A Social Psychological Index for Transitional Political Reconciliation (SPITPR-5F) 1

A Social Psychological Index for Transitional Political Reconciliation (SPITPR–5F)1 Manuel Cárdenas Castro Universidad de Talca Héctor Arancibia Universidad de Valparaíso Pete Leihy Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Patricia Obreque Oviedo Universidad de Talca Societal reconciliation and the transition from trauma to peace are increasingly prominent themes in psychosocial studies. In Chile, 3 decades after a transition from a long dictatorship (1973–1990) to restored democratic rule, the measurement of progress in reconciliation remains imprecise, despite a large body of testimony and other empirical evidence. This study explores the factor structure and measurement invariance of the Social Psychological Index for Transitional Political Reconciliation (SPITPR–5F) in a sample of 559 participants from Valparaíso, Chile. Exploratory factor analysis and multigroup confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test the invariance of the correlated 5-factor structure with respect to sex and age variables. The reconciliation index shows good levels of reliability (w = .91), and results support a correlated 5-factor model of political reconciliation. Similarly, the fit index indicates the validity of the model and supports its strict invariance by gender but not by age. These results suggest that the SPITPR–5F is an evaluative five-factor measure of political reconciliation across the Chilean population. Public Significance Statement This study offers a valid and reliable model to measure progress in political reconciliation. The proposed model includes the measurement of variables political tolerance, social cohesion, support for democracy and human rights, institutional trust, and respect for rule of law and due process. Together these 5 dimensions help to properly represent the concept of political reconciliation. Keywords: political reconciliation, social indicators, confirmatory factor analysis, invariance measurement, Chile. Reconciliation sees a population move from a divided past to a shared future (Bar-Tal, 2000), without forgetting the past or forgiving the atrocities that have been committed (Cárdenas, 2019). It aims at the agreement and cooperation to allow 1 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by American Psychological Association in Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology on October 12 2020 available online: https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000522 How to cite: Cárdenas Castro, M., Arancibia, H., Leihy, P., & Obreque Oviedo, P. (2020, October 12). A Social Psychological Index for Transitional Political Reconciliation (SPITPR–5F). Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pac0000522 MANUEL CÁRDENAS CASTRO received his PhD in social psychology. He is a psychologist and doctor in social psychology. Currently is Professor of Social Psychology and Research Methods in Psychology School at Talca Psychology Faculty, Universidad de Talca. His research and publication interests include transitional justice process, memory policies, political reconciliation, political violence and human rights. HÉCTOR ARANCIBIA received his PhD in social psychology and methodology. He is Professor of Research Methods in the Institute of History at the Humanity and Educational Faculty, Universidad de Valparaíso. His research and publication interests include intergroup relations, multiculturalism, human rights, well-being, immigration and prejudice. PETE LEIHY received his PhD in higher education from the University of Melbourne. He is a postdoctoral fellow at Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. His scholarly interests include Latin American history and educational measurement. PATRICIA OBREQUE OVIEDO holds a degree in linguistics from the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina. Currently, she is pursuing a PhD in human sciences at the University of Talca. Her main research interests are discourse analysis, feminist studies and political reconciliation. THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN funded by the Associative Research Program of the National Research and Development Agency (PIA/ANID). This research is part of the project Anillos of Investigation in Social Sciences and Humanities “Political Culture and Post-dictatorship: Memories of the Past, Struggles of the Present and Challenges of the Future”. CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to Manuel Cárdenas Castro, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Talca, Av. Lircay s/n, Talca, Chile. E-mail: jose.cardenas@utalca.cl POLITICAL RECONCILIATION INDEX peaceful coexistence and societal development (Bloomfield, Barnes, & Huyse, 2003). Therefore, it is paramount that old adversaries make ongoing effort to cooperate and eliminate threats to identity that may emerge as a result of the peacemaking process (Nadler, Malloy, & Fisher, 2008; Nadler, 2012). The process seeks a concrete end of conflict between groups, based on transformations on various levels: institutional, constitutional, and relational (Li, Rovenpor, & Leidner, 2016; Maddison, 2017a, 2017b). A broad sense of reconciliation within political transitions is a fundamental ingredient in the construction of a peaceful culture (Louise, Ioannou, & Lordos, 2015). The process of reconciliation requires transformations in political and economic structures that end the dominant status of former oppressors and promote democratization and justice. This entails confronting historical asymmetries of power between groups (Christie, Tint, Wagner, & Winter, 2008; Lillie & Janoff-Bulman, 2007; Malloy, 2008; Rouhana, 2004, 2011). At the root of this affirmation is the conviction that a large part of current asymmetries has been made possible by past economic and political conditions imposed on the population by violence and abuse. The concept of reconciliation is applicable to those conflicts that are prolonged in time, visit extended violence on society as a whole, and that, for such reasons, elevate levels of animosity and prejudice from different sectors of society (Bar-Tal, 2000). The transition processes from civil-military dictatorships to popularly elected governments are emblematic examples. Such conflicts witness institutional breakdown and a substantial loss of trust between groups. Various living and indeed subsequent generations are socialized in a climate of conflict, reproducing prejudice, and perpetuating socially constructed differences. This inequality of power, developed through past violence, tends to perpetuate the overrepresentation of certain groups in decision-making processes (Rouhana, 2011). These changes are centered on institutional and constitutional transformations (e.g., the constitutional recognition of diverse ethnicities, or institutional policies that sustain inequalities such as the denial of education in one’s mother tongue). In parallel, these institutional transformations are accompanied by a collective exercise of ascertaining “truth” about the past and the construction of a historical account that takes stock of the atrocities committed and injustices suffered. In this way, the memories, experiences and identity of victims and survivors are validated, which allows shared beliefs about the future (Gibson, 2004; Peled & Rouhana, 2004). To address human rights violations that occurred in the past, different transitional justice mechanisms have been used, including truth and reconciliation commissions as well as internal and international trials on human rights violations (Hayner, 2002). Chile is a country self-conscious of a functional reconciliation; just as post-Apartheid South Africa would brand its sweeping but incremental remedies toward social justice “Transformation,” the bloodless decommissioning of Chile’s 1973–1990 military government was termed “the transition to democracy” or simply “the Transition.” Although Chile’s Transition was a negotiation of historical contingencies, serendipitously scheduled within the end of the Cold War, transitional justice might be proffered as a general descriptor of the brokered exigencies of reconciliation in general. In Chile, the perception of transitional justice, understood as those actions which allow for the transition between a climate of violence to one of peace, has historically juxtaposed governability with justice (“truth and justice in the measure of the possible” being the famous utterance of Patricio Aylwin, elected president from 1990–1995, but with outgoing dictator Augusto Pinochet still Commander-in-Chief of the Army). Indeed, amnesty and impunity for key perpetrators were long tabled as requisites for achieving social peace (Lira, 2010; Loveman & Lira, 2000, 2002). In the Chilean context, reconciliation evokes the idea of coexistence based on forgiveness, which it unilaterally demands from the victims prior to any apologies or justice. For this reason, for survivors and victims’ social circles, any reconciliation without exacting justice may be considered suspicious and strongly resisted (Cárdenas, Páez, Arnoso, & Rimé, 2017). In this way, a sense of self-perceived collective victimhood persists (Bar-Tal, Chernyak-Hai, Schori, & Gundar, 2009), understood as continuing shared hurt. Thus, the search for truth, as well as the search for justice and institutional reform, has coexisted with amnesties and laws that prevent access to it (Collins, 2013). Two national truth commissions in Chile (in 1991 and 2004) applied various measures of reparation and sought to expose the truth. Given bargaining between pragmatic protections for perpetuators and the pursuit of justice, we still do not know how much these commissions have contributed to the process of installing a solid democratic ethos. Political Reconciliation as a Social Indicator The measurement of social phenomena implies clear and simple conceptual delimitation them of their main properties. These properties must be operationalized to properly consider the influence or relative weight of each of the indicators. A social indicator must represent or distill a wide range of variables, contributing to the simplification of a multidimensional and complex reality through a unique index (Rovan, 2011). It should precisely and accurately measure the phenomena, as well as their subsequent evolution, and changes over time (OECD, 1976). Consequently, we developed social indicators to measure reconciliation—a complex concept— through questions that correspond to indicators of this concept and then synthesized them. There is little research available where reconciliation has been operationalized and measured (Brounéus, 2008; Gibson, 2007). Those studies have proposed varied but non exhaustive spectrums of indicators, such as degree of direct contact between opposing parties, the existence of public commemoration ceremonies, gestures of peace between one-time enemies (Brounéus, 2008), increased political tolerance, legitimacy of institutions, decreased stereotyping and avoidance between groups, and support for human rights (Gibson, 2007). Whereas undeniably valid, these assemblages of indicators are alternately too broad or too narrow to typologize reconciliation plausibly in all context. For Chile, the continued presence POLITICAL RECONCILIATION INDEX of past oppressors in public life and political decisions is a further indispensably salient factor but may not apply in other cases. Thus, our proposal for operationalization will include the following dimensions: (1) social cohesion, (2) political tolerance, (3) institutional trust, (4) supporting democracy and human rights, (5) and respect for the rule of law and due process. Our proposal posits that in a reconciled society people feel part of their community and interconnected; a flourishing democracy is one in which political differences can be expressed vividly; institutional legitimacy is afforded and upheld by the community itself. At the same time, a reconciled society is wary of its history of violence and understands democracy as something actively pursued. Defense of human rights and due process for all are cornerstones of justice that allow not only diversity of opinion but constructive engagement. These five dimensions are found in societies where political and economic structures have been successfully transformed, suggesting their indirect alignment with the reconciliation process. In societies where these necessary transformations are incomplete—as we see Chilean case—these indicators will return a negative evaluation. Although political reconciliation implies changes that exceed the proposed dimensions, in any reconciled society these dimensions are achieved. Social cohesion is connectedness and solidarity among groups in society. It comprises two main dimensions: sense of belonging to a community and relationships among community members (Manca, 2014). Little attention has been given to this concept as an indicator of reconciliation, probably because reconciliation it has been understood in terms of relationships between groups and not in terms of internal group relationships. As an indicator of political reconciliation, other psychosocial measurements have recognized blame directed between groups (Whitson & Galinsky, 2008; Wilewicz & Kofta, 2011) but have not incorporated the known role internal group dynamics in well-being (Keyes, 1998). We see the combination of cross-societal commemorative acts and lesser intergroup stereotyping as indicating restorative symmetry in social power. Political tolerance refers to people’s commitment to diversity of opinion, however confronting it may be (Gibson & Gouws, 2003). Conflicting beliefs and opinions require forms of channeling, negotiation, and regulation within some accessible framework. Political tolerance implies being in contact with members of other groups, despite any uncomfortable feelings that may arise. To the extent that political tolerance reigns, past “enemies” are reconceived as antagonists or opponents on particular positions and issues. A reconciled society is built on institutional trust and the inclusive representation of interests and values (Louise et al., 2015). High levels of institutional trust are correlated to lesser conflict with members of other groups (Jasinski, 2011). Thus, the perception of institutional legitimacy and adequacy, inform indicators of progress in reconciliation (Gibson, 2004; Lillie & Janoff-Bulman, 2007). Trust in the machinery of justice is especially relevant in addressing past human rights violations and ongoing iniquities; indeed, in the Chilean case index design must be apprised of the subtext that formal institutions of justice are perceived by many as having delivered injustice. Support for democracy and human rights refers to a set of attitudes that account for respect different political ideas and positions and the sanctity of human rights (Gibson, 2011). Democracy and human rights are important umbrellas and metanarratives for describing post authoritarian transitions for countries such as Chile. That learning has occurred throughout the transition process is the substantive factor as it is necessary for consolidating a framework of respectful discourse within and between groups (Beristain, Páez, Rimé, & Kanyangara, 2010). In other words, there is support for those principles that sustain the possibility of radically different political projects coexisting, but there is also recognition of a nonnegotiable common framework, which functions as minimum common ground required of political adversaries. The coexistence of perhaps radically different political projects inform a common framework. Respect for the rule of law and of due process implies procedural justice for all, including those having perpetrated violence (Peerenboom, 2005). It manifests an unconditional commitment to transparent processes for addressing grievances, rather than undisclosed accords. In concert, the aforementioned forms of attitude and behavior account (albeit indirectly) for progress in political reconciliation. A society is reconciled to the extent that these five dimensions are strengthened. Coexistence also implies the possibility of constructive and certainly not violent disagreements about the past and future. Although it is true that reconciliation inhabits further dimensions, those collected here allow for a rounded and adequate measurement of its progress. About the Present Study This study stakes out the dimensions of a successful transition from a climate of oppression to one of peace. Fundamental is social agreement that allows for a unified advance toward the reconstruction of a society, while allowing for certain disagreement about particulars and principles. Social memory has variegated threads and the pretense of an official truth or a shared truth integrating the experiences of different groups should be taken with a grain of salt. The objective is not to declare one truth or to reach consensus about the history of conflicts, much less their definitive resolution, but rather to recognize and elaborate upon but the meaning and memory of the conflict. In line with the proposals of Schaap (2003, 2006) and Maddison (2017a, 2017b), we argue that political reconciliation must do more than acknowledge the existence of past violence whose harmony needs to be restored, and yet does not annul disagreements regarding the past and future by POLITICAL RECONCILIATION INDEX enforced consensus. Consensus is not in itself a regulative ideal and reconciliation is irreducible to narrow tropes of interpersonal or intergroup forgiveness. In this study, indicators of changes in social, political, and economic structure yield a synthetic social psychological measurement of political reconciliation. Method Participants The sample was composed of 559 participants, 42.9% men and 57.1% women aged between 18 and 88 (M = 39.62, SD = 18.22). The data were collected during November 2018 and April 2019 in the city of Valparaíso (Chile). The measurements for the SPITPR–5F were included in a wide-ranging survey, covering many aspects of political culture and human rights. Specially trained personnel presented the instrument to respondents. Although the sample is not random, it was stratified to reflect the population ratios for gender and age. The participants signed a consent form informing them of the investigation’s objectives and guaranteeing confidentiality and anonymity. The paper-and-pencil questionnaires were completed individually. The study obtained approval by the Scientific Ethics Committee of the Universidad de Valparaíso. Instrument The instrument includes sociodemographic measures, among them the sex assigned at birth (male or female) and their age, which was used to segment our sample into two groups (those over 40 and those under 40 years old). The SPITPR–5F includes five dimensions (social cohesion, political tolerance, institutional trust, support of democracy and human rights, and respect for the rule of law and due process) distributed in 11 items on a scale format with the answers ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The dimensions are as follows: Social cohesion contains two items, referring to the social integration dimension (“The society in which I live is a source of wellbeing”) and Keyes’s (1998) scale of social well-being (“I feel I am an important part of my community”). The dimension evaluates the quality of one’s relationships with society and the community. Political tolerance spans two items measuring attitudinal agreement with freedom of expression of others’ ideas and degree of trust in those with different political ideologies (Gibson, 2007): “We should defend the right of those who think differently to us to express their ideas, as unpleasant as they may be” and “It is very difficult for me to trust people with political ideas that are very different from my own.” Institutional trust has two items referring to the citizens’ trust in justice tribunals to support human rights: “Justice tribunals should have their rights limited when it comes to cases about human rights violations” and “When justice tribunals do not rule in favor of what citizens expect, their decisions should be rejected.” Support for democracy and human rights sees three items measuring commitment to democracy, including separation of branches of government and state backing of human rights: “Although imperfect, democracy is preferable to any other type of government”; “In a democracy, the independence of the different branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) should be absolutely guaranteed”; and “Under no circumstances is it acceptable that a state commit human rights violations.” Respect for rule of law and due process is addressed by two items measuring agreement with procedural integrity for those accused of crimes: “On certain occasions it’s better to ignore the law and resolve problems immediately instead of looking for a legal solution” and “If a person is caught committing a crime, it is perfectly acceptable for the community to immediately punish them in the same place.” Additionally, some variables and items are included to test the validity of the proposed index. Among these were the following: perception of political efficacy (e.g., “What influence can your actions have on the country’s political affairs?”); the assessment of the utility of Truth and Reconciliation Commission reports in matters of truth, justice, and the creation of a more inclusive narrative (e.g., “How much would you say that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s reports have contributed to doing justice and preventing impunity for human rights violators?”); state reparations (e.g., “Do you believe that the measures taken by the state have been sufficiently efficient in repairing the damage wrought on survivors and victims?”); perception of official apologies (e.g., “How sincere do you feel the apologies offered by the state to the victims have been?”); and political self-categorization (e.g., “In political matters, people frequently refer to the left or the right. Where would you place your ideologies on that political scale?”). All variables were measured on a Likert-type scale with six response options ranging from 1 (“nothing” or “left-wing”) to 6 (“very much” or “right-wing”). One measure of transitional justice in a postconflict society is the performance of truth and reconciliation commissions convened to address political reconciliation and peace (Gibson, 2004). Likewise, there is an intuitive and demonstrable relationship has between political reconciliation and official apologies, as well state reparation measures and a sense of voice among citizens (Dyck & Lascher, 2009; Iyer & Blatz, 2012; Thompson, 2002; Zimmerman, 2010). Thus, these variables bolster validity. POLITICAL RECONCILIATION INDEX Data Analysis SPSS 20.0 (IBM Corp., 2011), AMOS 22 (Arbuckle, 2014), and G_Power 3.1.6 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) were used for the analyses. A descriptive analysis (mean, standard deviation, symmetry, and kurtosis) was conducted on all variables. The reliability coefficient omegas (ω) were calculated for the index (McDonald, 1999) as well as the correlations between the reconciliation index dimensions and the measures used to observe convergent validity. Independent Student’s t tests were performed and effect sizes for mean differences were estimated to compare groups reporting low and high levels of social reconciliation, with the latter being significant. An exploratory factor analysis was executed (an extraction procedure being used for the main components with VARIMAX rotation). A correlated five-factor model was tested and compared with the general factor model. The model’s parameters were estimated using the maximum likelihood method. Different fit indexes (chi-squared [𝑥 ! ], comparative fit index [CFI], Tucker–Lewis index [TLI], normed fit index [NFI], incremental fit index [IFI], Akaike’s information criterion [AIC], and root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]) and the factor loadings were obtained for each item. The TLI, IFI, NFI, and CFI should be closest to 1.0, although they are always expected to be higher than .90 (Bentler & Dudgeon, 1996; Hu & Bentler, 1995). The AIC is used to compare two or more models, and the smallest values indicate a better fit (Byrne, 2001). The RMSEA value should be less than the critical value of .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Results Descriptive Results The participants’ mean scores were close to the middle of the scale for all questions and had similar dispersion levels, with the exception of two items that obtained very high means (i.e., the support democracy dimension [“Under no circumstances is it acceptable that a state commit human rights violations”] and the human rights dimension [“Although imperfect, democracy is preferable to any other type of government”]). These general questions yielded such broad agreement that they did not allow distinguishing between the positions of different groups. The negative asymmetry of the two aforementioned items indicate this general agreement, which further accumulates in the upper part of the distribution (see Table 1). This asymmetry is corrected by analyzing the data of the complete index, where an approximately symmetric and mesokurtic distribution is observed (M = 3.86, SD = .54, g1 = .06, g2 = -.15, K–S (df, 485] = .04, p = .16). The scale obtained a good reliability coefficient (ω = .91). Factor Analyses A structure-factor analysis of the reconciliation index was attempted (see Table 2). An extraction procedure was used for the main components with VARIMAX command. The best explanation for the existence of the predicted dimensions occurred with a rotated model, however. Sample adequacy measures indicated good data fit for the factor analysis of the full scale (Kaiser– Meyer–Olkin = .61; Bartlett sphericity test, p < .001). POLITICAL RECONCILIATION INDEX The reconciliation index factor structure showed the presence of five factors explaining 68.5% of the total variance; Factor 1 explains 17.8% of variance and includes items referring to support of democracy and human rights. Factor 2 explains 14.46% of variance and includes items referring to political tolerance. Factor 3 explains 12.8% of variance and includes items referring to respect for rule of law and due process. Factor 4 explains 12.1% of variance and includes items grouped in the social cohesion dimension. Finally, Factor 5 includes items grouped into institutional trust, explaining 11.3% of variance. The correlation among factors can be seen in Table 3. The correlations found were low and most were nonsignificant (p > .05), accounting for the relative independence of the dimensions. The results suggest that these are dimensions that effectively measure wide-ranging issues. Evidence of the Internal Structure The correlated five-factor model shows adequate fit indexes (see Table 4), both for the complete sample and with respect to gender (male/female) and age (“age 1” = people between 18–39 years of age, and “age 2” = people aged 40 or more years). The factor loadings (λ) of the items varied between .51 to .98. Once this well-adjusted baseline model was established and identified, we established the equivalency between the different samples, imposing a series of increasingly strict restrictions. The statistics for the model’s goodness of fit for the invariance tests by gender and age are presented in Table 4. The fit index and the variations between the models in the CFI index and RMSEA would indicate that, in the case of age, the factor loadings are equal, given that change according to these tests, CFI and RMSEA respectively, are below the proposed cutoff point of 0.01, with an exception being in the strict model, where ΔCFI is above the cutoff point. As for the models proposed for the age group variable, the results indicate that for ΔRMSEA the expectations are met (for weak, strong, and strict models), but not for variations in CFI, where none of the parameters of invariance are satisfied, even though all obtain a good fit index. Validity Indicators Significant differences are present between groups with low and high scores in the variables referring to the political efficacy of collective action and the sincerity of official apologies, as well as dedicated commissions’ promotion of justice for victims and survivors (see Table 5). In all cases, effect sizes of the statistical significance tests (Student’s t test) are considered middling (Cohen, 1988) ranging from .15 to .32. These effect sizes suggest that the differences may be large enough to assume that they are not random. The contribution of the truth and reconciliation commissions in revealing the truth and creating an integral narrative about past events witnessed no significant differences. Finally, we have correlated participants’ political selfcategorization with scores in the different dimensions from the SPITPR–5F. The 52.7% of the participants defined themselves as center-left (23.5%) or left wing (29.2%); 11.5% defined themselves as center right (6.5%) or right wing (5%), and 35.8% stated that they did not have a political position. After correlating the political self-categorization variable with the dimensions of the index, we find low correlations, although three of them are statistically significant: institutional trust (r = .13, p < .05), social cohesion (r = .25, p < .01), and supporting democracy and human rights (r = -.16, p < .01). These results indicate that people who more strongly identify with rightwing politics show higher levels of institutional trust and social cohesion, while those who identify with left-wing politics show higher agreement with the items that measure affirmation of democracy and human rights. These results may not be significant in a context where the categories of left and right overlap with the identities of the survivors and victims’ relatives as well as those who supported the oppressors, respectively. POLITICAL RECONCILIATION INDEX Discussion The results indicate that the SPITPR–5F seems a reliable and valid instrument for detecting progress in the political reconciliation process. This is a particularly auspicious conclusion, given that the concept of reconciliation in Chile has been characterized by the absence of an operational definition and by a mere rhetoric of interpersonal forgiveness. Any sense of closure and moving on is denied by a significant part of the population, especially by survivors of state terrorism and the families of victims. We have shown, through a series of studies, how forgiveness and reconciliation are different and not necessarily related constructs (Cárdenas, Arnoso, & Páez, 2015, 2016, 2017). In the same way, we have shown that reconciliation in contexts of political violence draws together diverse attitudes that can be summarized in five interrelated dimensions (i.e., social cohesion, political tolerance, institutional trust support for democracy, human rights, and respect for rule of law and due process). All may indirectly support transformations at constitutional, institutional, and relational levels. In a reconciled society, people feel that they belong to a community, accommodating for differences within itself. In this way, social cohesion is a dimension relevant to the prospects of constitutional changes (the criteria of who its members are and the legitimacy of any differential statuses) and at a relational level (how identity and closeness is maintained among group members). Similarly, political tolerance is perceptible in a community that recognizes the need to promote and guarantee the free expression of ideas and identifies itself as being tolerant. Due process and equal and fair treatment by institutions follow. This is the first study that shows promising results regarding the validity of the structure proposed for the construct. These five dimensions do not contemplate the broadest possible definition of political reconciliation. The items selected for each dimension do present limitations when it comes to guaranteeing that they are representative, which impels further work toward a still more robust political reconciliation index. An objective of this study was to explore factorial invariance by gender and age (i.e., differently patterned biological, social, and generational experiences regarding the past of the dictatorship, the Transition and beyond). The differences detected between the groups with respect to political reconciliation can be attributed to the scale used and individuals’ divergent question interpretations according to their age group. Thus, it could be concluded that reconciliation in not capsulated in bilateral relationships between individuals, but rather is a process that implicates society as a whole. The reported research has a series of limitations related to the nonrandom sampling used. Further, we acknowledge that the proposed operationalization strategy could be narrow in that it does not consider other relevant dimensions of the political reconciliation process—not least, local variations particular to regions and polities. The quantity and representativity of the items should increase (including questions redacted in different ways). Although political reconciliation is a complex process that includes but also goes beyond the dimensions that we have proposed in this article. POLITICAL RECONCILIATION INDEX It bears mentioning that here reconciliation has been conceptualized as a multilevel process, and yet that it could be augmented by further social-level elements (especially objective measurements, such as changes in wealth distribution and poverty levels and in the legislated expansion and enjoyment of civil and political rights). This study incorporates a robust range of elements that can be measured by asking people directly, but the overall picture might benefit from such mixed inputs. Although it is true that each of these variables separately cannot fully account for the progress of the political reconciliation process, together they approximate determinants of that process. At the very least, this social psychological index can be considered a good precedent for reconciliation readiness, that is, the degree to which citizens feel psychologically prepared to initiate and accept efforts toward reconciliation. Reconciliation readiness requires the absence of fear or anxiety in interactions with perceived former enemies. To understand reconciliation demands the examination of the beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors of whole populations, and the necessary conditions of general cohesion. It is impossible to understand a society without first understanding individual citizens: here, their perception of progress in reconciliation. In Chile, reconciliation is widely understood as comprising confession and forgiveness between individuals, but we take this further. We ask about wider notions (political tolerance, institutional trust, social cohesion, etc.) which in conjunction suggest profound political and economic transformations, and concomitant levels of reconciliation. The understanding of reconciliation benefits from an underlying examination of the beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors of ordinary people. If reconciliation means groups getting along together, then reconciliation requires that citizens hold certain communicative attitudes and behave in certain ways. It is impossible to understand a society without first understanding at the individual level. It is certainly recommended that invariance tests should be carried out in different countries and contexts. Despite reported limitations, this study reveals findings that can make a significant contribution to the field; the multidimensional structure of political reconciliation is confirmed due to invariance with respect to the key human experiences of gender and age. Reconciliation entails former adversaries actively seek out ways to live together in the present without necessarily needing to forgive or forget the past. They must reach a certain degree of necessary cooperation to advance an inclusive society (Bloomfield et al., 2003). Such an understanding of political reconciliation permits a more systematic measurement that demonstrates the progress or otherwise of showing political reconciliation policies. Social indicators allow us to investigate individuals’ attitudes within a society and access the consciences and traumas of oppressors and victims. The results of this study offer background underpinning to the current social unrest in Chile. This cycle of protests shows the transformations of the Chilean political culture (understood as a set of values, beliefs, and behavioral patterns related to the political process) and the depletion of the political and economic matrix, which was installed during the last dictatorship (1973–1990) and parlayed in the democratic, but materialistic, logic of the ensuing period. In Chile, the rhetoric regarding the Transition and its end (that implies the supposed entry into a completely democratic community)—which has been “decreed” at various times and is now subject to the promise, in the words of two-time president Sebastián Piñera, of a Second Transition “towards [being] a developed country without poverty”—is questioned by social mobilizations and protests. Indeed, a pressing complaint is the need for a new, democratically formulated constitution and to deeply modify institutions that allow the perpetuation of inequality and social injustice. (At the time of this writing, an October 2020 plebiscite on the possibility of an assembly to create is imminent.) An instrument to measure transitional reconciliation can contribute much toward the understanding of capacities in democratic reform and a fairer society. References Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). Amos (Version 22.0) [Computer program]. Chicago, IL: IBM SPSS. Bar-Tal, D. (2000). From intractable conflict through conflict resolution to reconciliation: Psychological analysis. Political Psychology, 21, 351–365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00192 Bar-Tal, D., Chernyak-Hai, L., Schori, N., & Gundar, A. (2009). A sense of self-perceived collective victimhood in intractable conflict. International Review of the Red Cross, 91, 229–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1816383109990221 Bentler, P. M., & Dudgeon, P. (1996). Covariance structure analysis: Statistical practice, theory, and directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 563–592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.563 POLITICAL RECONCILIATION INDEX Beristain, C., Páez, D., Rimé, B., & Kanyangara, P. (2010). Efectos psicosociales de la participación en rituales de justicia transicional. Revista de Psicología, 28, 9–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/021347410790193504 Bloomfield, D., Barnes, T., & Huyse, L. (2003). Reconciliation after violent conflict: A handbook. Stockholm, Sweden: IDEA. Retrieved from https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/reconciliationafter-violent-conflict-handbook.pdf Brounéus, K. (2008). Analyzing reconciliation: A structured method for measuring national reconciliations initiatives. Peace and Conflict, 14, 291–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10781910802017354 Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Basic concepts, applications, and programing (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315757421 Cárdenas, M. (2019). Posibilidades de la reconciliación política en Chile. In Investigación interdisciplinaria en cultura política, memoria y derechos humanos (Vol. 2). Valparaíso, Chile: Cuadernos CEI-CPMDH. Cárdenas, M., Arnoso, M., & Páez, D. (2015). Predictors of beliefs in intergroup forgiveness in a Chilean general population sample. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 18, E37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2015.36 Cárdenas, M., Páez, D., Arnoso, M., & Rimé, B. (2017). Predictors of support toward transitional justice process in Chilean general population sample. Universitas Psychologica, 16, 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy16.3.pstj Cárdenas, M., Zubieta, E., Páez, D., Arnoso, M., & Espinosa, A. (2016). Determinants of approval the work of truth commissions in the southern cone: A comparative study. Revista de Psicología Social, 31, 423–462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2016.1190127 Christie, D. J., Tint, B. S., Wagner, R. V., & Winter, D. D. (2008). Peace psychology for a peaceful world. American Psychologist, 63, 540–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.6.540 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587 Collins, C. (2013). Chile a más de dos décadas de justicia de transición [Chile: More than two decades of transitional justice]. Política Revista de Ciencia Política, 51, 79–113. Dyck, J. J., & Lascher, E. L., Jr. (2009). Direct democracy and political efficacy reconsidered. Political Behavior, 3, 401–427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-008-9081-x Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G_Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. Gibson, J. L. (2004). Does truth lead to reconciliation? Testing the causal assumptions of the South African truth and reconciliation process. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 201–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00065.x Gibson, J. L. (2007). “Truth” and “reconciliation” as social indicators. Social Indicators Research, 81, 257–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-9010-5 Gibson, J. L. (2011). Political tolerance in the context of democracy theory. In R. E. Goodin (Ed.), The Oxford handbook on political science. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0021 Gibson, J. L., & Gouws, A. (2003). Overcoming Intolerance in South Africa: Experiments in democratic persuasion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn_9780521813907 Hayner, P. (2002). Unspeakable trust. Transitional justice and the challenge of truth commissions. New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.mcgill.ca/isid/files/isid/priscilla_b._hayner_unspeakable_truths_transitibookzz.org_.pdf Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Retrieved from https://www.scirp.org/(S(i43dyn45teexjx455qlt3d2q))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID_1015696 IBM Corp. (2011). IBM SPSS statistics for windows (Version 20.0). Armonk, NY: Author. Iyer, A., & Blatz, C. (2012). Apology and reparation. In L. R. Tropp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 309–327). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199747672.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199747672 Jasinski, M. P. (2011). Social trust, anarchy, and international conflict. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230118683 Keyes, C. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2787065 Li, M., Rovenpor, D. R., & Leidner, B. (2016). Regulation the scope of an emotion regulation perspective on intergroup reconciliation. Psychological Inquiry, 27, 117–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2016.1163960 Lillie, C., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (2007). Macro versus micro justice and perceived fairness of truth and reconciliation commissions. Peace and Conflict, 13, 221–236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10781910701271283 Lira, E. (2010). La reparación a las víctimas: Una responsabilidad del Estado [Reparation to the victims: A state responsibility]. Mensaje, 59, 6–11. Louise, C., Ioannou, M., & Lordos, A. (2015). Introduction to the SCORE Index. In Predicting peace: The Social Cohesion and Reconciliation Index as a tool for conflict transformation (pp. 15–25). Nicosia, Cyprus: United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Predicting%20Peace_SCORE.pdf Loveman, B., & Lira, E. (2000). Las ardientes cenizas del olvido: Vía Chilena de Reconciliación Política 1932–1994. Santiago, Chile: LOM/DIBAM. Retrieved from https://lom.cl/products/las-ardientes-cenizasdel-olvido Loveman, B., & Lira, E. (2002). El espejismo de la reconciliación política. Chile 1990–2002. Santiago, Chile: LOM/DIBAM. Retrieved from https://lom.cl/products/el-espejismo-de-la-reconciliacion-politica-chile-1990-2002 Maddison, S. (2017a). Can we reconcile? Understanding the multi-level challenges of conflict transformation. International Political Science Review, 38, 155–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192512115607953 Maddison, S. (2017b). Conflict transformation and reconciliation. Multilevel challenges in deeply divided societies. London, UK: Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.routledge.com/Conflict-Transformationand-Reconciliation-Multi-level-Challenges-inDeeply/Maddison/p/book/9781138071377 Malloy, T. E. (2008). Intergroup relations and reconciliation: Theoreticalanalysis and methodological implications. In A. Nadler, T. E. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), Social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 345–365). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195300314.003.0016 Manca, A. R. (2014). Social cohesion. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2739 McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory. A unified treatment. New York, NY: Psychological Press. Retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781410601087 POLITICAL RECONCILIATION INDEX Nadler, A. (2012). Intergroup reconciliation: Definitions, processes, and future directions. In L. R. Tropp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 291–309). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199747672.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199747672 Nadler, A., Malloy, T. E., & Fisher, J. D. (2008). Intergroup reconciliation: Dimensions and themes. In A. Nadler, T. E. Malloy, & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup reconciliation (pp. 3–31). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195300314.001.0001/acprof-9780195300314 OECD. (1976). Measuring Social Well-being: A Progress Report on the Development of Social Indicators. Journal of Social Policy, 7, 228–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279400007674 Peerenboom, R. (2005). Human rights and rule of law: What’s the relationship? Georgetown Journal of International Law, 36, 5–31. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract_816024 Peled, Y., & Rouhana, N. N. (2004). Transitional justice and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 5, 317–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1565-3404.1096 Rouhana, N. N. (2004). Group identity and power asymmetry in reconciliation processes: The Israeli-Palestinian case. Peace and Conflict, 10, 33–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327949pac1001_3 Rouhana, N. N. (2011). Key issues in reconciliation: Challenging traditional assumptions on conflict resolution and power dynamics. In D. Bar-Tal (Ed.), Intergroup conflicts and their resolutions: Social psychological perspective (pp. 291–314). New York, NY: Psychology Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203834091 Rovan, J. (2011). Composite indicators. In M. Lovric (Ed.), International encyclopedia of statistical science (pp. 275–276). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04898-2_15 Schaap, A. (2003). Political reconciliation. London, UK: Routledge. Schaap, A. (2006). Agonism in divided societies. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 32, 255–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0191453706061095 Thompson, J. (2002). Taking responsibility for the past: Reparation and historical injustice. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Whitson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science, 322, 115–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1159845 Wilewicz, M., & Kofta, M. (2011). Less biased under thread? Self-verificatory reactions to social identity threat among groups with negative self-stereotypes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49, 2249–2267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00802.x Zimmerman, M. A. (2010). The relationship between political efficacy and citizen participation: Construct validation studies. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 554 –566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5303_12