Intergroup relations and contact

"Around the world, educators, policy makers, profit- and non-profit-based organizations and governments implement intergroup contact interventions to overcome prejudice. These “people-to-people” encounters rarely happen in a vacuum. To the contrary, they often occur in the middle of heated public debates, and sometimes even during or in the aftermath of wars. Allport recognized the importance of the context of intergroup contact interventions as early as 1954 when he postulated authority approval as one of the conditions for optimal intergroup contact. Yet, more than 60 years later, we still do not know whether authority approval or disapproval causes positive or negative bias in intergroup interactions. Very little previous research has investigated if and how an authority’s position on intergroup relations troubles or improves one-on-one especially if the contact experience itself is negative. When discussing the need for anti-discrimination laws, Allport deviated from most of his contemporaries who believed in the primacy of individuals over laws as sources of prejudice and hate. He proposed that “stateways” (the position of governmental and non-governmental authorities) and “folkways” (individual levels of prejudice and stereotyping) interact (Allport, 1979). The current research puts this idea to a rigorous empirical test. We completed one survey experiment taking the form of a 2 (authority disapproval: salient versus not salient) X 2 (intergroup contact: positive versus negative) design. The experiment took place in a region where authority approval of the presence, safety and equality of low status groups is low (the US state of Arizona). For outcomes we measured discrimination and negative attitudes towards Latinos. We selected Arizona immigration laws as our authority disapproval case for two reasons: First, to stay close to Allport’s original writing we focus on restrictive laws as authorities. Second, based on the Immigration Climate Index (Pham & Pham, 2014) Arizona ranked last among all US states in terms of friendliness of climate with regards to immigrants’ daily lives. Our main hypothesis is that intergroup contact and salience of authority disapproval interact to predict discrimination. The highest level of discrimination should occur when a contact experience is negative and authority disapproval salient, the lowest level should occur when a contact experience is positive and authority disapproval not salient. We also plan to investigate the role of a few interesting moderators (authoritarianism, political orientation, support for current governor, local pride etc.). As a next step, we plan to analyze our results and then replicate the experiment in California, the state that ranked first in terms of friendliness of climate."

Even in the absence of legal ownership, people tend to experience objects, places, and ideas as belonging to them (‘mine’). This state of mind is called psychological ownership. Research has shown that experiences of ownership are very important for individuals, but can also lead to interpersonal conflicts. What we know almost nothing about is collective psychological ownership (CPO): a shared sense that something is ‘ours’. CPO might be especially relevant with regard to territories and in the context of intergroup relations. Statements like ‘we were here first’ or ‘we built this country’ are increasingly used by right-wing politicians in immigration countries to claim ownership on historical basis for the dominant ethnic group, and to exclude newcomers. There are also contexts where two established groups disagree about territorial ownership, such as Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo. While CPO might strengthen solidarity within groups, it might worsen intergroup relations, thus threatening social cohesion. It is important to establish where a sense of CPO comes from, and how it shapes intergroup relations, so that interventions could be implemented. This ground-breaking project examines 1) the extent to which people perceive their ethnic group as historically owning the country, 2) the psychological needs that motivate them to claim collective ownership, and 3) the implications of collective ownership claims for attitudes towards ethnic groups. My approach is multidisciplinary, combining social psychological theories on intergroup relations with the literature on ownership and territoriality from organizational science and anthropology. I will develop an instrument to measure CPO and provide first empirical evidence about the importance of CPO by collecting representative survey data in European immigration countries (Netherlands, UK, France), settler societies (Australia, New Zealand, USA), and countries with clear territorial disputes (Kosovo, Cyprus, Israel).

"Theoretical background and objectives This project comprises two studies that use two different data sets to examine the influence of ethnic diversity on interethnic contacts and attitudes towards immigrants by drawing on insights from group threat and inter-group contact theory. The project advances over earlier research by a) opening the black box of the mediating mechanisms via which ethnic diversity – operationalised as the population share of immigrants – affects citizens' immigration policy preferences and interethnic contacts as well as b) testing competing propositions derived from contact and group threat theory at different individual and contextual levels of analysis. In the first study, we examine which role the size of the immigrant population plays in explaining immigrant derogation within and between European regions and consider the following question: does a larger size of immigrant population increase perceived group threat and thereby lead to greater immigrant derogation? Or does it increase intergroup contact and thereby ameliorate immigrant derogation? In the second study we derive competing hypotheses on the role the size of the immigrant population plays for explaining the anti-immigrant attitudes of Dutch citizens. Research design and methodology The first study uses regionalised European Social Survey 2002 and official data, which were analysed by means of multilevel structural equation modelling. The second study uses structural equation modelling with robust standard errors on nationally representative Dutch survey data enriched with official municipality-level statistics. Findings Both studies converge in demonstrating that ethnic diversity exerts dual effects in promoting interethnic contact, but also to produce prejudice. Perceived group threat is associated with immigrant derogation. However, intergroup contact reduces perceived group threat and thereby amends such derogation of immigrants. Between regions, our findings show that a larger size of the immigrant population increases both greater perceived group threat and intergroup contact. At the same time, the effects of perceived group threat and intergroup contact on immigrant derogation resemble those found within regions. In sum, these results lend evidence to the generalisability of both group threat and contact effects."

"Theoretical background and objectives This project aims to shed new light on the causes and consequences of ethnic residential segregation, i.e. ""the degree to which two or more [ethnic] groups live separately from one another in different parts of the urban environment"" (Massey and Denton 1988: 283). While the number of papers dealing with this classic research question is large, the debate whether, to what extent and for whom ethnic residential segregation matters is far from resolved. This project addresses two issues in particular, namely interaction effects between individual and context characteristics, and the question to what extent segregation results from immigrants' deliberate choices to live among co-ethnics, or from such homphily preferences on the side of members of the majority population. Surprisingly, empirical studies investigating the prevalence and causes of immigrants' residential preferences remain scant. Guided by the preference model of residential choices (Charles 2003), we examine under which conditions and how the residential preferences of ethnic minority and majority members reflect a desire for self-segregation and avoidance of other ethnic groups or not. This study is likely to yield critical findings for both theory and applied initiatives, given that investigating the prevalence and the sources of segregation preferences is of key importance for understanding macro-level patterns of ethnic residential segregation. Research design, data and methodology In a first study, we applied multilevel generalised linear regression techniques to individual level survey data from a large metropolitan area (Duisburg) in Germany, supplemented with contextual measures of ethnic residential segregation on the neighbourhood level. We examined whether patterns of segregation were related to rates of interethnic contact, and whether this relationship differed for respondents of different socio-economic status. In a second study, we used factorial survey methodology to address majority members' preferences. One key advantage of this design is that it avoids the notorious problem of collinear contextual variables when investigating neighbourhood settings. In two within-subjects experiments conducted over the internet (total N = 1032), participants evaluated schools or residential areas with different levels of ethnic diversity (i.e. proportions of immigrants). In the vignettes describing schools and areas, we additionally varied factors that are ecologically related to diversity (i.e., neighbourhood socio-economic status and crime in residential areas, and quality of education at schools). At the person level, we measured intergroup contact and prejudice and used these variables to predict the level 1 effect of diversity on preferences for residential or school choice. We estimated a two-level random coefficients model with latent variables to explain preferences. In a third study, we will employ also an experimental factorial survey design, but this time to investigate immigrants' residential preferences. We will use quota samples of different ethnic minority groups living in Germany (e.g. Turks). Respondents will evaluate vignettes describing different residential areas which, in addition to the size of the ethnic in-group, vary systematically along additional dimensions known to affect residential choices such as neighbourhood SES, ethnic infrastructure or crime risk. Findings The first study has been completed, the second is ongoing and the third will be started in early 2011. Controlling for individual characteristics, results from the first study bring new evidence that friendships of immigrants with host society members are less prevalent in residential areas with greater degrees of ethnic segregation. The strength of this negative association, however, proves to be contingent on immigrants' educational attainment: The lower one's educational attainment, the stronger the negative association between ethnic residential segregation and immigrants' interethnic friendships. In other words, residential segregation is in particular detrimental for those sections of immigrant population for whom interethnic contacts are likely to be most important as a source of social capital, namely those of low socio-economic status. Preliminary results of the second study show that diversity had negative effects on evaluations of schools and residential areas, over and above the effects of infrastructure, crime, or quality of education. Furthermore, results indicate that intergroup contact reduced bias against diverse schools or residential areas, mediated by prejudice, but it did not produce a preference for diversity, except for people with prejudice scores as low as the sample minimum."

While positive intergroup contact has been shown to reduce discrimination, negative contact has the potential to worsen intergroup relationships. Yet little is known about the interaction between positive and negative contact, whereas people are frequently exposed to both types of contact. This research project will provide an original and comprehensive investigation into the positive-negative asymmetry of intergroup contact (PNAIC) effect, to understand whether positive contact exerts stronger effects than negative contact, improving social integration. The net impact and the possible consequences of a mix of both positive and negative intergroup contact will be examined at interpersonal and contextual levels. A series of studies will systematically test three plausible outcomes: buffering (i.e., positive contact attenuates detrimental effects of negative contact), facilitation (i.e., negative contact augments the impact of positive contact), and poisoning (i.e., negative contact reduces the impact of positive contact) effects. Using one diary study, one longitudinal survey and two experimental studies, the research project will consider also key moderating processes that help explain the joint impact of positive and negative contact on intergroup discrimination. The phenomenon will be analyzed on linguistic and physiologic outcomes, as reliable and unobtrusive measures of discrimination. The unintentional use of language to perpetrate outgroup discrimination and the unintended different physiologic responses to ingroup and outgroup faces will provide insight into the challenge of contact not just in temporary discriminatory reactions but in future interactions. Across the studies, the positive-negative contact asymmetry effect will be investigated towards groups that are both discriminated against and perceived as threatening, such as immigrants in Europe today. This will be done among majority and minority group members, using both direct and vicarious contact.