Title: MinorityMajority relationships in Europe: a social psychological approach
1Minority-Majority relationships in Europe a
social psychological approach
- Rupert Brown
- University of Sussex
With the collaboration of
Jens Binder, Dennis Nigbur Anick Landau
(Sussex), and Hanna Zagefka (Royal Holloway)
Lindsey Cameron, Rosa Hossain, Adam Rutland
Charles Watters (Kent)
A. Maquil, S. Demoulin, J.-P. Leyens Catholique
Université, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
F. Funke, D. Geschke, T. Kessler, A.
Mummendey Jena University, Germany
Funded by Two grants from Economic and Social
Research Council to Rupert Brown
2Some meta-theoretical considerations what is a
social psychological approach?
Social structural e.g., economic, social
policies, social groups and their
relationships
Psychological e.g., cognitive processes,
dispositions
3Some meta-theoretical considerations what is a
social psychological approach?
Social structural e.g., economic, social
policies, social groups and their
relationships
Social psychological e.g., social
identity, intergroup contact, intergroup
acculturation attitudes
Psychological e.g., cognitive processes,
dispositions
4Methodological considerations
- Primarily quantitative e.g., numerical
estimates of constructs of interest, self-report
and other - Field research data collected in relatively
unconstrained naturalistic settings (e.g.,
schools) - Longitudinal designs
- Tracking changes over time (e.g. testing
developmental hypotheses) - Establishing direction of causality use of
cross-lagged panel analysis effect of A1 on B2
when controlling for B1, and comparing to the
effect of B1 on A2 when controlling for A1
5Study 1 Intergroup contact and prejudice in
adolescence, a three nation study
- Research questions
- The direction and size of contact-prejudice
effects - Differences between majority and minority
members? - Generalisation of contact effects from particular
individual to group as a whole - Mediators of contact effects what drives them?
6The Contact Hypothesis
- Allport(1954)
- Contact between members of different groups
reduces prejudice. - Contact should be between equals, cooperative,
pleasant and with institutional support. - Pettigrew Tropp (2006)
- Meta-analysis of 515 studies with 713 samples (N
gt 250,000). - Effect sizes, r -.20 to -.23 (for
contact-prejudice relationship). - Few studies looked at both minority and majority
perspectives (33). - Very few longitudinal studies (lt 10?).
7Direction and size of effects
- Longitudinal design lagged effects over time
give some indication of causality. In particular,
to establish, - If path from contact to prejudice is
stronger/weaker than - from prejudice to contact.
- Pettigrew Tropp claim that majority of findings
points to stronger contact effects than
prejudice effects. - However, Levin, van Laar Sidanius (2003), in a
large longitudinal study of college students
(matched N gt 1200), found paths of equal strength.
8Majorities and minorities
- Intergroup context
- Majority members concern with showing prejudice.
- Minority members concern with being
discriminated against. - Tropp Pettigrew (2005)
- Contact effects are reduced for minorities, but
still present. - However, few studies have considered both
majority and minority perspectives and even fewer
longitudinally. - Prediction
- Majorities will show stronger effects than
minorities
9The when and how of contact effects
- Brown Hewstone (2005) factors affecting
generalization of contact effects (the when)
and what drives contact effects (the how) - When? (moderators)
- Salience of group membership as indexed by
perceived - typicality of contact persons of the outgroup.
Therefore, greater perceived typicality should
lead to stronger link between contact and
prejudice - How? (mediators)
- Contact may work by reducing intergroup anxiety
about future potential interactions with
outgroup members. Lessened anxiety should lead
to lessened prejudice.
10Sample and design
- Questionnaire study in 3 countries Belgium,
Germany England. - N 1323 school and college students aged 15 to
19 N 33 institutions. - N 460 ethnic minorities, N 923 majority
society. - Longitudinal design 2 waves of data collection,
6 months lag. - Measures
- Contact quantity quality
- Prejudice negative emotions towards other group
- Typicality
- Intergroup anxiety
11Measures
- Contact quality 3 items, equality of status,
cooperation and closeness of contact persons (a
.71) - Contact quantity 2 items, number of outgroup
friends and time spent with them (multiplicative
index) - Negative emotions toward outgroup members
(prejudice) 6 items, e.g. I admire them
(reversed), I feel annoyed by them, I feel
irritated by them (a .82) - Perceived Typicality single item, How typical
are your outgroup friends of their group? - Intergroup anxiety 6 items, how people would
feel if they were alone working with outgroup
members, e.g. awkward, accepted, anxious. (a
.79)
12Basic strategy for analysis
13Overall effects
- Prejudice effect stronger than contact effect.
14Majority Minority effects
- Contact effects are stronger for majority.
- Contact effects are negligible for minorities.
15Longitudinal moderation effects
- Added to model moderator and interaction between
moderator and contact. - Stronger effects when typicality is High.
16Mediation contact-prejudice effect mediated by
intergroup anxiety
.44
Anxiety t1
Anxiety t2
-.10
.18
-.12 (-.14)
Quality t1
Prejudice t2
.54
Prejudice t1
Sobel test is sig. p lt .01
17Study 1 summary
- Contact does reduce prejudice longitudinally.
- Stronger effects for prejudice on contact.
- No overall contact effect for minority members.
- Stronger effect when outgroup friends are seen as
typical of their group (even for minorities). - Anxiety partially mediates contact effects
18Practical implications
- Implications for intervention programmes
- Contact not the whole answer
- Roles of typicality and anxiety
19Study 2 acculturation, intergroup attitudes and
well-being in young ethnic minority children
- Research questions
- What are the predominant acculturation
orientations in young (Asian) minority group
children in (the SE) UK? - How do these vary across age groups (5-7 vs 8-11
yrs), and over time (6 mth period)? - Causal relationship between these variables and
others, e.g., peer acceptance, teacher ratings of
childs behaviour?
20Acculturation some terminology
- Acculturation - changes in original cultural
patterns of either or both groups bought about by
contact - Berrys framework people can adopt differing
acculturation strategies that vary on two
dimensions - Culture maintenance - a desire to maintain (or
relinquish) ethnic identity - Contact participation - a desire to engage or
have contact with other ethnic group (or not)
21Berrys acculturation taxonomy
22Some correlates of acculturation orientations
- integration amongst adults/adolescents is
associated with favourable intrapsychic outcomes
(Berry et al., 1997) - and more favourable intergroup attitudes
(Pfafferott Brown, in press Zagefka Brown,
2002 Zagefka et al, in press) - little is known about acculturation processes in
children and their possible causal implications
23Sample and design
- Interview study conducted in several primary
schools in SE England. Interviewers were both M
F, 4 White and 1 Finnish-Indian - N 398 children aged 5-11 years (M 8.0 years).
Equal numbers of girls and boys of whom, - 166 were from (Asian) ethnic minority groups
(Indian, Pakistani, Bengali, Sri Lankan
Nepali). Most were 2nd or later generation - 180 were White British
- Longitudinal design three phases, approx 6 mths
apart
24Measures Ethnic identification
25Acculturation measures culture maintenance
- (Language, clothes, food, holidays, music)
- Look, these two groups of people both live in
England. Think about this group of people
(Own/out-group)
26Acculturation measures Desire for contact
- (Be friends with, eat lunch together, play
together). - Look, these two groups of people both live in
England. Think about this group of people
(Own/out-group)
27Measures perceived peer acceptance
- Do you have other kids to talk to at school?
- Is it hard for you to make friends at school?
- Do you have lots of friends at school?
- Do you feel alone at school?
- Is it hard to get kids in school to like you?
- Do you have kids to play with at school?
- Do you get along with other kids at school?
- Do you feel left out of things at school?
- Are you lonely at school?
- Do kids at school like you?
28Measures perceived discrimination
- 2 stories (ethnic name calling and exclusion).
Children shown stories pictorially. - e.g. A child is playing in the school
playground. Another child would like to join in.
The other children say that child cant play with
them because their skin is a different colour.
29Measures perceived discrimination
- Has this ever happened to you? How often does
this happen to you?
30Measures Teacher ratings of social anxiety,
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire 25
questions
- Sample items
- Often complains of headaches, stomach aches or
sickness. - Many worries, often seems worried.
- Often unhappy, downhearted or tearful.
- Nervous or clingy in new situations, easily loses
confidence. - Many fears, easily scared.
- Restless, overactive, cannot stay still for long.
- Shares readily with other children (treats, toys,
pencils etc.). - Often has temper tantrums or hot tempers.
- Rather solitary, tends to play alone.
- Generally obedient, usually does what adults
request. - Helpful if someone is hurt, upset or feeling ill.
- Constantly fidgeting or squirming.
- Often fights with other children or bullies them.
- Generally liked by other children.
- Easily distracted, concentration wanders.
- Kind to younger children.
not true somewhat true certainly true
31Preferred acculturation preferences amongst
minority children
32Changes over time (I) Peer acceptance in
Majority Minority groups
33Changes over time (II) Desire for intergroup
contact and Age
34Predicting peer acceptance (t2) from
acculturation attitudes (t1)
Peer acceptance (t2)
35Predicting social anxiety (t2) from acculturation
attitudes (t1)
Social anxiety (t2)
36Predicting perceived discrimination (t2) from
acculturation attitudes (t1)
Perceived discrimination (t2)
37Implications
- Integration is alive and well in the South
East - It seems to be (causally) related to better
social outcomes peer acceptance - But it may come at a price maintaining own
culture connecting with host culture seems also
to be linked with increased social anxiety and
experiences of discrimination - Therefore, do schools need to be providing
additional social support of minority children?
38(No Transcript)
39Longitudinal moderation effects II effects of
prior discrimination
- Prior experience of discrimination weakens the
reverse of effect of prejudice on contact
quality
40Opportunities for contact the effect of school
ethnic composition
t1
t2
Low proportion of minority members (lt 25)
No difference!
High proportion of minority members (gt 25)