1 / 46

The impact of different dimensions of intergroup contact in reducing prejudice

The impact of different dimensions of intergroup contact in reducing prejudice. Rhiannon Turner University of Leeds 9 March 2009, CRONEM Seminar Series University of Surrey. Background to the research. Prejudice continues to thrive in the UK Ethnic prejudice

kaiyo
Download Presentation

The impact of different dimensions of intergroup contact in reducing prejudice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The impact of different dimensions of intergroup contact in reducing prejudice Rhiannon Turner University of Leeds 9 March 2009, CRONEM Seminar Series University of Surrey

  2. Background to the research • Prejudice continues to thrive in the UK • Ethnic prejudice • In 2007-2008, police recorded over 35,000 incidences of racially aggravated harassment, common assault and wounding in England and Wales (Home Office statistics, 2008) • Ageism • Age Concern (2006) found that people reported suffering from more age discrimination than any other form of discrimination • Homophobia • 2/3 gay respondents bullied at school on grounds of sexuality, (YouGov poll, 2008)

  3. Background to the research • In the UK…. • 4.6 million people (8% of UK population) belong to a minority ethnic group • 3.6 million people (6% of UK population) are gay or lesbian • 11.6 million people (19% of UK population) are of pensionable age (60 for women, 65 for men)

  4. Background to the research • Segregated communities • 47% ethnic minorities live in London • 13.5% in West Midlands • North East, Wales, and South West almost exclusively White • Distribution has barely changed since the 1960s • Lack of meaningful contact between different communities

  5. Intergroup contact hypothesis • Contact between members of different groups will lead to more harmonious intergroup relations (Allport, 1954) • Cooperation to achieve common goals • Equal status • Institutional support • Extensive evidence to date • Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) –meta-analysis of 515 studies

  6. The current research • 3 key questions • What types of contact reduce prejudice? • What processes underlie these relationships? • What consequences do they have for intergroup relations?

  7. The current research • Face-to-face contact • Cross-group friendship • Indirect forms of contact • Extended contact • Imagined contact • Implications and Applications

  8. Cross-group friendship • Pettigrew (1997) found that friendships that cross group boundaries reduced prejudice more than neighbour and co-worker contact • Interactions are close and positive • Exchange of intimate information • Extensive and repeated contact • Automatically meets key conditions of contact hypothesis, e.g., common goals and cooperation

  9. Cross-group friendship: Mediators • Self-disclosure • Interpersonal relations literature • The voluntary provision of significant aspects of oneself, or information that is of an intimate or personal nature, to another person • Prominent feature of theories of friendship development (e.g., Altman & Taylor, 1973; Reis & Shaver, 1988)

  10. Cross-group friendship: Mediators • Self-disclosure • Disclosure should be a particularly important component of cross-group friendships • Crucial aspect of interpersonal friendships that leads to interpersonal attraction • Follows that in the context of a close intergroup relationship, it should lead to intergroup attraction – more positive outgroup attitudes

  11. Cross-group friendship: Mediators • Intergroup anxiety • Negative arousal generated at the prospect of an intergroup encounter: Fear of incompetence, fear of rejection  contact avoidance • Arousal depletes cognitive resources to process information  narrowed focus of attention, increased stereotyping • Anxious body language is interpreted as dislike / racism by outgroup member

  12. Cross-group friendship: Mediators • Intergroup anxiety • Arises when minimal previous contact and large intergroup status differences (Stephan & Stephan, 1985) But… • High quality intergroup contact  lower intergroup anxiety  reduced prejudice (e.g., Paolini et al., 2004)

  13. Cross-group friendship: Consequences • Explicit attitudes • Conscious, deliberative, and controllable • Captured by self-report measures • Implicit attitudes • Unintentionally activated by mere presence (actual or symbolic) of an attitude object • Unconscious or difficult to control

  14. Cross-group friendship 1: Research • White primary school children aged 7-11 completed the IAT and measures regarding their experiences with Asian people, N = 60 • Predictor variable • Cross-group friendship: How many Asian friends do you have? • Mediator variables • Intergroup anxiety: To what extent would you feel tense, worried, relaxed, scared if you had to work with a group of Asian students • Self-disclosure: If you had a problem you were worried about, how likely is it that you would tell someone Asian? • Criterion variables • Explicit outgroup attitude: To what extent do you think the following about Asians: positive – negative, nice – horrible • Implicit outgroup attitude: Implicit association test (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998), adapted for primary school children

  15. Cross-group friendship 1: Findings R2= .07 Implicit outgroup attitude (IAT) .29* Self-disclosure .41*** .56*** Cross-group friendship R2= .57 Explicit outgroup attitude Intergroup anxiety -.44*** -.26* Data from: Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A.(2007, Study 1).Reducing explicit and implicit prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 369-388

  16. Cross-group friendship 2: Background • What type of disclosure works best? • Social penetration theory • Close relationships develop as a result of a gradual escalation of the breadthand intimacy of information disclosed • In an intergroup context • Breadth and intimacy of disclosure during cross-group friendships should both be associated with more positive intergroup relations • BUT…quality / intimacy of contact is more effective at reducing prejudice than less intimate forms of contact (Pettigrew, 1997) • So we expect intimacy of disclosure to be more important than breadth…

  17. Cross-group friendship 2: Method • Cross-sectional questionnaire with 60 White undergraduate students (aged 18-22), regarding their attitudes towards and experiences with the Asian community • Predictor Variable: • Cross-group friendship (2 items): e.g., “How many Asian friends do you have?” • Mediator Variables: • Intimacy of self-disclosure (4 items): e.g., How often do you talk to the Asian person you know best about personal / relationship / family issues etc • Breadth of self-disclosure (4 items): e.g., Thinking of the nature of topics you discuss with the Asian person you know best, are they very specific – (i.e. only one topic discussed) – very broad (i.e., many and varied topics discussed) • Criterion Variables: • Explicit outgroup attitude (5 items): e.g., My feelings towards Asian people are negative-positive, bad-good etc”

  18. Cross-group Friendship 2: Findings N = 60, *p < .05, **p < .01

  19. Cross-group friendship 2: Findings Intimacy of self-disclosure b = .623, p = .001 b = .36, p = .003 Cross-group friendship Outgroup Attitude b = .52, p = .033 b = -.03, p = .926 Z = 2.75, p = .005

  20. Cross-group friendship 3: Background • Why should self-disclosure in cross-group friendships reduce intergroup prejudice? • It generates empathy • It is perceived to be of personal importance • It promotes reciprocal trust

  21. Cross-group friendship 3: Background • Empathy is a vicarious emotional state triggered by witnessing and understanding the thoughts and feelings of another • Self-disclosure increases intimacy and attraction because it leads the discloser to believe that they are understood, accepted and appreciated • Empathy in an intergroup context has been shown to generate more positive attitudes towards the outgroup (Batson et al., 1997)

  22. Cross-group friendship 3: Background • Perceived-importance • Self-expansion model:People engage in friendship in order to increase the social resources, perspectives, and identities, to facilitate their achievement of personal goals (Aron et al., 2001) • Van Dick et al. (2004): Cross-group friendships reduced prejudice because they were perceived as being personally important, valuable in helping to achieve certain goals, e.g., • Development of new social skills • New experiences, learning about different cultures • According to the self-expansion model, much of this personal development in a friendship is achieved through self-disclosure.

  23. Cross-group friendship 3: Background • Trust: Expression of confidence in another person or group that one will not be put at risk or harmed by their actions • The more we learn about someone (e.g., through disclosure), the more certain we can be about how they will behave in critical, integrity-testing situations • Evidence • Kerr, Stattin, and Trost (1999): Children’s self-disclosure predicted parental trust • Relationship between self-disclosure and trust is likely to be reciprocal • People like and trust those who trust them

  24. Cross-group friendship 3: Method • 148 White British undergraduate students , aged 17-26, Target Group: Asian Predictor Variable: • Cross-group friendship (2 items): e.g., ‘How many Asian friends do you have at University?’ Mediator Variables: • Self-Disclosure (6 items): e.g., How often do you talk about how you are feeling to someone Asian?’ • Empathy (2 items): e.g., “If I hear about the misfortunes of Asians, it usually disturbs me a great deal” • Importance of contact (5 items): e.g., “How valuable / rewarding our the interactions you have with Asian people?” • Trust (4 items): e.g., “I can trust Asian people with personal information about myself” Criterion Variables: • Outgroup attitude (4 items): e.g., “To what extent do you feel warm-cold, friendly-hostile, respect-contempt, admiration-disgust towards Asians

  25. Cross-group friendship 3: Findings Empathy .24** .28*** y4 R2= .43 .59*** .63*** .41*** Self-disclosure Importance of disclosure Cross-group friendship Explicit outgroup attitude y3 y2 y6 y10 y1 y5 y9 x1 .47*** .18(*) Intergroup trust y8 y7 χ2 (8) = 12.58, p = .13; RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .019, CFI = .99 Data from: Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A.(2007, Study 4).Reducing explicit and implicit prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 369-388

  26. Reliant on opportunity for contact (Phinney et al., 1997) Many examples of intergroup contexts where no such opportunities Northern Ireland: Segregated Catholic and Protestant communities Bradford: Segregated Asian and White communities But what about when cross-group friendship is not possible?

  27. Extended contact • Extended contact • Knowing ingroup members who have outgroup friends can reduce outgroup prejudice (Wright et al., 1997) Benefits for intergroup relations… • Not reliant on opportunity for contact • Lowers intergroup anxiety because contact is not experienced first hand

  28. Extended contact • Conducted in 2002, a year after clashes between the National Front and the Anti-Nazi League led to riots in Bradford, largely involving Asian and White youths. • One of the worst riots ever seen in the UK: 36 arrested, 300 injured, estimated £10 million damage

  29. Extended contact • The Cantle Report: People in Bradford were living “parallel lives” in which Asians and Whites “do not seem to touch at any point, let alone overlap and produce any meaningful interchange” (Lord Ouseley) • In our study… • Can extended contact reduce prejudice in this segregated and conflicted setting? • Comparison with cross-group friendship • What role does opportunity for contact play? • What mediating mechanisms are involved?

  30. Method • 49 Asian and 49 White British secondary school students, aged 11-15 • Predictor Variables: • Opportunity for contact, e.g., ‘What % of people in your neighbourhood from other community?’ • Cross-group friendship, e.g., ‘How many friends do you have from the other community?’ • Extended contact, e.g., ‘How many people from your community do you know who have friends from the other community?’ • Mediator Variables: • Intergroup Anxiety, e.g., ‘How nervous do you feel about mixing socially with Asians?’ • Out-group Self-Disclosure, e.g., How often do you talk about how you are feeling to someone from the other community?’ • Criterion Variables: • Explicit outgroup attitude (4 items) • Implicit outgroup attitude (Greenwald et al., 1998; IAT)

  31. Findings R2= .13 Implicit outgroup attitude (IAT) .33** Self- disclosure .30** .28** Opportunity for contact Cross-group friendship R2= .50 .25* .37*** Explicit Outgroup attitude .34*** Extended contact -.18* Intergroup anxiety -.31** Data from: Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A.(2007, Study 2).Reducing explicit and implicit prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 369-388

  32. But what about when extended contact isn’t possible? • Extended contact can be useful where face-to-face contact is not possible • But there may be contexts where there is highly pervasive, long term segregation • In such cases, could simply imagining intergroup contact be sufficient to reduce prejudice?

  33. Imagining social contexts • Garcia, Weaver, Moskowitz, and Darley (2002): Imagining the presence of others leads to a bystander apathy effect • Why? • Social context priming: Increases accessibility of abstract concepts and feelings associated with the social context

  34. Imagined intergroup contact • Automatic processes • Activates concepts associated with successful interactions with outgroup members • Feeling more comfortable • Less apprehension • Deliberative processes • What would they learn? • How would they feel during interaction? • How would this influence perceptions of outgroup?

  35. Imagined intergroup contact • Imagination condition • “We would like you to take a minute to imagine yourself meeting [an outgroup] stranger for the first time. Imagine that the interaction is positive, relaxed and comfortable.” • Control condition • “We would like you to take a minute to imagine an outdoor scene. Try to imagine aspects of the scene about you (e.g., is it a beach, a forest, are there trees, hills, what’s on the horizon).” • But for recent studies, participants simply imagine meeting ‘a stranger’ (group membership not specified)

  36. Imagined contact 1: Results When young people imagine contact with the elderly…. Task x Target interaction F (1, 26) = 4.50 p = .044 Data from: Turner, R. N.,Crisp, R. J., & Lambert, E. (2007; Experiment 1). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 427-441.

  37. How does imagined contact work? • Face-to-face contact reduces prejudice via • reduced anxiety (Turner et al., 2007b) • Does imagined contact work via similar process?

  38. Imagined contact 2: Results When straight men imagine contact with gay men…. t (25) = -2.10, p = .046 t (25) = -3.71 p = .001 Data from: Turner, R. N.,Crisp, R. J., & Lambert, E. (2007, Experiment 3). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 427-441.

  39. Imagined contact 2: Results When straight men imagine contact with gay men…. Intergroup Anxiety b = .596, p = .001 b = -.641, p = .003 Control vs. Imagined Contact Outgroup Evaluation b = -.388, p = .046 b = -.006, p = .975 Z = 2.47, p = .013 Data from: Turner, R. N.,Crisp, R. J., & Lambert, E. (2007; Experiment 3). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 427-441.

  40. Alternative Explanations • Priming and self-regulation • Priming the category “elderly” or “gay” may have led to a conscious attempt to regulate behaviour and appear non-prejudiced (Devine & Monteith, 1999). • Demand Characteristics • Participants may have guessed the rationale and attempted to confirm our hypotheses

  41. Priming? Task x Target interaction F (1, 21) = 5.09, p = .035, Turner, R. N.,Crisp, R. J., & Lambert, E. (2007, Experiment 2). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 427-441.

  42. Demand Characteristics? Task x Trial interaction F (1, 23) = 20.95 p = .0005 Data from: Turner, R. N., &Crisp, R. J. (in press; Study 1). Imagining contact can reduce implicit intergroup prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology

  43. Another potential limitation? • Would imagined contact really reduce prejudice towards more stigmatized groups? • Yes! • British teenagers attitudes and behavioural tendencies towards asylum seekers (Turner, Christie, & Stanton, 2009) • Non-Muslim students implicit attitudes (IAT) towards Muslims (Turner & Crisp, in press; Study 2,BJSP)

  44. Implications and applications • Intergroup contact (in its various forms) is associated with a range of positive consequences for intergroup relations • More positive explicit and implicit outgroup attitudes • More positive behavioural tendencies • Underlying processes • Self disclosure, intergroup anxiety, intergroup trust, empathy

  45. Implications and applications • Intergroup contact is flexible • Direct, face-to-face contact (friendship) • Useful in multicultural contexts • When it arises has a powerful effect compared to indirect forms of contact (Paolini et al., 2008, PSPB) • But not useful in segregated settings • Practically difficult to instigate (expensive, time consuming, no guarantee friendships will develop) • Indirect contact (extended and imagined contact) • Useful in segregated settings • Practically easy to instigate (inexpensive, takes a few minutes, can be used in classroom etc) • But effects tend to be fairly weak

  46. Thanks to… • Miles Hewstone (University of Oxford) • Richard Crisp (University of Kent) • My project students at Leeds • Sanchia Biswas • Zara Christie • Sophie Stanton

More Related