This article was downloaded by: [Ams/Girona*barri Lib]On: 17 October 2014, At: 05:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Social WorkPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cesw20

Perceiving the other: hostile anddanger attributions among Jewish andArab social work students in IsraelGuy Enosh & Adital Ben-AriPublished online: 18 Oct 2012.

To cite this article: Guy Enosh & Adital Ben-Ari (2013) Perceiving the other: hostile and dangerattributions among Jewish and Arab social work students in Israel, European Journal of Social Work,16:3, 427-442, DOI: 10.1080/13691457.2012.725033

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2012.725033

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Perceiving the other: hostile anddanger attributions among Jewish andArab social work students in Israel

Guy Enosh & Adital Ben-Ari

The aim of the present paper is to examine the possible relations of hostile and danger

attributions and cultural competence socialization. We conducted an empirical study

based on a factorial survey, focusing on the significance of formal cultural competence

classes and the ongoing interpersonal contact among members of majority and minority

groups: Jewish and Arab social work students in an Israeli University. The experimental

design manipulated variables of ethnicity, potential dangerousness, and potential

intended harm, using vignettes. The results indicated that Arab students attribute more

hostility to both Hebrew- and Arabic-speaking figures than their Jewish counterparts.

Jews attributed more danger to Arabs, and Arabs attributed more dangerousness to Jews.

The most striking finding is the significant and positive association between multicultural

competence socialization and attribution of danger and hostility. The findings are

discussed within the framework of ethnic and political conflicts in turbulent areas, anti-

oppressive social work, and their implications to social work education.

Keywords: Social Work Education; Participation/Citizenship; Race/Culture; Values/

Ethics

Both authors have contributed equally to the paper.

Correspondence to: Guy Enosh, School of Social Work, Faculty of Social Welfare & Health Sciences, University

of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel. Fax: (�972) 4-8246832; Email: enosh@research.haifa.ac.il; Adital

Ben Ari, School of Social Work, Faculty of Social Welfare & Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel,

Haifa 31905, Israel. Email: adital@research.haifa.ac.il

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

European Journal of Social Work, 2013

Vol. 16, No. 3, 427�442, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2012.725033

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:26

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Introduction

The aim of the present paper is to examine the possible relations of hostile and

danger attribution and cultural competence socialization. We conducted an empirical

study focusing on the significance of formal cultural competence classes and the

ongoing interpersonal contact among members of majority and minority groups:

Jewish and Arab social work students in an Israeli University. We begin with the

theoretical background consisting of four bodies of knowledge: first, we review

prevailing notions associated with the construct of cultural competence. Second, we

refer to the literature dealing with the role of interpersonal contacts as a form of

informal socialization within the context of intergroup conflict. Third, we deal with

the relevance of attribution of hostility and dangerousness to the study of intergroup

attitudes. Finally, we focus on Jewish�Arab relationships and conflicts in Israel as the

context of the present study.

428 G. Enosh & A. Ben-Ari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:26

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Cultural Competence

Cultural competence has been defined in several ways. One of the early definitions

maintained that it is the capacity to value difference as a positive phenomenon and to

guard against the need to measure everyone by a single standard of behavior (Cooper,

1973). Cultural competence is commonly seen as a set of behaviors, attitudes, and

policies, which come together in a system or agency, or among professionals, and

enable effective work in cross-cultural situations (National Association of Social

Work in the United States, 2002). These guidelines suggest that social workers must

value diversity, have the capacity for cultural ‘self ’-assessment, be conscious of the

dynamics that emerge when cultures interact, institutionalize cultural knowledge, and

develop programs and services that reflect an understanding of diversity between and

within cultures (Heydt & Sherman, 2005; Mallow & Cameron-Kelly, 2006; Taylor

et al., 2006). Despite the myriad ways in which the concept is defined and regardless

of its individual or institutional perspectives, it seems that existing notions of cultural

competence share two basic assumptions: First, cultural competence is a necessary

and sufficient condition for working effectively with differences. Second, cultural

competence can be taught, learned, trained, and attained.

The interest in diversity is widely reflected in social work literature, both in

textbooks (Miley et al., 2006; Kirst-Ashman & Hull, 2008) and in the growing

number of articles dealing with diversity issues in social work journals (Pyles & Kim,

2006; Williams, 2006; Blunt, 2007; Carter-Black, 2007). Echoing this awareness and

situating the discussion within the ethical framework of the profession (Banks, 2008,

2009), the British Association of Social Workers (2009) and the National Association

of Social Work in the United States (2010) formulated ethical standards for diversity

competence. Thus, cultural competence appears as a recurring theme in social work

theory, research, and practice (Clifford & Burke, 2005; Perry & Tate-Manning, 2006;

Williams, 2006; Allen-Meares, 2007; Mills-Powell & Worthington, 2007; Clifford,

2009; Ben-Ari & Strier, 2010).

Within this perspective, social work claims to embrace a very distinctive mission,

to oppose the roots and effects of social oppression (Clifford & Burke, 2005; Strier,

2007; Clifford, 2009). Along these lines, social work has acknowledged the need to

respond respectfully and effectively to people of all cultures, ethnic backgrounds,

religions, social classes, and with other diversity factors in a manner that recognizes,

affirms, and values the worth of individuals, families, and communities and protects

and preserves the dignity of each (British Association of Social Workers, 2009;

National Association of Social Work in the United States, 2010). Developing cultural

competence results in the ability to understand, communicate, and effectively interact

with people across cultures (Baum, 2007; Ben-Ari & Strier, 2010). Practitioners are

expected to have full knowledge of the environment and to respect diversity as an

essential component of effective practice (Shera, 2003). Cultural competence

frequently refers to the integration and transformation of knowledge about

European Journal of Social Work 429

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:26

17

Oct

ober

201

4

individuals and groups of people into specific standards, policies, practices, and

attitudes used in appropriate cultural settings to increase the quality of services,

thereby producing better outcomes (Davis & Donald, 1997). To work effectively with

diversity, practitioners are expected to gain knowledge of different cultural practices

and worldviews, to acquire awareness of their own cultural worldview, to have a

positive attitude toward cultural differences, and to develop cross-cultural skills.

Intergroup Conflict and Contact Theory

The idea of contact between members of conflicting ethnic groups within the context

of small groups originated with the work of Gordon Allport. Allport (1954) specified

four conditions for optimal intergroup contact: equal group status within the

situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and authority support. Although

apparently self-evident, these four conditions call for further elaboration. First, the

idea of equal status is difficult to define and has been used in different ways by

scholars since first presented by Allport. Allport himself stressed that it is important

that both groups expect and perceive equal status in the situation, a specification that

was supported by other researchers over the years (Robinson & Preston, 1976;

Riordan & Ruggiero, 1980; Cohen, 1982; Cohen & Lotan 1995).

Second, the idea of common goals emphasizes the use of active, goal-oriented

effort by all involved, defining shared goals, and thus reducing prejudice (Pettigrew,

1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). The third maxim emphasized by Allport was that

attainment of common goals must involve an interdependent effort on the one hand

and reduce intergroup competition on the other (Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp,

2006). Finally, the fourth condition was the existence of authority support, which

establishes norms of acceptance between members of conflicting groups (Pettigrew,

1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).

A recent meta-analysis conducted by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) indicates clearly

that, indeed, intergroup contact typically reduces intergroup prejudice. Interestingly

enough, their analysis indicates that Allport’s conditions are not essential for

intergroup contact to achieve positive outcomes. In particular, they have found that

samples with no claim to these key conditions still show significant relationships

between contact and prejudice. Thus, they conclude that ‘Allport’s conditions should

not be regarded as necessary for producing positive contact outcomes, as researchers

have often assumed in the past. Rather, they act as facilitating conditions that

enhance the tendency for positive contact outcomes to emerge’ (Pettigrew & Tropp,

2006, pp. 766). Of all four conditions, the results from the meta-analysis indicate that

institutional support may be an especially important condition for facilitating positive

contact effects. Cases in which structured programs were present have shown

significantly stronger contact�prejudice effects than the remaining cases, irrespective

of whether or not they were rated as having conditions beyond authority support.

Finally, one may be concerned that contact reduces prejudice within the situation

toward specific participants belonging to rival groups but does not reduce generalized

430 G. Enosh & A. Ben-Ari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:26

17

Oct

ober

201

4

prejudice against members of such groups. However, the meta-analysis by Pettigrew

and Tropp (2006) shows that intergroup contact effects generalize beyond

participants in the immediate contact situation. As they state: ‘Indeed, the general-

ization of contact’s effects appears to be far broader than what many past

commentators have thought. Not only do attitudes toward the immediate

participants usually become more favorable, but so do attitudes toward the entire

outgroup, outgroup members in other situations, and even outgroups not involved in

the contact.’ (pp. 766). Recently, Baum (2010) has examined contact theory in the

Israeli context, wherein Arab professionals were interviewed regarding their

perceptions of their Jewish counterparts and clients before, during and following

the Palestinian terror attacks of the Second Intifada. The results supported Contact

Theory to some extent. When Arab professionals engage in encounters with Jewish

professionals during or following a terror attack by Palestinians, they reported high

levels of stress. These findings were attributed to the fact that Arab professionals tend

to feel hostility or suspicion on part of their Jewish counterparts, which made them

feel excluded, humiliated, frightened, angered, and blamed. However, it was found

that relationships that were warm and close led to alleviated anxiety and lesser

feelings of exclusion following a terror attack; whereas relationships characterized by

lack of warmth and close contact prior to the attack have become more strenuous and

distanced.

Attribution of Hostility and Dangerousness

Many social cognition models emphasize the influence of the perceiver’s cognitive

structures or schemas in forming impressions of others (Baldwin, 1992). Individuals

tend to view the world through the filter of their person schemas or implicit

personality theory (Schneider, 1973); an organized body of knowledge that includes

expectations about what attributes of personality typically co-occur in other people.

The use of such schemas leads perceivers to notice some types of information and

ignore others, to interpret ambiguous information in a way that is consistent with

their expectations, to fill in gaps in information heuristically based on prior

judgments and prejudices (Weiner, 1985, 1986), and to preferentially recall

information that is consistent with or at least highly relevant to the schema

(Baldwin, 1992). Such schemas may lead to attribution biases.

Attribution biases in social psychology are a class of cognitive errors triggered

when people evaluate the dispositions or qualities of others based on incomplete

evidence; accordingly, attribution theory assumes that people often make attribution

judgments, some of which might be based on partial and incomplete data leading

them to ‘fill in the blanks’ heuristically (Weiner, 1985, 1986). One such attribution

bias is the hostile attribution bias (Dodge, 1994; de Castro et al., 2002).

Hostile attribution is defined as the tendency to attribute intention to harm in

ambiguous interactions in which a harmful result has occurred, assuming that the

person seen as responsible for the frustration acted out of hostility or out of ill-will or

European Journal of Social Work 431

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:26

17

Oct

ober

201

4

negligence rather than for an acceptable reason (Baron & Richardson, 1994; Dodge,

1994; Martinko & Zellars, 1998; Homant & Kennedy, 2003) and is characterized by

the tendency to attribute unfavorable outcomes to stable and external causes

(Douglas & Martinko, 2001). Thus, hostile attribution may lead individuals to

interpret the intent of others as hostile, when social cues fail to indicate a clear intent

(Matthews & Norris, 2002). As a result, it may lead to reactive aggression by the

‘receiver’ of harm. One may claim that any attempt of cultural competence

socialization in a conflicted and rifted cultural context will be endangered by

attributions of both dangerousness and hostility to any representation of the ‘other’.

This is why as social work educators we should examine and explore students’ initial

attributions of hostility and dangerousness to the main other, which in the Israeli

context would be ‘the Arab’ for Jews and ‘the Jew’ for Arabs.

The Israeli Context: Diversity and Multiculturalism

Two interrelated contextual components must be considered in studying the daily

lives of Israelis: the diverse cultural makeup of the country and the security-political

situation in the region. The Israeli population of approximately 7.1 million is

composed of two main groups: Jews (75.7%) and Arabs (19.8%). The rest of the

population consists primarily of non-Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet

Union (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2010). Following massive waves of immigration

from more than 70 countries, Israel is characterized by a mix of countries of origin,

religions, traditions, and heritages. Traditional patterns are found alongside modern

lifestyles, Western culture coexists with Middle-Eastern heritage, and religious values

and practices range from secular to highly orthodox (Lavee & Katz, 2003).

The small size of the country must be taken into account to understand that, for

Israelis, the armed conflict is not something that happens ‘out there’ but right at

home or nearby. This fact has ramifications at both the personal and the collective

levels. At the collective level, it makes the number of people who have been killed or

injured more meaningful; at the personal level, it is likely that everyone in Israel

intimately knows someone who has been killed or wounded in an act of war or terror.

This effect is further intensified by the frequent recurrence of traumatic events, which

have built up a cumulative sense of threat and personal vulnerability (Milgram,

1993). Therefore, the rift of majority versus minority is intensified by its linkage to

cultural orientation, ethnic affiliation, and security considerations related to the high

level of identification with the political arena among Jews and Arabs.

When a ‘turbulent’ political situation (Baum & Ramon, 2010) is considered within

the context of social work education, students, educators, and service providers might

find it difficult to deal with their counterparts who are perceived to be ‘the enemy’

(Ramon et al., 2006; Baum, 2010).

In such situations, there is a growing need to raise awareness of the parties involved

regarding matters such as violent political conflicts and attributions of hostility and

perceived dangerousness. At the same time, there is evidence indicating professional

432 G. Enosh & A. Ben-Ari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:26

17

Oct

ober

201

4

growth, in the form of team collaboration, improved skills, and increased knowledge,

among Jewish and Arab social workers during the Second Intifada in Israel (Baum &

Ramon, 2010).

The Present Study: Contextual Dimensions

In Israel, the BA in Social Work serves as a professional degree.1 It is a 3-year

program, consisting of frontal classes for the whole cohort, small group classes, and

small group encounters related to interpersonal and interview skills, social work

methods, as well as field practice that is accompanied by personal and group-based

supervision. Throughout their 3 years of education, students at the school are

exposed to small group encounters with other students from diverse multicultural

backgrounds. These encounters take place in a multitude of groups and formats and

often focus on issues of acceptance of diversity and multicultural competence. Thus,

over the years of study, the School of Social Work supplies the students with

increasing opportunities for involvement in small group encounters that include all

four of Allport’s (1954) conditions: equal group status within the situation, common

goals, intergroup cooperation, and authority support.

Furthermore, at the time of this study, the program included a frontal class

dedicated to the issue of multicultural competence offered in the first year at the

school. Thus, students were exposed to the ideas of multicultural sensitivity (MCS)

and acceptance on both the formal and informal levels, from almost their first day at

the University. We expected that frontal education alone would have little effect on

multicultural attitudes and sensitivity of the students, whereas small group

encounters would be much more effective. Therefore, it was hypothesized that

longer participation in multicultural small group encounters, especially those that

may be associated with deep social and political rifts (Jews versus Arabs), would be

more effective and noticeable as the cohorts progress through the program. More

formally, the study hypotheses are as follows:

H1: In ambiguous situations, there would be a tendency to attribute more hostilityand dangerousness to members of the other ethnic group (outgroup) than to one’sown ethnic group (in-group).H2: The tendency to attribute more dangerousness to members of the other ethnicgroup would lessen as students progress through the program; thus, more advancedstudents would have fewer prejudices toward the other ethnic group (outgroup) ascompared to first-year students.H3: More advanced students will report higher levels of MCS acquisition ascompared to first-year students.

Methods

Design, Procedure, and Sample

The study was conducted as a cross-sectional factorial survey (Rossi & Anderson,

1982; Rossi et al., 1994) among students in the 3 years of the BA in Social Work

European Journal of Social Work 433

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:26

17

Oct

ober

201

4

program. Students from all the years were asked to fill in an anonymous questionnaire

during class time. For various reasons, it was clearly explained that the survey was

voluntary and anonymous and that there was no way to identify the respondents. No

identifying information was gathered aside from general sociodemographic back-

ground questions. The study was approved by the committee for ethics in research on

human beings of the University of Haifa (Institutional Review Board).

Over 1 week, surveyors visited classes and asked students to fill in questionnaires.

The return rate was over 96% (only six questionnaires were returned empty).

However, for technical reasons, the attendance rate for the second year classes was

extremely low at this particular phase of the year, thus yielding a low number of

participants for this cohort. Overall, 158 students participated: 64 in the first year, 34

in the second, and 63 in the third (one missing). Of those, 99 were of Jewish ethnicity

and 57 of Arab ethnicity (two missing). The average age was 24.0 (SD �5.7) years,

86.7% were females, and 12.7% were immigrants. The level of religiosity was

moderate (on a scale of 1�5, M �2.67, SD �1.31).

Instruments

The questionnaire consisted of several parts, including a sociodemographic back-

ground measure designed specifically for this study, four vignettes (out of eight

possible alternatives), which were supposed to elicit either attribution of hostility or

of danger. Finally, the questionnaire included a measure of subjective estimate of

learning MCS at school.

Sociodemographic measures

The sociodemographic part included items related to respondents’ year in the BSW

program, age, gender, ethnicity, and level of religiosity.

Hostile and danger attributions

The vignettes part experimentally manipulated eight different alternatives (a 2�2�2

design). The manipulated variables included place of encounter (underground parking

lot/back alley); ethnicity of the stranger in the encounter (Hebrew speaking/Arabic

speaking); and actualization of harm (potential/actual), where potential harm would

elicit attribution of danger, while actual harm would elicit attribution of hostility. Each

vignette was followed by several items designed to measure either hostile attribution

(seven items) or danger attribution (eight items) accordingly.

Below are two examples of vignettes, one meant to elicit hostile attribution to a

Hebrew-speaking person, and the other, to elicit danger attribution to an Arabic-

speaking person:

1. The time is about 9:30 pm. You are walking down a back alley where you have never

been before. The place is completely empty. Suddenly, the back door of one of the

434 G. Enosh & A. Ben-Ari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:26

17

Oct

ober

201

4

stores opens, you see an unfamiliar man coming out with a bucket of dirty water. He

mutters something to somebody inside in Hebrew. Then, he spills it on the sidewalk.

Your pants get wet and soiled. You think that he saw you. He goes back inside without

saying anything.

2. The time is about 9:30 pm. You are walking down an underground parking lot where

you have parked your car, but you cannot remember exactly where. The place is

completely empty. Suddenly, you see an unfamiliar man leaning against a car,

muttering something on the phone in Arabic. He is staring at you.

As explained above, following each vignette, the respondents were asked to

answer questions, measuring either hostile attribution or danger attribution

according to the type of vignette presented. Hostile attribution was measured

using seven items (two items reverse coded) related to intent and control, such as:

‘Do you think this person did that on purpose?’ and, ‘Do you think this person

could have avoided doing so?’ Each item had a six-point response scale ranging

from 0 ‘not at all’ to 5 ‘definitely’. Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was measured for

each vignette separately. Reliability scores ranged from 0.873 for Hebrew�Alley

situation, 0.876 for Arabic�Alley situation, 0.884 for Arabic�Park situation, to

0.896 for Hebrew�Park situation.

Similarly, danger attribution was measured using seven items related to potential

harm and sense of fear/dread, such as: ‘To what degree do you believe this person is

dangerous?’ and ‘To what degree are you afraid?’ Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was

measured for each vignette separately. Reliability scores ranged from 0.876 for

Hebrew�Park situation, 0.898 for Arabic�Alley situation, 0.924 for Hebrew�Alley

situation, to 0.927 for Arabic�Park situation.

MCS was measured using six items related to the degree to which the respondents

perceive learning MCS at the school. Items included questions such as ‘The school of

social work has deepened my outlook and understanding of people which are

culturally different from me’ and ‘the frequency of my encounters with persons who

are from a different culture has increased’. Each item was answered on a six-point

response scale ranging from 0 ‘not at all’ to 5 ‘definitely’. The reliability (Cronbach’s

alpha) of the measure was 0.858.

Findings

Table 1 presents the distribution of results of tendency to attribute hostile intention

(hostile attribution) and dangerousness (danger attribution) as triggered by the

ethnicity of the presented ‘Other’ in the vignette. The results are presented separately

by school year and by ethnicity of the respondent.

Attribution of Hostility

To examine the impact of ethnicity and phase of study on hostile attribution, a

2�2�3 ANOVA model was estimated, with the language spoken by the Other

European Journal of Social Work 435

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:26

17

Oct

ober

201

4

(Hebrew versus Arabic) serving as a within-subject factor, and ethnicity of respondent

(Jew/Arab) and school year (1�3) as between-subjects factors. The results indicated

no interaction effect. There was a significant effect for the language of the speaker*the Other*(F(df �1,107)�23.839, pB0.001), as well as for the ethnicity of the

respondent (F(df �1,100)�8.292, pB0.01). As can be seen from Table 1 above, there is

a general tendency to attribute hostile intention to a Hebrew-speaker, whereas Arab

students tend to attribute more hostility than Jewish students.

Attribution of Danger

To examine the impact of ethnicity and phase of study on danger attribution, a

2�2�3 ANOVA model was estimated, with the language spoken by the Other

(Hebrew versus Arabic) serving as a within-subject factor, and ethnicity of

respondent (Jew/Arab) and school year (1�3) as between-subjects factors. The

results indicated one significant interaction effect, between language of the Other and

ethnicity of the respondent (F(df �1,72)�22.993, p B0.001). Specifically, Jewish

respondents attributed more dangerousness to an Arabic speaker than to a Hebrew

speaker, whereas Arab respondents attributed more dangerousness to a Hebrew

speaker than to an Arabic speaker. No significant effect was found for school year

(F(df �2,72)�1.676, ns).

Differences in Perceived Education to MCS

To examine differences between students at their perceived level of education to MCS,

a special measure was developed (MCS), as described above in the Methods section.

A one-way ANOVA was conducted comparing students of the three school years, with

no significant difference found (F(df �2,152)�0.336, ns). To examine such differences

in perceived exposure between the ethnic groups, a t-test was conducted, of which the

results indicated a significant difference between the groups (MJewish�3.19,

MArab�3.90; t(152)�4.328, pB0.001). Thus, it appears that Arab students perceive

themselves as receiving more multicultural training in the school compared to their

Jewish counterparts.

Table 1. Distribution of Hostile and Danger Attributions

Hostile Hebrewspeaker M (SD)

Hostile Arabicspeaker M (SD)

Danger Hebrewspeaker M (SD)

Danger Arabicspeaker M (SD)

SchoolYear

1st 2.72 (0.84) 2.37 (1.14) 3.59 (0.77) 3.20 (1.00)

2nd 2.13 (1.02) 1.81 (1.06) 3.0 (0.87) 2.54 (0.98)3rd 2.57 (1.12) 2.00 (0.97) 3.03 (0.53) 3.14 (0.76)

Ethnicity Jew 2.41 (1.00) 1.85 (0.99) 2.97 (1.04) 3.24 (0.80)Arab 2.91 (0.93) 2.71 (1.02) 3.37 (0.74) 2.83 (0.90)

436 G. Enosh & A. Ben-Ari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:26

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Predicting Hostile Attribution and Danger Attribution

To examine the contribution of each of the variables discussed above to the tendency

to attribute hostility and danger, while controlling for possible confounding effects of

the other variables, four regression models were conducted, whereby school year,2

ethnicity, and multicultural competence socialization (MCS) served as predictor

variables. Level of religiosity was added because it was deemed that religiosity may

serve as a confounding variable, which may increase personal prejudices toward

members of the outgroup (Table 2).

Overall, we can see from the above table that second-year students were somewhat

less prone than first-year students to attribute hostility and dangerousness on three of

the analyses (attributing less hostility to a Hebrew speaker and less dangerousness to

both Hebrew speaker and Arabic speaker). However, this difference does not exist

between members of the third year and members of the first year, where members of

the third year were less prone to attribute danger to a Hebrew speaker than members

of the first year.

In terms of ethnicity, we can see that controlling for other variables, there was only

one difference between Jews and Arabs in attributing danger to an Arabic speaker

(Jews attributed more danger) and no difference in attributing hostility.

Finally, the most interesting finding is that the more self-reported multicultural

competence socialization the student reports, the higher are his or her tendencies to

attribute hostility to a Hebrew speaker, and dangerousness both to a Hebrew speaker

and to an Arabic speaker.

Discussion

The findings of the present study are striking in two interesting ways. First, no

significant differences were found regarding the study variables, as they are examined

Table 2. Regression of Attributions on Phase of Study, Ethnicity, MCS, and Religiosity

Hostile Hebrewspeaker

Hostile Arabicspeaker

Danger Hebrewspeaker

Danger Arabicspeaker

2nd yr (compared to1st year)

�0.238* �0.113 �0.315** �0.371**

3rd yr (compared to1st year)

�0.080 �0.149 �0.422* 0.120

Ethnicity (Jewishrespondentcompared to Arab)

�0.076 �0.269 0.050 0.408***

MCS 0.205** 0.186 0.334** 0.345**Religiosity 0.102 �0.035 �0.073 0.021Constant 1.90*** 2.11** 2.76*** 1.56*R2 0.13 0.18 0.25 0.23F (df) 2.95* 2.74 * 4.49*** 3.78**

(5, 95) (5, 64) (5,68) (5,63)

*p 5 .05; **p 5 .01; ***p 5 .001

European Journal of Social Work 437

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:26

17

Oct

ober

201

4

over the 3-year program. Second, the differences that were found are not self-evident

and call for reconsideration of our very basic assumptions vis-a-vis cultural

competence training and education. The forthcoming discussion is organized around

these two axes*what was found to contain no differences and what was found to

indicate significant differences.

The fact that no significant gradual increase in cultural competence was detected

among students who entered the program and students who graduated from the

program deserves an explanation. Recently, Ben-Ari and Strier (2010) have claimed

that, following the moral theory of Immanuel Levinas, cultural competence cannot be

theoretically learned but rather encounterly experienced. Indeed, the findings of the

present study corroborate those claims. The main study variables were socialization

to MCS, attribution of hostility and attribution of dangerousness. The simplest

explanation may entail that the program is, in fact, ineffective regarding cultural

competence education. However, when examining the data, we can see that the MCS

averages are reasonably high over the 3 years of the program. Thus, one may infer

that students enter the program with high levels of cultural competence, and there is

not much room for variability and/or improvement in this sense. Having said that,

we cannot disregard the possible existence of social desirability in shaping students’

declared attitudes toward an issue they perceive as sensitive within the context of

social work education.

A similar trend appeared regarding attributions of hostility and dangerousness.

When examining the differences between students entering the program and students

graduating from the program, we again find a lack of significant gradual increase in

attribution of hostility and dangerousness. These findings are, in fact, confounded in

the first presented argument: either the program does not create a change in cultural

competence education or the students are trained to provide expected, declared, and

‘politically correct’ answers. It seems that students are conscious of what would be

considered as ‘the right answer’ and this is probably demonstrated at the very early

stage of the program.

We now turn to explaining the findings that do indicate differences among our

participants. It is of special importance that Arab students showed higher levels of

MCS than their Jewish counterparts. Aside from the aforementioned reasons, we have

to consider the fact that they belong to a minority group and, as such, would be more

sensitive to reflecting politically correct answers that might be shaped by social

desirability. From a different angle, it may well be that Arab students would not

endanger their status and image in the Social Work program. That is to say, they

would try to avoid any situation with conflict potential.

Moreover, Arab students attribute more hostility to both Hebrew- and Arabic-

speaking figures than their Jewish counterparts. This can be a sign or characteristic of

being a member of a minority group. It may well be that as members of an ethnic

minority that is in political conflict with the Jewish majority, Arab students have to

be constantly on guard (Baum, 2007Baum, 2010), thus interpreting any ambiguous

and unpleasant situation as requiring watchfulness and suspicion. Along those lines,

438 G. Enosh & A. Ben-Ari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:26

17

Oct

ober

201

4

the most expected finding concerns the attribution of dangerousness. Jews attributed

more dangerousness to Arabs, and Arabs attributed more dangerousness to Jews,

reflecting the inherent rift existing between Jewish and Arab social work students.

This also mirrors the reality outside academia and the school of social work. This

multilevel rift-structure becomes a real challenge for social work educators working

with armed political conflicts in various parts of the world, be it Israel, South-Africa,

or Northern-Ireland (Campbell & Mccrystal, 2005; Ramon et al., 2006; Baum, 2007,

2010; Ferguson & Smith, 2011).

The interesting question is why, of all the study variables, attribution of

dangerousness elicits the most authentic response. One probable explanation would

be that, in the vignettes describing a concrete situation in which danger is implied,

one cannot exercise politically correct, placatory, or the ‘right’ expected responses. In

fact, since the relationships between Jews and Arabs are such that each side sees the

other as representing a threat to one’s existence, ambiguously dangerous situations

may intensify these inherent tensions and threats. These findings corroborate Baum’s

recent study (2010) regarding Israeli�Arab professionals’ feelings and experiences

following a terror attack. Thus, it can be assumed that trying to imbue ‘cultural

knowledge’ regarding cultural minorities in MCS classes in a society rife with national

and religious conflict, probably only reinforces stereotypes and strengthens totalising

views of the Other (Ben-Ari & Strier, 2010).

Finally, the most striking finding is the significant and positive association between

multicultural competence socialization (MCS) and attribution of danger and

hostility. This finding is contrary to expectations and calls for a different line of

thinking. Whereas the regression model implies the effect of MCS on attribution, it

may well be that a tendency to attribute hostility and dangerousness affects students’

sensitivity to MCS education. In other words, those students who enter the program

with some suspicious tendencies, and are likely to interpret ambiguous situations in a

negative way, are much more sensitive to messages emphasizing self-awareness and

acceptance of diversity. Thus, those students feel that they have learned more about

MCS than students who enter the program with high multicultural competence.

Students who enter the program with high multicultural competence would be much

less sensitive and would have much less room for change in comparison.

Banks (2006, 2008) considers the necessity to develop social work ethics,

emphasising how practitioners conceptualise and handle ethical dilemmas, examin-

ing theoretical approaches such as virtue ethics and ethics of care. In particular,

Banks highlights the need to develop new ways of confronting ethics in social work in

drawing in its radical and transformative traditions. Following Ben-Ari and Strier’s

(2010) understanding of Levinas’ perceptions of the other, and its implications to

social work education, and in view of the current findings, we also maintain that ‘It is

because when we think we know the ‘‘Other’’, when we, based on our knowledge,

think we understand the ‘‘Other’’, there is a risk that we are totalising or reducing the

‘‘Other’’ according to the partiality of our previous understandings’ (Ben-Ari &

Strier, 2010, p. 2164). Social work practice should challenge the notion that

European Journal of Social Work 439

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:26

17

Oct

ober

201

4

knowledge is a precondition for working with diversity and should seek to create

opportunities for experiential encounters with the Other. Furthermore, following

Ramon et al. (2006), we hold that professional support, education, and training for

Jewish and Arab social work students and practitioners may decrease political

tensions. However, such training cannot be detached from an anti-oppressive

perspective assuming social responsibility toward the excluded and oppressed

(Dominelli, 2002; Danso, 2009; Ben-Ari & Strier, 2010).

Notes

[1] ‘The Social Workers Law’ of Israel decrees that every individual who graduated from a BA

program successfully in a certified academic school of social work is entitled to register as a

social worker.

[2] Since school year is a categorical variable, in order to be included in a multiple linear

regression model, it was recoded as three dummy-variables coded as 1 and 0. As such, the

regression function can include only two of the three dummy-variables. The results of which

are interpreted as a comparison of the included categories to the omitted category (see, for

example, McClendon, 1994). In our case, and for example, the results for second-year

students are significantly different from those of first-year students in three out of the four

scenarios (Table 2). Similarly, ethnicity of respondent was coded as a dummy variable,

whereas Jewish respondents were compared to Arab respondents.

References

Allen-Meares, P. (2007) ‘Cultural competence: an ethical requirement’, Journal of Ethnic and

Cultural Diversity in Social Work, vol. 16, pp. 83�92.

Allport, G. W. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Baldwin, M. W. (1992) ‘Relational schemas and the processing of social information’, Psychological

Bulletin, vol. 112, pp. 461�484.

Banks, S. (2006) Ethics and Values in Social Work, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingtoke.

Banks, S. (2008) ‘Critical commentary: social work ethics’, British Journal of Social Work, vol. 38, pp.

1238�1249.

Banks, S. (2009) ‘Ethics and social welfare: the state of play’, Ethics and Social Welfare, vol. 2, pp. 1�9.

Baron, R. A. & Richardson, D. R. (1994) Human Aggression, 2nd edn, Plenum, New York.

Baum, N. (2007) ‘Social work practice in conflict-ridden areas: cultural sensitivity is not enough’,

British Journal of Social Work, vol. 37, pp. 873�891.

Baum, N. (2010) ‘After a terror attack: Israeli-Arab professional’s feelings and experiences’, Journal

of Social and Personal Relationships, vol. 27, pp. 1�21.

Baum, N. & Ramon, S. (2010) ‘Professional growth in turbulent times: an impact of political

violence on social work practice in Israel’, Journal of Social Work, vol. 10, pp. 139�156.

Ben-Ari, A. & Strier, R. (2010) ‘Rethinking cultural competence: what can we learn from Levinas?’,

British Journal of Social Work, vol. 40, pp. 2155�2167.

Blunt, K. (2007) ‘Social work education: achieving transformative learning through a cultural

competence model for transformative education’, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, vol. 27,

pp. 93�114.

British Association of Social Workers (2009) Code of Ethics, British Association of Social Work,

United Kingdom.

440 G. Enosh & A. Ben-Ari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:26

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Campbell, J. & Mccrystal, P. (2005) ‘Mental health social work and the Troubles in Northern

Ireland: a study of practitioner experiences’, Journal of Social Work, vol. 5, pp. 173�190.

Carter-Black, J. (2007) ‘Teaching cultural competence: an innovative strategy grounded in the

universality of storytelling as depicted in African and African American storytelling

traditions’, Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 43, pp. 31�50.

Central Bureau of Statistics (2010) ‘Israel demographic profile, 2006,’ [Online] Available at: http://

www.cbs.gov.il/www/population/profil.pdf, accessed 11 January 2010.

Clifford, D. (2009) ‘Reclaiming anti-oppressive values in professional education’, Ethics and Social

Welfare, vol. 2, pp. 1�9.

Clifford, D. J. & Burke, B. (2005) ‘Developing anti-oppressive ethics in the new curriculum’, Social

Work Education, vol. 24, pp. 677�692.

Cohen, E. G. (1982) ‘Expectation states and interracial interaction in school settings’, Annual Review

of Sociology, vol. 8, pp. 209�235.

Cohen, E. G. & Lotan, R. A. (1995) ‘Producing equal status interaction in the heterogeneous

classroom’, American Education Research Journal, vol. 32, pp. 99�120.

Cooper, S. (1973) ‘A look at the effect of racism on clinical work’, Social Casework, vol. 54, pp. 76�84.

Danso, R. (2009) ‘Emancipating and empowering de-valued skilled immigrants: what hope does

anti-oppressive social work practice offer?’, British Journal of Social Work, vol. 39, pp. 539�555.

Davis, P. & Donald, B. (1997) Multicultural Counselling Competencies: Assessment, Evaluation,

Education and Training, and Supervision, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

de Castro, B. O., Veerman, J. W., Koops, W., Bosch, J. D. & Monshouwer, H. J. (2002) ‘Hostile

attribution of intent and aggressive behavior: a meta-analysis’, Child Development, vol. 73, pp.

916�934.

Dodge, K. A. (1994) ‘A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in

children’s social adjustment’, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 115, pp. 74�101.

Dominelli, L. (2002) Anti-Oppressive Social Work: Theory and Practice, Palgrave, Basingstoke,

Hampshire.

Douglas, S. C. & Martinko, M. J. (2001) ‘Exploring the role of individual differences in the

prediction of workplace aggression’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 86, pp. 547�559.

Ferguson, I. & Smith, L. (2011) ‘Education for change: student placements in campaigning

organizations and social movements in South Africa’, British Journal of Social Work, [Online]

First published Online October, 2011. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcr143.

Heydt, M. J. & Sherman, N. E. (2005) ‘Conscious use of self: tuning the instrument of social work

practice with cultural competence’, The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, vol. 10, pp. 25�40.

Homant, R. J. & Kennedy, D. B. (2003) ‘Hostile attribution in perceived justification of workplace

aggression’, Psychological Reports, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 185�194.

Kirst-Ashman, K. & Hull, G. H. (2008) Understanding Generalist Practice, 5th edn, Thomson

Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.

Lavee, Y. & Katz, R. (2003) ‘The family in Israel: between tradition and modernity’, Marriage &

Family Review, vol. 35, pp. 193�217.

Mallow, A. & Cameron-Kelly, D. (2006) ‘Unraveling the layers of cultural competence: exploring the

meaning of meta-cultural competence in the therapeutic community’, Journal of Ethnicity in

Substance Abuse, vol. 5, pp. 63�74.

Martinko, M. J. & Zellars, K. L. (1998) ‘Toward a theory of workplace violence: a cognitive appraisal

perspective’, in Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations: Violent and Deviant Behavior, eds

R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly & J. M. Collins, JAI Press, Stamford, CT, pp. 1�42.

Matthews, B. A. & Norris, F. H. (2002) ‘When is believing ‘‘seeing’’? Hostile attribution bias as a

function of self-reported aggression’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 32, pp. 1�32.

McClendon, M. J. (1994) Multiple Regression and Causal Analysis, Peacock, Itasca, IL.

European Journal of Social Work 441

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:26

17

Oct

ober

201

4

Miley, K., DuBois, B. & O’Melia, M. (2006) Social Work: An Empowering Profession, Allyn and

Bacon, Boston, MA.

Milgram, N. (1993) ‘War-related trauma and victimization: principles of traumatic stress

prevention in Israel’, in International Handbook of Traumatic Stress Syndromes, eds J. P.

Wilson & B. Raphael, Plenum, New York, pp. 811�820.

Mills-Powell, D. & Worthington, R. (2007) ‘Space for GRRAACCEESS: Some reflections on training

for cultural competence’, Journal of Family Therapy, vol. 29, pp. 364�367.

National Association of Social Work in the United States (2002). Code of Ethics, of the National

Association of Social Workers, [Online] Available at: http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/code.

asp; accessed 11 January 2010.

Perry, C. & Tate-Manning, L. (2006) ‘Unravelling cultural constructions in social work education:

journeying toward cultural competence’, Social Work Education, vol. 25, pp. 735�748.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998) ‘Intergroup contact theory’, Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 49, pp. 65�85.

Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. (2006) ‘A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory’, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 90, pp. 751�783.

Pyles, L. & Kim, K. M. (2006) ‘A multilevel approach to cultural competence: a study of the

community response to underserved domestic violence victims’, Families in Society, vol. 87,

pp. 221�229.

Ramon, S., Campbell, J., Lindsay, J., McCrystal, P. & Baidoun, N. (2006) ‘The impact of political

conflict on social work: experiences from Northern Ireland, Israel and Palestine’, British

Journal of Social Work, vol. 36, pp. 435�450.

Riordan, C. & Ruggiero, J. (1980) ‘Producing equal-status interracial interaction: a replication’,

Social Psychology Quarterly, vol. 43, pp. 131�136.

Robinson, J. W. & Preston, J. D. (1976) ‘Equal-status contact and modification of racial prejudice’,

Social Forces, vol. 54, pp. 911�924.

Rossi, P. H. & Anderson, A. B. (1982) ‘The factorial survey approach: introduction’, in Measuring

Social Judgments: The Factorial Survey Approach, eds P. H. Rossi & S. L. Nock, Sage

Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 15�67.

Rossi, P. H., Schuerman, J. & Budde, S. (1994) Understanding Child Placement Decisions and Those

Who Make Them, University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children, Chicago, IL.

Schneider, D. J. (1973) ‘Implicit personality theory: a review’, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 79, pp.

294�309.

Shera, W. (2003) Emerging Perspectives on Anti-Oppressive Practice, Canadian Scholars Press,

Toronto, Canada.

Strier, R. (2007) ‘Anti-oppressive research in social work: a preliminary definition’, British Journal of

Social Work, vol. 37, pp. 857�871.

Taylor, B. A., Gambourg, M. B., Rivera, M. & Laureano, D. (2006) ‘Constructing cultural

competence: perspectives of family therapists working with Latino families’, The American

Journal of Family Therapy, vol. 34, pp. 429�445.

Weiner, B. (1985) ‘An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion’, Psychological

Review, vol. 92, pp. 548�573.

Weiner, B. (1986) An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Williams, C. C. (2006) ‘The epistemology of cultural competence’, Families in Society, vol. 87, pp.

209�220.

442 G. Enosh & A. Ben-Ari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

5:26

17

Oct

ober

201

4