Qualitative study reveals how peer dialogue and intergroup contact shape civic identity in conflict-affected youth, highlighting emotional awareness as a driver of outgroup empathy.
During adolescence, young people develop civic identities and the psychological and social capacities that shape how they interpret and respond to social and political issues. However, relatively little research has examined how these processes unfold in contested settings (i.e., contexts marked by enduring intergroup conflict and polarization). Addressing this gap, this qualitative study examines how adolescents’ sociopolitical development (SPD) is shaped through the interaction of socio‐emotional processes and socializing influences. Drawing on SPD and Intergroup Contact theories, we focus on sociopolitical emotional awareness as a key developmental process and on family and peer interactions as central social contexts. Using interview data from 45 Catholic and Protestant adolescents (12–18‐years old) in post‐conflict Northern Ireland, we employ a hybrid inductive–deductive analytic approach to examine how youth interpret and navigate political messages from multiple, and at times competing, sources. Findings indicate that adolescents negotiate divergent sociopolitical messages across family and peer contexts, shaping their emerging civic identities. Intergroup contact further provides opportunities for adolescents to encounter competing perspectives, reflect on group‐based narratives, and develop more critical and flexible understandings of the conflict. These experiences are closely linked to sociopolitical emotional awareness, as adolescents interpret emotionally embedded histories, express empathy, and engage in prosocial orientations toward outgroups. Together, the findings extend SPD by identifying sociopolitical emotional awareness as a key mechanism and intergroup contact as a central developmental context through which adolescents interpret and navigate politically meaningful experiences in contested, post‐conflict settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kornbluh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: