The impact of different dimensions of intergroup contact in reducing prejudice

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