University of Oxford

Seminar, Belgrade University, 2l November, 2011

Allports contact hypothesis Opportunity-for-contact vs actual contact 4 themes of contemporary research

Beyond outgroup attitudes/prejudice as outcome variable From cross-sectional to longitudinal research Multi-level analyses A new form of extended contact

An integrated theory of intergroup contact

The Idea of Inter-group Contact

(Allport, 1954)

Positive contact with a member of another group (often a negatively stereotyped group) can improve negative attitudes: -- not only towards the specific member, --but also towards the group as a whole

Quantity of contact frequency of interaction with outgroup members, e.g., how often do you meet/talk to/etc. outgroup members where you live/shop/socialize, etc? Quality of contact nature of the interaction with outgroup members, e.g., how positive/negative; friendly/unfriendly, etc, is the contact?

Key Dimensions of Contact

(Allport, 1954; Amir, 1969; Cook, 1982)

Equal status Stereotypes are disconfirmed Cooperation Situation allows participants to get to know each other properly Norms support equality (later: cross-group friends)

*Should be seen as facilitating rather than essential conditions (Pettigrew, 1998)

6

Does Contact Work? Results of a MetaAnalysis

Number of Studies: 515 studies Participants: 250,089 people from 38 nations Studies range across many: Disciplines Intergroup contexts Prejudice indicators Reliable effect: more contact, less prejudice

(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006)7

Opportunity for Intergroup Contact vs Meaningful Intergroup Contact

Mere presence of out-group members Actual, meaningful contact:

Communication
Getting to know one another Exchange of information

These different measures have quite different effects

10

11

Area A1

Costa
Day

1 1 89 1

Food service counters

Kitchen

Time Occupied seats Mixed tables

Area A2

Area A4

Area A3

Multiple Measures of Segregation/Mixing

the segregation index of dissimilarity (D; Clack et al., 2005) (b) Ethnic composition of social units (c) Side-by-side and face-to-face cross-race adjacencies (Campbell et al., 1966) (d) Aggregation Index of ethnic clustering (I; difference between actual vs. expected frequency with which Whites and Asians sat opposite each other; Campbell et al., 1966)
(a)

Asian
White Black Other

Pillar (i.e., not a seat)

Empty seat

Area A1

Costa
Day

1 1 89 1

Food service counters

Kitchen

Time Occupied seats Mixed tables

Area A2

Area A4

Area A3

All White % of social units

58.97%

All Asian
30.91%

White/ Asian

White/ Asian/ Black/ Other 0.33%

White/ Black/ Other

Asian/ Black/ Other

0.55%

Black / Other
0.33%

4.18%

4.73%

Day 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2

Area 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

No. of Intervals 10 10 10 10 12 12 12 12

I
-1.99 -0.71 -0.29 -1.09 -1.6 -0.39 -0.44 -1.19

Upper Limit -0.98 0 0 0 -0.32 0 0 0

Lower Limit -4.36 -2.57 -1.48 -3.04 -3.82 -1.52 -3.44 -3.02

Note: I denotes aggregation index (negative values indicate more ethnic clustering/less cross-ethnic mixing than expected from random distribution). Especially, Area 1 . . .

Area A1

Costa
Day

2 7 142 4

Food service counters

Kitchen

Time Occupied seats Mixed tables

Area A2

Area A4

Area A3

Day

Area

No. of intervals

Number of Whites

Number of Asians

1 1 1 1

1 2 3 4

10 10 10 10

251 254 141 282

366 16 9 46

2
2 2 2

1
2 3 4

12
12 12 12

241
278 182 381

461
16 13 36

Area A1 had a higher proportion of Asians than the other areas. We then compared area A1 to each other area, in turn, to see whether ethnicity and area were related.

Asian and White students were sig. unevenly distributed across the cafeteria

21

Beyond outgroup attitudes/prejudice

Attitudes to multiple outgroups Additional dependent variables

From cross-sectional to longitudinal research

Studying contact over time From individuals to neighbourhoods Extended or indirect contact

Multi-level analyses

A new form of intergroup contact

22

23

Explicit attitudes Implicit attitudes Neural processes* Trust and forgiveness Outgroup-to-outgroup generalization: the secondary transfer effect. * Behavioural outcomes: helping *

24

Face, Race and Emotion in the Brain

(Walker, Nobre, Silvert, & Hewstone, 2007)

We compared neural mechanisms of face processing in different social contexts (different races, different facial expressions of emotion): We investigated Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) Own and other race (White/Black) faces Emotional faces: happy/angry/neutral

25

EEG Recording

26

Emotional Modulation
White Faces
10 V PO8 Neutral Happy Angry

P300
-100 0 ms 200 400 600 ms

Both components (N170, P300) modulated by race and emotion The greater the contact, the smaller the difference between own- and other-race face processing

N170
-10 V

Black Faces
Neutral Happy Angry

27

Are the effects of contact with members of one group restricted to that outgroup, or do they have knock-on or trickle-down effects on attitudes towards other groups?

Could represent the most far-reaching effects of contact: towards 'cosmopolitanism

Contact with and prejudice towards Primary outgroup: immigrants Prejudice towards Secondary outgroup:
Jews Gays/homosexuals Homeless people

National cross-sectional samples (N = 1,000) in 8 European countries Investigated STE controlling for ideology of inequality (SDO)

29

GFE-UK data (Schmid et al., in press)

.25*** Intergroup Contact -.19***
-.36*** R2 =.29

Anti-semitism .31***
R2 =.37

Antiimmigrant attitudes
.46***

.30***

Negative attitudes homosexuals

R2 =.17

.32***
Negative attitudes - homeless

SDO .13**

Significant indirect effects of contact (full mediation via attitude generalization) on anti-semitism ( = -.06, p =.001), and attitudes to homosexuals ( = -.06, p < .001) and homeless ( = -.06, p < .001); controlling for age, gender, education, income. Model fit: 2=243.39, df = 95, p < .001, 2/df=
2.56, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .03
30

Evidence from Northern Ireland

31

32

Longitudinal Secondary transfer effect in Northern Ireland

(N = 181 Catholics, 223 Protestants; matched at T1-T2, 1 year; Tausch et al.,2010)
Attitude to ethno-religious outgroup T1 Attitude to ethno-religious outgroup T2

1.76*

.43***

Neighbourhood contact with ethno-religious outgroup T1

1.84* 1.07, n.s.

Attitude to racial minorities T2

Controlling for: Contact with and attitude to racial minorities T1

Ingroup feeling thermometer T2

p < .05;

**

p < .01;

***

p < .001

33

34

Data from the Altruistic Personality and Prosocial Behaviour Institute

(Oliner/Oliner 1988; see also Varese/Yaish 2000, 2005; Kroneberg et al. 2010)

Respondents from 15 European countries Data collected in the 1980s Retrospective case-control sample: Case sample of identified rescuers (N=346, recognized by Yad Vashem, The Holocaust Martyrs and Heroes Remembrance Authority, as Righteous among the Nations) Control sample matched on age, sex, education, region (N=164) Final sample = 297 rescuers, 115 non-rescuers

Pre-war friendships with Jews increase the probability of rescuing Jews (especially Jewish friends)

36

3. Empirical Application
Multinomial logistic regression (variables coded [0,1]):

Helping Helping other Jewish friends Jews

Pre-war frnds. w Jews

12.19**

2.24**

Notes: N = 412. Coefficients are odds ratios. No control variables. + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

Odds ratio (OR) calculated shows the probability of helping (Jewish friends; other Jews) vs not-helping OR of 12.19 in previous table 1 means:

If you had pre-war Jewish friends, the probability of Helping Jewish Friends divided by the probability of not-Helping was 12.19 times higher than if you did not have pre-war Jewish friends.
The odds of helping other Jews vs. not helping increase (only) by a factor of 2.24 if respondents had Jewish friends before the war. Less technically:

Having Jewish friends before the war made potential rescuers more likely to help, especially to help Jewish friends, but also to help other Jews.

3. Empirical Application

Multinomial logistic regression (variables coded [0,1]):

Helping Helping other Jewish friends Jews

Pre-war frnds. w Jews

Age Prosocial orientation

15.41**
1.07** 18.43**

2.89**
1.05* 5.18*

Command zone
Size Jewish population Number of rooms Many neighbours

10.89**
0.98 15.28** 0.86

10.36**
1.19** 12.11** 0.39*

Notes: N = 412. Coefficients are odds ratios. Additional control variables: gender; education level; religiosity; religious confession; SS zone, Jewish Neighbours, partner/children in household, financial resources. + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

40

41

3-Wave Study of Longitudinal Contact in South African Coloured Schools

(Swart, Hewstone, Christ, & Voci, in press)

Age (yrs):

T1: Mean (SD) = 14.68 (1.06) T2 (+ 6 mths): Mean (SD) = 15.31 (1.03) T3 (+ 6 mths): Mean (SD) = 15.67 (1.05)

Variables:

Predictors: cross-group friends Mediators: intergroup anxiety; empathy Outcomes: positive outgroup attitudes; outgroup variability; negative action tendencies
3-waves permit mediation analyses Time 1 predictor -> Time 2 mediator -> Time 3 Outcome
42

3-wave cross-lagged analyses

Outgroup Friendships
x1 x2

Outgroup Friendships
y1 y2

Outgroup Friendships
y19 y20

Intergroup Anxiety
x3 x4 x5 y3

Intergroup Anxiety
y4 y5 y21

Intergroup Anxiety
y22 y23

Empathy
x6 x7 x8 y6

Empathy
y7 y8 y24

Empathy
y25 y26

Positive Outgroup Attitudes

x9 x10 x11 x12 y9

Positive Outgroup Attitudes

y10 y11 y12 y27

Positive Outgroup Attitudes

y28 y29 y30

Perceived outgroup Variability

x13 x14 x15 y13

Perceived outgroup Variability

y14 y15 y31

Perceived outgroup Variability

y32 y33

Negative Action Tendencies

x16 x17 x18 y16

Negative Action Tendencies

y17 y18 y34

Negative Action Tendencies

43
y35 y36

Outgroup Friendships

Outgroup Friendships

-.14** -.11**
Intergroup Anxiety

-.14**
-.11**

Outgroup Friendships

.13** -.14**

Intergroup Anxiety

Intergroup Anxiety

-.14**
Empathy

.13**
Empathy

Empathy

.23*** .23***

.23***
.23*** .15**

Positive Outgroup Attitudes

Positive Outgroup Attitudes

Positive Outgroup Attitudes

.15**
Perceived outgroup Variability Perceived outgroup Variability

Perceived outgroup Variability

-.15**
Negative Action Tendencies

-.27***

-.15**

-.27***
Negative Action Tendencies
44

Negative Action Tendencies

Blue: forward; Red: reverse

Making Sense of Spaghetti

Green paths are autoregressive. Blue paths are 'forward' paths (as predicted by contact model: contact->mediators->prejudice / mediators->prejudice / contact>mediators). Red paths are 'reverse' paths (prejudice->mediators->contact / prejudice->mediators / mediators->contact). Model equates paths from Wave 1-2, and 2-3 All paths indicated are significant.

45

Outgroup Friendships

Outgroup Friendships

-.14** -.11**
Intergroup Anxiety

-.14**
-.11**

Outgroup Friendships

.13** -.14**

Intergroup Anxiety

Intergroup Anxiety

-.14**
Empathy

.13**
Empathy

Empathy

.23*** .23***

.23***
.23*** .15**

Positive Outgroup Attitudes

Positive Outgroup Attitudes

Positive Outgroup Attitudes

.15**
Perceived outgroup Variability Perceived outgroup Variability

Perceived outgroup Variability

-.15**
Negative Action Tendencies

-.27***

-.15**

-.27***
Negative Action Tendencies
46

Negative Action Tendencies

Blue: forward; Red: reverse

Outgroup Friendships

Outgroup Friendships

-.14**

Outgroup Friendships

-.11**
Intergroup Anxiety

.13**

Intergroup Anxiety

Intergroup Anxiety

-.14**
Empathy Empathy

Empathy

.23***

Positive Outgroup Attitudes

Positive Outgroup Attitudes

.23*** .15**

Positive Outgroup Attitudes

Perceived outgroup Variability

Perceived outgroup Variability

Perceived outgroup Variability

-.15**
Negative Action Tendencies Negative Action Tendencies

-.27***
Negative Action Tendencies
47

Blue: forward; Red: reverse

48

Putnams (2007) Diversity-Distrust Hypothesis: Threat vs Opportunity

Percentage of Out-groupers

Higher Threat/ Competition

Higher Prejudice

Percentage of Out-groupers

+ Opportunity for contact

Out-group friends

Lower Prejudice

49 49

50

In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to hunker down that is, to pull in like a turtle. (Putnam, 2007, p. 149)

E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century

Mixed pattern of results in replications Role of disadvantage

Measures of Diversity
Missing or inappropriate measures of intergroup contact

Putnam uses high-threshold measure of contact (friends) Does not test whether contact mediates diversity effect

52

Contact as mediator of contextual diversity

+
Diversity
(= opportunity for contact)

Intergroup Contact

+
Social cohesion

- (?)

53

(PIs: M. Hewstone, A. Heath, C. Peach, S. Spencer post docs: A. Al Ramiah, N. Demireva, S. Hussain, K. Schmid)

Test of integrated model of group threat theory and contact theory, to examine relationship between macro-level diversity and individual-level interethnic attitudes Sampled respondents from neighbourhoods of varying degrees of ethnic diversity
Control for additional key macro-level variable: neighbourhood deprivation

54

Cross-sectional survey of nationally representative sample in England (CAPI) Random location quota sampling, based on stratified design (grid = ethnic density X deprivation) Sample = 1666, of which N = 868 White British respondents (418 males, 450 females, age range: 16-97, Mage = 47.74, SD = 19.14)

(Ethnic minority respondents not analysed yet)

55

Perceived diversity (2 items, r = .71***)

e.g., What proportion of people with an ethnic minority background live in your neighbourhood? (1- none, 5 a lot)

Intergroup contact (2 items, 1-never, 5-very often; r = .57***)

e.g. How often, if at all, do you mix socially with people from ethnic minority backgrounds in your neighbourhood?

Perceived threat (5 items, 1-strongly disagree, 5-strongly agree; see Stephan & Stephan, 2000)

E.g., The more political and economic power ethnic minorities have in this country, the more difficult it is for White British people. E.g., People with ethnic minority backgrounds threaten White British peoples way of life.

Ingroup bias (0extremely unfavorable, 100-extremely favorable)

How do you feel about White British people/people from ethnic minority backgrounds?

discrepancy score of ingroup-outgroup rating as measure of bias

56

Between-level neighbourhood measures

Percentage Non-White British (range: 1% - 84%) Index of multiple deprivation (IMD; based on variety of indicators, e.g. income, employment, health deprivation)

Analysis
Data hierarchically ordered in a two-level structure (respondents nested within neighbourhoods)

Multilevel structural equation modeling to account for both within-level and between-level variance of constructs
57

.45***

Intergroup contact

WITHIN
-.35***

Perceived diversity

ns

Perceived threat

1.13***

Ingroup bias

Intergroup contact
.97***

BETWEEN
-.57*

% Non-White British
.86***

ns

Perceived threat

1.84***

Ingroup bias

IMD

.01***
Model fit: 2 (61) = 105.84, p =.00, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .03, SRMRwithin = .04, SRMRbetween = .09; all parameters are unstandardized.

59

DIRECT CONTACT Quantity of contact frequency of interaction with outgroup

members, e.g., how often do you meet/talk to/etc. outgroup members where you live/shop/socialize, etc?

Quality of contact nature of the interaction with outgroup

members, e.g., how positive/negative; friendly/unfriendly, etc, is the contact?

Cross-group friendship being friends with outgroup members,

e.g., How many close outgroup friends?

EXTENDED CONTACT Indirect/Vicarious contact, via family or friends, e.g., How many of
your family members/friends have outgroup friends?
60

Some of my friends have friends who are . . . (outgroup members) Extended contact is second-hand, rather than involving the participants in direct intergroup contact themselves

Just knowing other people in your group who have out-group friends might improve attitudes to the out-group (Wright et al., 1997)

61

Extended Contact in Northern Ireland (Results for Catholic and Protestant students; N = 316)

(Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns & Voci, 2004)

.52 Prejudice Towards The Group R2 = .48

Number of Direct Friends

-.18***

.79

.53***

Intergroup Anxiety R2 = .21

- .03

Number of Indirect Friends

.17**

General Group Variability R2 = .11

.89

Impact of Indirect Contact is Moderated by Amount of Direct (Friendship) Contact

(NI- CRU Survey, N=984; Christ, Hewstone et al., PSPB, 2010) When does extended contact work best? When direct contact is low
Low cross-group friendship 1 High cross-group friendship

In-group bias

-1 Low Indirect contact High

63

Longitudinal analysis of the effects of extended contact at time 1 on direct contact at time 2 (Swart, Hewstone, Tausch et al., in prep.)
Neighbourhood Contact Quantity (Time 2) .15***
Extended Contact (Time 1)

.23***

Neighbourhood Contact Quality (Time 2)

.21***
Controlling for direct contact scores at Time 1

Contact with Friends (Time 2)

64

Meaningful contact is crucial for integration Just living together is not enough (re-segregation problem in cafeteria) Direct contact has reliable effects Longitudinal and multi-level evidence Evidence of mediators Contact has multiple outcomes Secondary transfer; helping Extended contact has reliable effects

Especially for those with no/low direct contact It promotes take up of direct contact But is typically weaker than direct contact
65

Funding
Leverhulme Trust Community Relations Unit (N.I.) Economic and Social Research Council Nuffield Foundation Russell Sage Foundation, U.S.A. Templeton Foundation, U.S.A. Max-Planck Gesellschaft (Uncle Steve)

Research collaborators
Prof. Ed Cairns (University of Ulster) Dr Oliver Christ (University of Marburg, Germany) Prof. Joanne Hughes (University of Ulster) Dr Jared Kenworthy (University of Texas) Clemens Kronenberg (University of Mannheim) Dr Katharina Schmid (University of Oxford) Dr Alberto Voci (University of Padua, Italy) MPI-team, Goettingen!

(ex) Graduate students Maria Ioannou Dr Ananthi al-Ramiah Dr Hermann Swart Dr Nicole Tausch Dr Rhiannon Turner Dr Christiana Vonofakou Dr Pamela Walker

Undergraduate students Eleanor Baker Christina Floe Caroline Povah Elisabeth Reed Anna Westlake
66

APPENDIX SLIDES

67

What is the relationship between diversity and trust? Mixed Findings

More Diversity Less Trust

Putnam (2007); Lancee & Dronkers (2008); Fieldhouse & Cutts (2010)

More Diversity More Trust

Marschall & Stolle (2004; Black sample); Fieldhouse & Cutts (2010; ethnic minority sample in UK); Morales & Echazarra (forthcoming)

More Diversity No effect on Trust

Marschall & Stolle (2004; White sample); Gesthuizen, van der Meer &
Scheepers (2008); Hooghe et al. (2008)
68

Cross-sectional survey of nationally representative sample in England, using computer assisted personal interviewing techniques Random location quota sampling, based on stratified design (grid = ethnic density X deprivation) Primary sampling unit (PSU): middle layer super output areas (average PSU size: 2250 addresses) 224 PSUs sampled Total N = 1666, of which N = 868 White British respondents (418 males, 450 females, age range: 16-97, Mage = 47.74, SD = 19.14) (Ethnic minority respondents not analysed yet)
69

Chairs Table

= White
= Contiguous groups/isolates (3) = White/Asian adjacencies (2)

= Asian

Example of a colour-coded table. Each chair is coded for the ethnicity of the student, and White-Asian adjacencies and contiguous groups circled and counted for each time interval.

Kappa Coefficient
Total number of people in areas Number of Whites in area Number of Asians in area .86

Significance level
p=<.001

.90
.90

p=<.001
p=<.001