ing and targeting ‘influencers’ within those communities. It suggests that a next step in the development of intervention-based studies on refugee-host social cohesion could be to pilot interventions that introduce information, representations, or topics for deliberative debate into neighbourhood or household-level focus groups, and explore their impact on intra-group attitude formation at the level of the neighbourhood. Further research could also shed light on the causal mechanisms through which positive and negative attitudes form and diffuse within networks (e.g. through intra-communal norm entrepreneurs).

# **3) Adopt a political economy lens to understand the distributive consequences of refugee hosting, and focus differently on perceived ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ within the host community.**

Our research reveals significant variation in host community attitudes towards refugees. In particular, our qualitative data suggests that one reason for this is the particular socioeconomic position of host community individuals and households with respect to the presence of refugees. For example, where host community members sit as landlords/tenants, employers/employees, or land-owners/agricultural workers may influence whether they view refugees as contributors or competitors. Put simply, there may be a social class dimension to attitude formation: owners of capital and land are more likely to view refugees positively; workers or tenants who rely upon high wages and low rents are more likely to regard refugees as a source of competition. This suggests that attempts to engage in intra-group attitude change should adopt a political economy lens. Perceived ‘losers’ need to share in the benefits of hosting refugees, including through targeted access to employment opportunities and public services. Perceived ‘winners’ should be supported to advocate for the benefits of hosting refugees at a community level.

# **4) Adopt distinctive social cohesion programmes for urban and camp contexts, with different degrees of emphasis on economic, security, identity-related, and rights-based attitudes.**

The nature, scope, and type of economic and political dynamics in urban and rural refugee and host communities are variable, and policies need to be tailored to reflect such variations. Our analysis suggests differences in the mechanisms that shape host community attitudes towards refugees (and vice versa) in urban and camp contexts. There is also some evidence that different domains of interaction may be more salient with camps or urban contexts. Generally, host community attitudes towards refugees appear more positive in camp contexts than urban contexts. Examining four sub-indices of attitudes (economy, security, character, and rights) suggests different sources of positive and negative attitude formation in camps compared to cities. In camp-like contexts, perceptions relating to economic contribution appear to be an especially important basis for positive attitude formation, while perceptions relating to security threats may sometimes be an important source of negative attitude formation. In urban areas, negative perceptions appear to relate mainly to economic competition and perception of character. While further research is needed to explore these different domains of interaction and attitude formation, the analysis provides some basis on 35