Final Report Summary - CONTACT AND CHANGE (The Irony of Harmony: Examining how Experiences of Intergroup Contact can Undermine Potential for Social Change toward Equality)
Positive interactions between members of different groups are considered "the golden path" for promoting intergroup tolerance. Indeed, many efforts are aimed at bringing members of different groups together to get to know one another or to work together on a joint project. Such positive interactions were found to generate more liking between the groups, and a sense of common group identity. Until very recently, the question of "who benefits" from such encounters was rarely raised. The current project challenges the assumption that harmony between groups is the best recipe for solving intergroup tension. Specifically, the goal of the project was to investigate how and why positive intergroup encounters may work to stabilize unequal social systems. To achieve this goal we first set out to investigate the causal impact of classic contact (contact focused on commonalities) on social change orientations of disadvantaged groups by considering a range of theoretically-driven mediators (Aim 1). The bulk of work in this area has been correlational rendering it virtually impossible to determine the causal impact of contact on such orientations. Second, we aimed to strengthen the external validity of the effect of contact on social-change orientations by extending findings from the experimental investigation to more naturalistic intergroup context (Aim 2). Our third goal was to test how the predicted processes linking contact to social change unfold overtime, and to explore the effects of contact on the predicted outcomes among members of advantaged groups (Aim 3).
During the first period of the project, we conducted several studies which achieved Aim 1 and Aim 2. Two of these studies were published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. In order to address Aim 1, we conducted an experimental study in which we manipulated different types of contact between groups in a laboratory-setting, and examined outcomes pertaining to social change. As we hypothesized, results revealed that experiences of commonality-focused contact, relative to differences-focused contact and to the no-contact condition, resulted in significantly stronger perceptions of the social hierarchy as just, and in weaker awareness of discrimination. Moreover, a mediation analysis revealed that the reason underlying participants' tendency to make fewer attributions to discrimination after commonality-focused contact was their general perception of the hierarchy as legitimate. Moreover, and as reflected in Figure 1, while participants tended to make least attributions to discrimination in the commonality-contact condition, their tendency to make internal attributions was highest in that condition. These findings suggest that commonality-focused encounters might not only undermine attributions to discrimination, but also lead people to blame negative outcomes on internal factors.
To address Aim 2, we generally replicated these findings in more naturalistic settings, among a sample of Ethiopian Jews in Israel. As hypothesized, and analogous to our results from the laboratory experiment, results revealed that more experiences of commonality-focused contact with Non-Ethiopians were associated with Ethiopians' weaker tendencies to blame negative outcomes on discrimination, and that this effect was explained by stronger perceptions of the status hierarchy as legitimate. Moreover, this effect remained significant after considering a range of potential mediators (ingroup identification and trust; see Figure 2).
During the second period of the project, we continued to advance these insights by examining the effects of optimal contact among Latinos in the United-States - work that is now in-press in the Journal of Social Issues. This work has revealed that friendship contact with Anglo-Whites was overall negatively associated with interest in collective action. This relation was due to both reduced identification with the disadvantaged group and positive attitudes toward the advantaged group, which predicted reduced anger about inequality. Contact was also positively associated with an individual mobility orientation, a relation which was explained through increased perceived permeability.
Furthermore, in the second grant period we continued to develop these ideas via experimental designs, considering the role that group-based power (as a manipulated construct) plays in the dynamics of contact (Aim 3). Our findings revealed that members of high status groups are motivated to engage in intergroup encounters that are focused on commonalities, while members of low status groups show a greater desire to address topics that pertain to differences between the groups. These findings were obtained both in the context of intergroup dialogue (work that is now published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin) and in the context of intergroup negotiations (work published in the European review of Social Psychology; and in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology)
Taken together, these findings provide compelling evidence for the effect of commonality-focused contact on inequality perceptions among members of both disadvantaged, and advantaged groups. Moreover, they show that members of advantaged and disadvantaged groups bring different motivations and preferences to situations of contact. Although several scholars have addressed related ideas, the current studies, are the first to demonstrate experimentally that experiences of commonality-focused contact drive perceptions of the hierarchy as legitimate. As such, the current research lends more support to the emerging notion that despite the benefits of a commonality-focus (mainly positive attitudes), it should be viewed as a practice that might also inadvertently impact the way people view, and are committed to resolve, social inequality. Understanding this apparent contradiction between the outcomes of contact and social change is of crucial importance when considering the wide implementation of contact interventions (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Along with the strong scholarly focus, billions of dollars are spent annually on interventions based on contact theory in schools, workplaces, neighborhoods, and regions beset by intergroup conflict (Paluck & Green, 2009). If indeed such interventions work to undermine motivation for social change, they may ultimately contribute to the stability of status relations and thereby of social inequality and related injustice. Thus, instead of ameliorating problems associated with injustice and inequality, contact interventions might actually work to stabilize such problems. Given this possibility, there is an urgent need to understand how contact might impact processes related to social change. Such understandings can then be implemented to revisit the common views of contact and develop appropriate interventions based on broader, interdisciplinary understanding of the impact of contact.
During the first period of the project, we conducted several studies which achieved Aim 1 and Aim 2. Two of these studies were published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. In order to address Aim 1, we conducted an experimental study in which we manipulated different types of contact between groups in a laboratory-setting, and examined outcomes pertaining to social change. As we hypothesized, results revealed that experiences of commonality-focused contact, relative to differences-focused contact and to the no-contact condition, resulted in significantly stronger perceptions of the social hierarchy as just, and in weaker awareness of discrimination. Moreover, a mediation analysis revealed that the reason underlying participants' tendency to make fewer attributions to discrimination after commonality-focused contact was their general perception of the hierarchy as legitimate. Moreover, and as reflected in Figure 1, while participants tended to make least attributions to discrimination in the commonality-contact condition, their tendency to make internal attributions was highest in that condition. These findings suggest that commonality-focused encounters might not only undermine attributions to discrimination, but also lead people to blame negative outcomes on internal factors.
To address Aim 2, we generally replicated these findings in more naturalistic settings, among a sample of Ethiopian Jews in Israel. As hypothesized, and analogous to our results from the laboratory experiment, results revealed that more experiences of commonality-focused contact with Non-Ethiopians were associated with Ethiopians' weaker tendencies to blame negative outcomes on discrimination, and that this effect was explained by stronger perceptions of the status hierarchy as legitimate. Moreover, this effect remained significant after considering a range of potential mediators (ingroup identification and trust; see Figure 2).
During the second period of the project, we continued to advance these insights by examining the effects of optimal contact among Latinos in the United-States - work that is now in-press in the Journal of Social Issues. This work has revealed that friendship contact with Anglo-Whites was overall negatively associated with interest in collective action. This relation was due to both reduced identification with the disadvantaged group and positive attitudes toward the advantaged group, which predicted reduced anger about inequality. Contact was also positively associated with an individual mobility orientation, a relation which was explained through increased perceived permeability.
Furthermore, in the second grant period we continued to develop these ideas via experimental designs, considering the role that group-based power (as a manipulated construct) plays in the dynamics of contact (Aim 3). Our findings revealed that members of high status groups are motivated to engage in intergroup encounters that are focused on commonalities, while members of low status groups show a greater desire to address topics that pertain to differences between the groups. These findings were obtained both in the context of intergroup dialogue (work that is now published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin) and in the context of intergroup negotiations (work published in the European review of Social Psychology; and in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology)
Taken together, these findings provide compelling evidence for the effect of commonality-focused contact on inequality perceptions among members of both disadvantaged, and advantaged groups. Moreover, they show that members of advantaged and disadvantaged groups bring different motivations and preferences to situations of contact. Although several scholars have addressed related ideas, the current studies, are the first to demonstrate experimentally that experiences of commonality-focused contact drive perceptions of the hierarchy as legitimate. As such, the current research lends more support to the emerging notion that despite the benefits of a commonality-focus (mainly positive attitudes), it should be viewed as a practice that might also inadvertently impact the way people view, and are committed to resolve, social inequality. Understanding this apparent contradiction between the outcomes of contact and social change is of crucial importance when considering the wide implementation of contact interventions (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Along with the strong scholarly focus, billions of dollars are spent annually on interventions based on contact theory in schools, workplaces, neighborhoods, and regions beset by intergroup conflict (Paluck & Green, 2009). If indeed such interventions work to undermine motivation for social change, they may ultimately contribute to the stability of status relations and thereby of social inequality and related injustice. Thus, instead of ameliorating problems associated with injustice and inequality, contact interventions might actually work to stabilize such problems. Given this possibility, there is an urgent need to understand how contact might impact processes related to social change. Such understandings can then be implemented to revisit the common views of contact and develop appropriate interventions based on broader, interdisciplinary understanding of the impact of contact.