Commentary/Dixon et al.: Beyond prejudice perpetuate the existing status quo of asymmetric power relations. ' As a social psychologist interested in intergroup relations, I have been researching, for the past 25 years, stmctured intergroup encounters aimed at reducing hostility and increasing understand- ing and cooperation between Israeli-Jews and Israeli Arabs. My research relies on systematically analyzed empirical data derived from a series of research programs I have conducted between 1988 and 2012, tracing the evolution of models of planned contact interventions between these two groups. The research tools used include: in-depth interviews, discussions, and conversa- tions that have been conducted over the years with organizers, directors, facilitators, and participants of Jewish-Arab encounter programs; questionnaires and surveys, including measures of atti- tudes and attitude change; and observations of encounter activi- ties and encounter program staff meetings, as well as analysis of documents related to encounter programs. Stmctured encounters between Israeli Jews and Arabs are encounters that take place between two groups with asymmetric power-relations, engaged in competition over scarce resources; the Jewish majority (some 80 percent of die Israeli population) is in control of most material and political resources and deter- mines the national character of the country (Abu-Nimer 1999). The relationship between the Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel is also significandy affected by die larger protracted, asyinmetrical conflict between die State of Israel and die Palestinians living in the West Bank and Caza Strip territories. Hence, like other contact interventions conducted in settings of intergroup conflict, encounters between Israeli Jews and Arabs represent a paradoxi- cal project that aims to produce equality and cooperation between groups embedded in a reality of conflict and asymmetry (Maoz 2000a; 2000b; 2011). Inspired by a recent school of thought that examines processes and effects of contact in deeply divided societies (Dixon et al. 2005; 2007), the major questions that lead my research concem the extent to which these interventions - which aim at improving intergroup relations - perpetuate the existing reality of asym- metric power relations between the Jewish majority and the Arab minority in Israel, or present transfonnative potential towards more symmetrical Jewish-Arab relations. A primary model used in Jewish-Arab contact interventions is the coexistence model, which seeks to promote mutual under- standing and tolerance between Jews and Arabs, reduce stereo- types, foster positive intergroup attitudes, aiid advance other goals in the spirit of the contact hypothesis (AHport 1954; Petti- grew 1988). This model was imported to Israel from the United States in the 1980s; it constitutes the first and the most dominant model, guiding the majority of these contact interventions (Maoz 2006). The coexistence model emphasizes interpersonal similarities ("we are all human beings") and cultural and language commonal- ties, as well as supporting notions of togethemess and cooperation. Critics cynically refer to it as "the Hummus and Falafel model" because of its promotion of folkloristic, seemingly superficial aspects that join Jews and Arabs. As this model focuses on interpersonal interaction and on personal identities (Tajfel & Turner 1986), it does not tend to confront issues such as the con- flict between Israeli Jews and Arabs, dilemmas of national identity, and claims concerning discrimination towards the Arab citizens of Israel (Maoz 2011). Consequendy, the coexistence model tends to support the status quo of the existing stmctural relations between Jews and Palestinian-Arabs in Israel rather than seeking social or political change (Abu-Nimer 1999; Halabi & Sonnenschein 2004) At worst, this model can be viewed as intentionally perpetuating existing asymmetrical power relations by focusing on changing individual-level prejudice while ignoring die need to address col- lective and institutionalized bases of discrimination (Bekerman 2007; Dixon et al. 2005; Maoz 2011). Indeed, research shows that contact interventions guided by the coexistence model tend to preserve and perpetuate Jewish dominance and control while encouraging Arab submissiveness and passivity, thus strengthening existing stereotypes of Jews as overdominant and controlling and of Arabs as lazy and passive (Maoz 2000a; 2000b; 2004). Furdiermore, organizational stmc- tural analyses indicate that the vast majority of organizations that employ the coexistence model display high Jewish dominance in their hierarchy and distribution of resources and very low to no representation of Arabs in the different levels of management and decision making (Maoz 2004). Analysis of the discourse characterizing such coexistence model encounters makes visible the tactics and practices of die Jewish directors, showing how these restrict discussion of inequalities and of the conflict between the sides. Such discussion was defined by the Jewish directors as destmctive, subversive, and as bound to spoil the good atmosphere of the encounter, and thus as contradicting the goal of fostering coexistence. The Arab participants, for their part, expressed a lack of identification with the goal of advancing coexistence and fostering rapproche- ment: these goals were perceived as forced upon them, as unre- presentative of the tme reality of Jewish-Arab relations in Israel, and as restricting their ability to express their national identity and present the minority's point of view - the less legitimized Palestinian version of the history and current realities of the con- flict (Maoz 2000a; 2011). Thus, the empirical data derived from studies of the coexistence model between Jews and Arabs in Israel can help describe and empirically ground the paradoxical effects of this kind of "harmo- nious" encounter. By expUcidy illustrating the consequences of delegitimizing die discussion of inequalities within these contact interventions, these studies help to support and extend Dixon et al.'s broader argument about the paradoxical interrelations between harmony and sociopolitical change. Faustian bargains for minorities within group-based hierarchies doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12001434 C. Davjd Navarrete and Melissa M. McDonald Department of Psychology; Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior Program; Michigan State University, East Lansing, Ml 48824. c.d.navarrete@gmail.com / cdn@msu.edu mcdon348@msu.edu Abstract: A dual-audience signaling problem framework provides a deeper understanding of tlie perpetuation of group-based inequality. We describe a model of underachievement among minority youth that posits a necessary trade-off between academic success and peer social support that creates a dilemma not typically encountered by nonminorities. Prehminary evidence consistent witli the approach is discussed. Such strategic agent perspectives complement tlie psychological approach put fortli by Dixon et al., but with minimal ancillary assumptions. In their target article, Dixon et al. argue that the conceptualization of intergroup prejudice should not require the presence of intergroup animus. We seek to complement this discussion by drawing attention to the authors' emphasis on how animus can often be irrelevant to the perpetuation of group-based inequality and to develop an example from recent theory and research in économes. Although the authors emphasize the psychological and affective mechanisms that serve to reinforce inequality, we provide an example of how such approaches can be complemented by a rational-agent approach that assumes very Utde about the intemal states of actors. Civen that minorities typically coexist quite closely with domi- nant majorities, minority individuals may seek to better their pos- ition via assimilation into the dominant group. By doing so, though, they risk weakening their ties to their ethnic group and its collective bargaining power or long-term viability. From the 442 BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2012) 35:6