Reducing prejudice :no_entry: (Pettigrew & Tropp meta-analysis…
Reducing prejudice :no_entry:
Sheer contact hypothesis
Sherif Robber Cave - sole contact didn't work
superordinate goals reduced prejudice
Stroebe 1988 - host stereotypes held by foreign students studying abroad become more negative
School desegregation in US
decrease in black self-esteem
minority studnets feel threatened
may rebel against white norms and develop counter norms
Rupert Browns criticisms of desegregation research
kids often bussed back to own ethnic communities at end of day
too much emphasis on short-term effects
ideal contact conditions are rarely met
Israel - Ben-Ari & Amir 1986
Unpleasant contact can make things worse
Organisers often the most keen
High expectations can be hard to meet
Too many one-off contact attempts
Too little preparation
Allport 1954 Contact hypothesis
social and institutional support
Aronson's Jigsaw Classroom
School is competitive
Change beh. first
Use cognitive dissonance effect
Based on Allport's model
Children work in groups on projects
Enhances self-esteem and empathy?
Argyle 1992 - effects often small, can go wrong if shared goals not achieved
MIller & Davidson-Podgorny 1987 metanalysis - co-operative learning can work if no intergroup competition
Devries 1979 - is there generalisation of effects from JSC?
Criticisms of contact research (Hewstone & Brown 1986)
Overestimation of role of ignorance
Direction of causality hard to ascertain
Interpersonal or intergroup contact ideal
Generalisation of + attitudes?
Hewstone & Brown suggestions
Intergroup contact during which relevant social identities remain salient
Promote distinct but complementary roles - e.g. Deschamps & Brown (1983)
See positively evaluated outgroup members as typical (Wilder, 1984) to prevent ‘subtyping’
See outgroup as varied (Hamburger, 1994)
A ‘dual identity’ approach
Maintain original identities but work towards superordinate goals (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000)
Pettigrew & Tropp meta-analysis
Meta-analysis of over 600 studies
Conclude there IS evidence for prejudice reduction following contact
Evidence strongest from experiments
96% of studies reviewed showed reduction of prejudice
Generalisation DOES happen
Contact situations designed around Allport’s optimal conditions are most effective, but they are not essentia
Possibly explained by familiarity breeding liking (Zajonc, 1968)
Uncertainty reduction important
Reduce intergroup anxiety
Group salience is still advisable
Need more longitudinal studies
Need multi-level models outlining inhibitors and facilitators of positive contact
Start early, with children
The Recategorisation approach
3 key theories into single stage based model
Gaertner et al 1989
Also known as ‘common ingroup identity’ model
Lower salience of old social identities
Encourage perception of higher-level identities/categories
Turner (1981) - superordinate categories/identities - e.g. aided by common perception of an enemy
Augmenting the effects of contact
Cross-cutting ties (e.g. Deschamps, 1982)
‘Status compensation’ and positive discrimination (e.g. Norvell & Worchell, 1981)
Reducing (intergroup) anxiety - Wilder & Shapiro (1989); Islam & Hewstone (1993)
Extended (Wright et al, 1997), imagined (Crisp & Turner, 2009) and para-social (Ortiz & Harwood, 2007) contact
Extended contact: the media
Media position Muslims as other (Jaspal & Cinnirella 2010)
Muslim religiosity nearly always
mentioned in bad news items
Lack of + Muslim role models in mass media
What is ‘sheer contact’? What is the evidence that it does or doesn’t work as a means of achieving prejudice reduction?
How did Sherif and associates attempt to diffuse the conflict and prejudice that they had created in stage one of their Summer camp studies? Was it effective?
Be able to discuss the evidence from work on school de-segregation in the U.S.
What is Allport’s contact hypothesis and how does Aronson’s ‘jigsaw classroom’ approach exemplify and test it?
How did Hewstone & Brown criticise contact research?
Be able to describe, compare and contrast three important approaches to reducing prejudice: de-categorisation, dual identity, and re-categorisation.
What can we learn from Pettigrew and Tropp’s important meta-analysis paper evaluating research on intergroup contact?
How does Pettigrew try to link de-categorisation, dual identity and re-categorisation into one longitudinal model?
Gaertner & Dovidio 2000
The Common Ingroup Identity Model (CIIM) proposes that intergroup bias can be reduced by inducing members of different groups to recategorize themselves as members of a more inclusive superordinate group.
With recategorization, members of both groups share common ingroup membership which can extend cognitive and motivational factors that increase the attractiveness of ingroup members to former outgroup members.
There is good support for the Common Ingroup Identity Model across a number of situations and groups (Banker & Gaertner, 1998; Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989; Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, & Anastasio, 1994)
In one early study, Gaertner et al. (1989) manipulated the conditions of contact between two groups so that participants felt like either members of two separate groups (i.e., sitting at separate tables, different group names), or one larger group (i.e., all sitting at the same table, all wearing the same t-shirts). As predicted, intergroup bias was lower in the one-group condition compared to the separate-groups condition, presumably due to the perception that all the participants belonged to a shared group.
Other factors, such as positive affect and common appearance (Dovidio, Gaertner, Isen, & Lowrance, 1995), induce perceptions of shared identity between members of different groups and also decrease bias.
Riek et al 2010
Intergroup threat is regarded as a cause of negative outgroup attitudes; however, little research has attempted to examine ways of reducing intergroup threat. Two studies examine the effectiveness of a superordinate identity for reducing intergroup threat.
Threat can be realistic (involving conflict over resources or power), symbolic (involving conflict over values), or can arise from intergroup anxiety and negative outgroup stereotypes (Stephan & Stephan, 2000).
It was predicted that when two groups were aware of a shared identity, intergroup threat would be lowered and attitudes would become more positive.
In Study 1, perceptions of common identities among Black and White students were related to decreases in intergroup threat and increases in positive outgroup attitudes.
In Study 2, when their shared identity as Americans was made salient, Democrats and Republicans experienced less threat and more positive outgroup attitudes compared to when political party identities alone were salient.
In both studies, intergroup threat acted as a mediator of the relationship between common identity and outgroup attitudes, suggesting that a common identity increases positive outgroup attitudes by first reducing intergroup threat
While there has been much support for this model (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000), one aspect that has remained unexamined is the impact of a common identity on intergroup threat, which is an important predictor of negative outgroup attitudes (see Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006). Threat associated with an outgroup can increase negative attitudes as well as avoidant and violent behaviors toward that outgroup (Hewstone, Rubin, Does a common ingroup identity reduce intergroup threat?
Anja Eller et al 2007
The present set of studies investigated Black-White race differences with respect to quantity and quality of contact with police, racial identification, perceived racism and view of police, cooperation with police, and desired closeness to police officers in Britain.
This research enriched the contact literature by examining an intergroup context, that of a professional group and members of the public, seldom investigated in the intergroup contact literature
Also, one of our outcome measures was the intention to cooperate, a novel variable in the literature.
We predicted that contact, particularly its qualitative aspects, would mediate between race and outcome variables (Study 1 and 2), and that identification would moderate the race—contact and race— outcome measures relationships (Study 2). Almost all findings are in line with our hypotheses.
Study 1 revealed Black participants to have lower-quality contact with police, perceive higher police racism, and show less willingness to cooperate, while Study 2 showed Black people to have higher-quantity and lower-quality contact with police, stronger racial identification, less positive view of police, and less desired closeness.
These results are in line with previous research on public-police contact and relations (e.g., Havis & Best, 2004; Jefferson & Walker, 1993). In Study 1 quality of contact significantly mediated between race and perceived police racism and between race and cooperation, respectively. In Study 2 higher quantity of contact was consistently related to increases in intergroup bias and diminished willingness to cooperate whereas higher quality of contact had the opposite effects.
This underlines the pivotal role of high-quality contact even when the wider contextual conditions do not appear conducive for such contact (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998; also see Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Study 2 also found that being Black was associated with a higher quantity of contact, a more negative view of the police, and lower desire for closeness only for people who identified strongly with their race category, but not for those who identified only weakly
In summary, the present research suggests that the substantial and pervasive race differences in terms of public-police relations, revealed by previous research, appear to be mitigated by high quality contact between Black people and the police, and may be modified by strength of racial identification. This leaves room for optimism that relations between Black people and the police can be improved.
Pettigrew (1998) already pointed out the potentially negative effects of elevated ingroup identification with respect to intergroup relations, calling for a deprovincialization of members of different groups.
Obviously, change would be much simpler to implement with regard to intergroup contact rather than group identification, which is not inherently a negative phenomenon. In fact, there is a danger in the proposition that minority group members should aim for a lower identification with their own racial or ethnic group as this might make them even more vulnerable to the negative consequences of racism by mainstream society (cf. Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999).
Thus, we believe the present findings support the idea that even if the police maintained the current frequency of contact with Black people, there would be important benefits to be gained by making efforts to improve the quality of their interactions. Our results suggest this could improve overall attitudes, and also the level of cooperation that police can obtain from Black members of the public.
Limitations: Cross-sectional, uni students in England - different when guns involved eg USA?, from public's viewpoint - what about police?