities’ mistrust and negative attitudes toward the dominant racial outgroup (Terrell
& Terrell 1981).

2.5 Effects of inter-ethnic conflict on psychosocial problems of the society

 13

3 Discussion
In this chapter the researcher discuss major core point to solve inter ethnic group conflict such as
direct contact, imagined contact, extended contact , moderator and mediators of direct contact,

3.1 Direct contact

Allport’s (1954) vision of inter-group contact was based on bringing members of different groups
together in face-to-face encounters to reduce inter-group hostility. Most importantly, he proposed
that direct inter-group contact would be more likely to reduce prejudice if it involved equal status
among the participants, cooperation on common goals between groups, and institutional support.

The prejudice-reducing effect of contact is now well-established, with the most convincing
evidence accumulated by Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2006) monumental meta- analysis of 515
studies (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami, 2003). Pettigrew and Tropp reported not only a highly
significant negative relationship between contact and prejudice (mean r =−.22, p < .001),2 but
that the effect of contact was greater in samples where contact was structured to meet Allport’s
optimal contact conditions, and that cross-group friendships were perhaps the most effective
form of inter-group contact ( Hamberger & Hewstone, 1997). The effect of contact, albeit
significant, was, however, weaker for minority-status than majority-status groups. This finding
suggests that members of advantaged and disadvantaged groups may construe inter-group
interactions differently (see also Hopkins & Kahani-Hopkins, 2006). In particular, members of
disadvantaged groups are more likely to anticipate prejudice and discrimination against them
from members of dominant groups (Shelton, 2003; Tropp, 2006), and it remains a challenge for
contact as an intervention to prove equally effective for both groups.

Impact of direct contact on multiple outcome variables

While Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2006) meta-analysis showed, beyond any doubt, that contact is
negatively associated with prejudice; its impact is much wider than that. Recent research has
shown that contact is also positively associated with attitude strength (e.g., Christ et al., 2010),
out-group trust (Tam, Hewstone, Kenworthy, & Cairns, 2009), and forgiveness (e.g. Tam et al.,
2007). The effects of contact also go well beyond conscious self-report measures, to impact upon
implicit associations (e.g., Aberson & Haag, 2007). Further still from self-report measures of
attitude, prior positive contact is associated with reduced automatic physiological threat
 14

responses to out-group members (Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, Lickel, & Kowai-Bell, 2001),
decreases in cortisol reactivity during inter-group contact (Page-Gould, Mendoza-Denton, &
Tropp, 2008), and reduced differences in neural processing of own versus other-race faces
(Walker, Silvert, Hewstone, & Nobre, 2008).

3.2 Moderators and mediators of direct contact

Significant inroads have been made towards understanding when contact is most likely to reduce
prejudice (i.e., the moderators of contact effects) as well as how contact promotes prejudice
reduction (i.e., the mediators of contact effects). Allport’s (1954) original work was most
influential in identifying variables that moderated the impact of contact on prejudice, an
approach developed by Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2006) sophisticated meta- analysis. Hewstone and
Brown (Brown & Hewstone, 2005) have, in addition, accumulated evidence that the effects of
contact are greater when respective group memberships are salient and/or out-group members are
considered typical of their group as a whole ( Hodson, 2008, Tausch & Hewstone, 2010). The
most effective form of contact, however, appears to involve both inter-group and interpersonal
factors, as when cross-group friends provide optimal contact, while retaining their respective
group memberships to promote generalization (Brown & Hewstone, 2005)

3.3 Extended’ contact

Extended’ contact refers to the impact on prejudice of knowing about, or observing, at least one,
and preferably more than one, in-group member who has an out-group friend (Wright, Aron,
McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997).3 A series of experimental, quasi-

experimental, and correlational studies have provided extensive empirical evidence that people
knowing about or observing inter-group friendships show less prejudice than those who do not
(Hewstone, Voci, Paolini, & Christ, 2007), while controlling for direct contact with out-group
members. Extended contact was associated with less prejudice among Catholics and Protestants
in Northern Ireland (Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns, & Voci, 2004), and has been applied as a quasi-
experimental intervention to reduce prejudice among school children (e.g., Cameron & Rutland,
2006) effects of extended contact are consistently stronger for participants with less experience
of direct contact (e.g., Christ et al., 2010), are not limited to the out-group contacts of one’s in-
group friends specifically (Tausch, Hewstone, Schmid, Hughes, & Cairns, 2011), appear to be
 15

equally strong for members of majority and minority groups (Gomez, Tropp, & ´ Fernandez,
2011), and are most strongly mediated by in-group norms (Gomez ´ et al., 2011)

3.4 Imagined contact

Turner, Crisp, and Lambert (2007c) proposed that simply imagining contact with out- group
members could improve inter-group attitudes (as shown, originally, by Desforges, Lord, Pugh,
Sia, Scarberry & Ratcliff, 1997) and should be part of a programme for reducing inter-group
bias. Although some scholars are deeply skeptical (e.g., Bigler & Hughes, 2010), an extensive
programme of research has found that imagined contact can reduce inter-group bias and improve
both explicit and implicit out-group attitudes (Turner & Crisp, 2010; Turner et al., 2007c),
enhance intentions to engage in future contact (Crisp & Turner, 2009, C), and even generalize to
other out-groups (Harwood, Paolini, Joyce, Rubin, & Arroyo, 2011), with reduced inter-group
anxiety as the key mediator. The basic manipulation may, however, have to be enhanced in the
case of particularly threatening out-groups (Holmes, & Hewstone, 2011).
 16

3 References
Aalen, L. (2011). The Politics of Ethnicity in Ethiopia. African Social Studies Series (Book 25).
Brill Publishing.

Allen, T. & Thomas, T. (2000). Poverty and Development: Into the 21st Century (U208 Third
World Development) (2nd edition). Oxford University Press

Allport GW. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Perseus Books

Brewer MB. 1988. A dual process model of impression formation. In Advances in Social
Cognition, Vol. 1, ed. TSrull, R Wyer,. New York: Earlbaum

Brewer MB. 1991. The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. Personal.
Soc. Psychol. Bull.

Brewer MB. 1999. The psychology of prejudice: ingroup love and outgroup hate? J. Soc. Issues

Brewer MB. 2007. The social psychology of intergroup relations: social categorization, ingroup
bias, andoutgroup prejudice. In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, ed.
AW Kruglanski, ET Higgins,pp. 695–715. New York: Guilford. 2nd ed.

Brown R, Hewstone M. 2005. An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology, ed. MP Zanna, pp. 255–343. San Diego, CA: Academic

Burrow AL, Stanley M, Sumner R, Hill PL. 2014. Purpose in life as a resource for increasing
comfort with ethnic diversity. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull.

Bolaffi, G., Bracalenti, R., Braham, P., & Gindro, S. (2002). Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity and
Culture. London: Sage Publication.

Bookman, Z.M. (2002). Ethnic Groups in Motion: Economic Competition and Migration in
Multiethnic States. Taylor & Francis.

Craig MA, Richeson JA. 2014a. More diverse yet less tolerant? How the increasingly-diverse
racial landscape affects White Americans’ racial attitudes. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
 17

Craig MA, Richeson JA. 2014b. On the precipice of a “majority-minority” nation. Perceived
status threat fromthe racial demographic shift affects White Americans’ political
ideology. Psychology.

Craig MA, Richeson JA. 2014c. Not in my backyard! Authoritarianism, social dominance
orientation, andsupport for strict immigration policies at home and abroad. Polit. Psychol.

Collis,J & Hussey, R. (2003). Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and
Postgraduate Students. Palgrave Macmillan; 2nd edition.

Comprehensive Dictionary of Economics (2009).Abhishel Publications, Chandigarh,India.

Dandeker, C. (1998). Nationalism and Violence. New Jersey: Transactions Publishers. Denbow,J.
& Thebe,C.P. (2006). Culture and Customs of Botswana (Culture and Customs of Africa).
London: Greenwood press.

Dixit, A. & Pindyck, R (1994). Investment Under Uncertainty. Princeton University Press.

Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL. 2010. Intergroup bias. See Fiske et al. 2010

Ejiogu, C.E. (2011). The Roots of Political Instability in Nigeria: political evolution and
development in Niger Basin. Farnham: Ashgate publishing Ltd

Khan, H.M. & Jomo, K. S. (2000). Rents, Rent-Seeking and Economic Development: Theory
and Evidence in Asia. Cambridge University Press.

MacNealy, M. S. (1999). Strategies for empirical research in writing. New York: Addison
Wesley Longman.

Lewicki, R.J. & Wiethoff, C. (2000). Trust, Trust Development, and Trust Repair. The handbook
of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

McNamara, C. (1999). General Guidelines for Conducting Interviews. Authenticity Consulting,

LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Miles,B.M. & Huberman, M.A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
(2nd Edition). Beverley Hills, Sage.
 18

Nafziger,W.E.& Auvinen,J.(2003). Economic Development, Inequality, and War

Nafziger, W. E. ( 2006). Economic Development. Cambridge University Press.