FINAL Belgrade Talk 1

8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1

1/71

Seminar, Belgrade University, 2l November, 2011

University of Oxford


2/71

Allportscontact hypothesisOpportunity-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

2


3/71

3


4/71

4

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


5/71

Quantity of contactfrequency 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 contactnature of the interaction with

outgroup members, e.g., how positive/negative;

friendly/unfriendly, etc, is the contact?

5


6/71

6

Key Dimensions of Contact(Allport, 1954; Amir, 1969; Cook, 1982)

Equal status

Stereotypes are disconfirmed

Cooperation

Situation allows participants to get to know eachother properly

Norms support equality

(later: cross-group friends)

*Should be seen as facilitating rather than essential conditions

(Pettigrew, 1998)


7/71

7

Does Contact Work?

Results of a MetaAnalysis

Number of Studies: 515 studies

Participants: 250,089 people from 38nations

Studies range across many: Disciplines

Intergroup contexts

Prejudice indicators

Reliable effect: morecontact, lessprejudice

(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006)


8/71

8

Opportunity for Intergroup Contact vs

Meaningful Intergroup Contact

Mere presence of out-group members

Actual, meaningfulcontact: Communication

Getting to know one another

Exchange of information

These different measures have quite different effects


9/71

9


10/71

10


11/71

11


12/71

Area A1

Costa

Food

service

counters

Area A3

Area A4

Area A2Kitchen

Day 1

Time 1

Occupied seats 89

Mixed tables 1


13/71

Multiple Measures of Segregation/Mixing

(a) 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)


14/71

Asian

White

Black

Other

Pillar (i.e., not a seat)

Empty seat


15/71

Area A1

Costa

Food

service

counters

Area A3

Area A4

Area A2Kitchen

Day 1

Time 1

Occupied seats 89

Mixed tables 1


16/71

All

White

All

Asian

White/

Asian

White/

Asian/

Black/Other

White/

Black/

Other

Asian/

Black/

Other

Black

/

Other

% of

social

units

58.97% 30.91% 4.18% 0.33% 4.73% 0.55% 0.33%


17/71

Day Area No. of Intervals I Upper Limit Lower Limit

1 1 10 -1.99 -0.98 -4.36

1 2 10 -0.71 0 -2.57

1 3 10 -0.29 0 -1.48

1 4 10 -1.09 0 -3.04

2 1 12 -1.6 -0.32 -3.82

2 2 12 -0.39 0 -1.52

2 3 12 -0.44 0 -3.44

2 4 12 -1.19 0 -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 . . .


18/71

Area A1

Costa

Food

service

counters

Area A3

Area A4

Area A2

Kitchen

Day 2

Time 7

Occupied seats 142

Mixed tables 4


19/71

Day Area No. of intervals Number of Whites Number of Asians

1 1 10 251 366

1 2 10 254 16

1 3 10 141 9

1 4 10 282 46

2 1 12 241 461

2 2 12 278 16

2 3 12 182 13

2 4 12 381 36


20/71

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 distributedacross the cafeteria


21/71

21


22/71

Beyond outgroup attitudes/prejudiceAttitudes to multiple outgroups

Additional dependent variables

From cross-sectional to longitudinal research

Studying contact over time

Multi-level analyses

From individuals to neighbourhoods

A new form of intergroup contact Extended or indirect contact

22


23/71

23


24/71

24

Explicit attitudesImplicit attitudes

Neural processes*

Trust and forgiveness

Outgroup-to-outgroup generalization: the

secondary transfer effect. *

Behavioural outcomes: helping *


25/71

25

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


26/71

26

EEG Recording


27/71

27

Emotional Modulation

600 ms-100 0 ms 200 400

10 V

-10 V

NeutralHappyAngry

PO8

White Faces

Neutral

HappyAngry

Black Faces

P300

N170

Both components (N170,P300) modulated by race and

emotion

The greater the contact, the

smaller the difference between

own- and other-race face

processing


28/71

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


29/71

Contact with and prejudice towards Primaryoutgroup: 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


30/71

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

Intergroup

Contact

Negative

attitudes -

homosexuals

Anti-semitism

Anti-

immigrant

attitudes

SDONegative attitudes

- homeless

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

-.19***

.46***

.31***

.30***

.32***

.25***

.13**

-.36***

R2=.29

R2=.37

R2=.17

30


31/71

31

Evidence from

Northern Ireland


32/71

32

Longitudinal Secondary transfer effect in


33/71

1.76*

Longitudinal Secondary transfer effect inNorthern Ireland

(N= 181 Catholics, 223 Protestants; matched at T1-T2, 1 year;

Tausch et al.,2010)

.43***

1.84*

*p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001

1.07, n.s.

Attitude toracial

minorities T2

Ingroup

feelingthermometer

T2

Attitude toethno-religious

outgroup T2

Neighbourhoodcontact with

ethno-religiousoutgroup T1

Controlling for:

Contact with andattitude to racialminorities T1

Attitude toethno-religious

outgroup T1

33


34/71

34


35/71

Data from the Altruistic Personality and Prosocial BehaviourInstitute(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 byYad Vashem, The Holocaust Martyrs and HeroesRemembrance Authority, as Righteous among the Nations)

Control sample matched on age, sex, education, region(N=164)

Final sample = 297 rescuers, 115 non-rescuers


36/71

36

Pre-war friendships with Jews increase the probability of

rescuing Jews (especially Jewish friends)

3. Empirical Application


37/71

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

Pre-war frnds. w Jews

HelpingJewish friends

12.19**

Helping otherJews

2.24**

Notes: N = 412. Coefficients are odds ratios. No control variables.

+p< 0.10, *p< 0.05, **p< 0.01.

p pp


38/71

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:

The odds of helping other Jewsvs. not helping increase (only) by a factor of 2.24if

respondents had Jewish friends before the war.

Less technically:

If you had pre-war Jewish friends, the probability of Helping Jewish

Friends divided by the probability of not-Helping was 12.19timeshigher than if you did not have pre-war Jewish friends.

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


39/71

Pre-war frnds. w Jews

Age

Prosocial orientation

Command zone

Size Jewish population

Number of rooms

Many neighbours

HelpingJewish friends

15.41**

1.07**

18.43**

10.89**

0.98

15.28**

0.86

Helping otherJews

2.89**

1.05*

5.18*

10.36**

1.19**

12.11**

0.39*

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

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.+ < 0.10, * < 0.05, ** < 0.01.

p pp


40/71

40


41/71

41

3 Wave Study of Longitudinal Contact in South


42/71

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 actiontendencies

3-wave cross-lagged analyses

3-waves permit mediation analyses

Time 1 predictor -> Time 2 mediator -> Time 3 Outcome

42


43/71

Outgroup Outgroup Outgroup


44/71

44

Positive

Outgroup

Attitudes

Positive

Outgroup

Attitudes

Positive

Outgroup

Attitudes

Perceived

outgroup

Variability

Perceived

outgroup

Variability

Perceived

outgroup

Variability

Negative

Action

Tendencies

Negative

Action

Tendencies

Negative

Action

Tendencies

g p

Friendshipsg p

FriendshipsOutgroup

Friendships

Intergroup

Anxiety

Intergroup

Anxiety

Intergroup

Anxiety

Empathy Empathy Empathy

-.15**-.27***

-.14**

-.11**

.13**-.14**

.23***

.15**

.23***

-.14**

-.11**

.13**-.14**

.23***

-.15**

.23***

.15**

-.27***

Blue: forward; Red: reverse


45/71

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 pathsare '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



46/71

46

Positive

Outgroup

Attitudes

Positive

Outgroup

Attitudes

Positive

Outgroup

Attitudes

Perceived

outgroup

Variability

Perceived

outgroup

Variability

Perceived

outgroup

Variability

Negative

Action

Tendencies

Negative

Action

Tendencies

Negative

Action

Tendencies

Friendshipsg p

Friendshipsg p

Friendships

Intergroup

Anxiety

Intergroup

Anxiety

Intergroup

Anxiety


-.15**-.27***

-.14**

-.11**

.13**-.14**

.23***

.15**

.23***

-.14**

-.11**

.13**-.14**

.23***

-.15**

.23***

.15**

-.27***




47/71

47

Positive

Outgroup

Attitudes

Positive

Outgroup

Attitudes

Positive

Outgroup

Attitudes

Perceived

outgroup

Variability

Perceived

outgroup

Variability

Perceived

outgroup

Variability

Negative

Action

Tendencies

Negative

Action

Tendencies

Negative

Action

Tendencies

Friendshipsg p

Friendshipsg p

Friendships

Intergroup

Anxiety

Intergroup

Anxiety

Intergroup

Anxiety


-.15**-.27***

-.14**

-.11**

.13**-.14**

.23***

.15**

.23***



48/71

48


49/71

Lower

PrejudiceOpportunityfor contact

+ Out-groupfriends

-Percentage ofOut-groupers

+

Percentage ofOut-groupers

+ Higher Threat/Competition

HigherPrejudice

+

Putnams (2007) Diversity-Distrust Hypothesis:

Threat vs Opportunity

49

49


50/71

50


51/71

In colloquiallanguage, peopleliving in ethnically

diverse settingsappear to hunkerdown that is, topull in like a turtle.(Putnam, 2007, p.149)

E Pluribus Unum:Diversity andCommunity in the

Twenty-first Century


52/71

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


53/71

Contact as mediator of contextual diversity

53

Diversity(= opportunity

for contact)

Social

cohesion

Intergroup

Contact+ +

- (?)


54/71

(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


55/71

Cross-sectional survey of nationally representative sample inEngland (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


56/71

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)

56

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 oflife.

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


57/71

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

WITHIN


58/71

WITHIN

BETWEEN

Perceived

diversity

Intergroup

contact

Perceived

threat

Intergroup

contact

Perceivedthreat

Ingroupbias

Ingroup bias

% Non-WhiteBritish

IMDModel fit:2 (61) = 105.84,p=.00, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .03, SRMRwithin= .04,

SRMRbetween= .09; all parameters are unstandardized.

.45*** -.35***

1.13***

-.57*

.01***

1.84***

.86***

ns

ns

.97***


59/71

59


60/71

DIRECT CONTACT

Quantity of contactfrequency of interaction with outgroupmembers, e.g., how often do you meet/talk to/etc. outgroup

members where you live/shop/socialize, etc?

Quality of contactnature of the interaction with outgroup

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

Cross-group friendshipbeing friends with outgroup members,e.g., How many close outgroup friends?

EXTENDED CONTACT

Indirect/Vicarious contact, via family or friends, e.g., How many ofyour family members/friends have outgroup friends?

60

Some of my friends have friends who are . . .


61/71

61

(outgroup members)

Extended contact is second-hand, rather thaninvolving the participants in direct intergroupcontact themselves

Just knowingother people in your group whohave out-group friends might improve attitudesto the out-group (Wright et al., 1997)

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


62/71

Number of

Direct

Friends

IntergroupAnxiety

R2= .21

Number ofIndirect

Friends

General

Group

Variability

R2 = .11

PrejudiceTowards

The Group

R2= .48

-.18***

.17**

- .03.53***

.52

(Results for Catholic and Protestant students; N 316)

(Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns & Voci, 2004)

.79

.89

Impact of Indirect Contact is Moderated by Amount of Direct

( d h )


63/71

63

(Friendship) Contact

(NI- CRU Survey, N=984; Christ, Hewstone et al., PSPB, 2010)

Low cross-group friendship High cross-group friendship

When does extended contact work best? When direct contact is low

Longitudinal analysis of the effects of extended


64/71

64

contact at time 1 on direct contact at time 2

(Swart, Hewstone, Tausch et al., in prep.)

Extended

Contact

(Time 1)

Neighbourhood

Contact Quantity

(Time 2)

Controlling for

direct contact

scores at Time 1

Neighbourhood

Contact Quality

(Time 2)

Contact with Friends

(Time 2)

.15***

.23***

.21***


65/71

Meaningful contact is crucialfor integration

Just living together is notenough (re-segregation problemin 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 contact65


66/71

FundingLeverhulme 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)

66

(ex) Graduate students

Maria IoannouDr Ananthi al-Ramiah

Dr Hermann Swart

Dr Nicole Tausch

Dr Rhiannon Turner

Dr Christiana Vonofakou

Dr Pamela Walker

Research collaboratorsProf. 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!

Undergraduate students

Eleanor BakerChristina Floe

Caroline Povah

Elisabeth Reed

Anna Westlake


67/71

APPENDIX SLIDES

67

What is the relationship between diversity and


68/71

What is the relationship between diversity and

trust? Mixed Findings

More DiversityLess Trust

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

More DiversityMore Trust Marschall & Stolle (2004; Black sample); Fieldhouse & Cutts (2010;

ethnic minority sample in UK); Morales & Echazarra (forthcoming)

More DiversityNo effect on Trust

Marschall & Stolle (2004; White sample); Gesthuizen, van der Meer &

Scheepers (2008); Hooghe et al. (2008)

68


69/71

Cross-sectional survey of nationally representative sample inEngland, 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


70/71

Exampleof 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.

= Contiguous groups/isolates (3)

= White/Asian adjacencies (2)

= White

= Asian

Chairs

Table


71/71

Kappa Coefficient Significance level

Total number of

people in areas.86 p=

FINAL Belgrade Talk 1

Documents

Transcript of FINAL Belgrade Talk 1