Across many fragile and conflict‑affected environments, efforts to shift intergroup attitudes often rely on well‑intentioned programmes that overlook the deeper psychological and contextual factors driving hostility. While policymakers and practitioners have increasingly embraced behavioural approaches, the complexity of these settings – marked by distrust, weak institutions and entrenched social divisions – means that interventions frequently fall short, generate uneven effects or risk unintended harm.
This new working paper examines why psychological intergroup interventions matter in fragile and conflict‑affected states, what types of approaches show the strongest evidence of effectiveness, and how they can be deployed safely. Drawing on empirical research across FCAS contexts, the authors assess the promise of both low‑cost, scalable strategies – such as social‑norms messaging and meta‑perception correction – and higher‑intensity approaches like contact and empathy‑building, while warning against designs that may reinforce power imbalances or provoke backlash. In doing so, the paper offers a clear, practice‑oriented guide to integrating behavioural insights into stabilisation, governance and peacebuilding efforts.