8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
1/71
Seminar, Belgrade University, 2l November, 2011
University of Oxford
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
3/71
3
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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)
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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)
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
9/71
9
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
10/71
10
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
11/71
11
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
12/71
Area A1
Costa
Food
service
counters
Area A3
Area A4
Area A2Kitchen
Day 1
Time 1
Occupied seats 89
Mixed tables 1
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 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)
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
14/71
Asian
White
Black
Other
Pillar (i.e., not a seat)
Empty seat
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
15/71
Area A1
Costa
Food
service
counters
Area A3
Area A4
Area A2Kitchen
Day 1
Time 1
Occupied seats 89
Mixed tables 1
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 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%
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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 . . .
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
21/71
21
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
23/71
23
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
24/71
24
Explicit attitudesImplicit attitudes
Neural processes*
Trust and forgiveness
Outgroup-to-outgroup generalization: the
secondary transfer effect. *
Behavioural outcomes: helping *
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
26/71
26
EEG Recording
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
31/71
31
Evidence from
Northern Ireland
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
32/71
32
Longitudinal Secondary transfer effect in
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
34/71
34
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
36/71
36
Pre-war friendships with Jews increase the probability of
rescuing Jews (especially Jewish friends)
3. Empirical Application
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
40/71
40
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
41/71
41
3 Wave Study of Longitudinal Contact in South
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
43/71
Outgroup Outgroup Outgroup
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
Outgroup Outgroup Outgroup
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
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
Outgroup Outgroup Outgroup
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
Empathy Empathy Empathy
-.15**-.27***
-.14**
-.11**
.13**-.14**
.23***
.15**
.23***
Blue: forward; Red: reverse
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
48/71
48
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
50/71
50
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
53/71
Contact as mediator of contextual diversity
53
Diversity(= opportunity
for contact)
Social
cohesion
Intergroup
Contact+ +
- (?)
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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***
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
59/71
59
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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 . . .
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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)
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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 )
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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***
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
67/71
APPENDIX SLIDES
67
What is the relationship between diversity and
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
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
8/14/2019 FINAL Belgrade Talk 1
71/71
Kappa Coefficient Significance level
Total number of
people in areas.86 p=