Transcript Cross-group - University of Surrey

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

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)
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)
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
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
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?
The current research

Face-to-face contact
• Cross-group friendship

Indirect forms of contact
• Extended contact
• Imagined contact

Implications and Applications
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
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)
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
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

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)
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
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
Cross-group friendship 1: Findings
R2= .07
Implicit outgroup
attitude (IAT)
.29*
.41***
Self-disclosure
.56***
Cross-group
friendship
R2= .57
Explicit outgroup
attitude
-.44***
Intergroup
anxiety
-.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
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 breadth and intimacy
of information disclosed
• In an intergroup context
 Breadth and intimacy of disclosure during crossgroup 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…
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”
Cross-group Friendship 2: Findings
1
2
3
1
Friendship
--
2
Intimacy
.62**
--
3
Breadth
.06
.14
--
4
Attitude
.28*
.46**
.12
N = 60, *p < .05, **p < .01
4
--
Cross-group friendship 2: Findings
b = .623, p = .001
Cross-group
friendship
Intimacy of
self-disclosure
b = .52, p = .033
b = -.03, p = .926
b = .36, p = .003
Outgroup
Attitude
Z = 2.75, p = .005
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
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)
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.
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
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 warmcold, friendly-hostile, respect-contempt, admiration-disgust towards
Asians
Cross-group friendship 3: Findings
Empathy
.28***
.24**
y4
R2= .43
Cross-group
friendship
x1
.59***
.63***
Self-disclosure
y1
y2
y3
Importance
of disclosure
y5
.41***
y6
.47***
Explicit outgroup
attitude
y9
y10
.18(*)
Intergroup
trust
y7
y8
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
But what about when cross-group
friendship is not possible?


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
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
Extended contact


Conducted in 2002, a
year after clashes
between the National
Front and the AntiNazi 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
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?
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)
Findings
R2= .13
Implicit outgroup
attitude (IAT)
.33**
Selfdisclosure
.30**
Opportunity
for contact
.37***
Cross-group
friendship
.28**
.25*
Explicit Outgroup
attitude
.34***
Extended
contact
R2= .50
-.18*
-.31**
Intergroup
anxiety
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
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?
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
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?
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)
Imagined contact 1: Results
When young people imagine contact with the elderly….
8
Ingroup
Outgroup
Evaluation
7
Task x Target
interaction
F (1, 26) = 4.50
p = .044
6
5
4
Control
Imagined Contact
Task
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.
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?
Imagined contact 2: Results
When straight men imagine contact with gay men….
4
Intergroup anxiety
Evaluation of gay men
4
3
3
2
2
Control
Imagined Contact
t (25) = -2.10, p = .046
Control
Imagined Contact
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.
Imagined contact 2: Results
When straight men imagine contact with gay men….
Intergroup
Anxiety
b = .596, p = .001
Control
vs.
Imagined Contact
b = -.641, p = .003
b = -.388, p = .046
Outgroup Evaluation
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.
Alternative Explanations


Priming and self-regulation
• Priming the category “elderly” or “gay”
may have led to a conscious attempt to
regulate behaviour and appear nonprejudiced (Devine & Monteith, 1999).
Demand Characteristics
• Participants may have guessed the
rationale and attempted to confirm our
hypotheses
Priming?
Ingroup Evaluation
8
Outgroup Evaluation
Evaluation
7
6
Task x Target
interaction
5
F (1, 21) = 5.09, p
= .035,
4
3
2
Priming
Imagined Contact
Task
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.
Demand Characteristics?
Young/Positive or Elderly/Negative
1100
Latency in milliseconds
Young/Negative or Elderly/Positive
1000
900
Task x Trial
interaction
F (1, 23) = 20.95
p = .0005
800
700
600
Control
Contact
Imagination Task
Data from: Turner, R. N., & Crisp, R. J. (in press; Study 1). Imagining contact can reduce implicit intergroup
prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology
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)
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
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
Thanks to…

Miles Hewstone (University of
Oxford)
Richard Crisp (University of Kent)

My project students at Leeds

• Sanchia Biswas
• Zara Christie
• Sophie Stanton