Intergroup Interactions

1
(No Transcript)
2
Intergroup Interactions

• Difficulties in intergroup interactions.
• Attributional ambiguities, stereotype threat
  experienced by members of targeted groups.
• Interracial interactions -- difficult, uncertain,
  uncomfortable.
• What about for majority group member (white)?
  Uncomfortable, but for other reasons.
• Common thoughts
• Im not prejudiced
• He might think Im prejudiced...
• I dont want to do anything to appear
  prejudiced

3
Intergroup Interactions

• Consequences --
• Discomfort
• Self-regulation
• Self-focused attention
• Reduction in resources
• Difference in behavior manifested with black vs.
  white partner
• Already seen this pattern Word et al. (1974
  Rdng. 12), self-fulfilling prophecy paper, Exp.
  1
• White Ps interviewed black or white person.
  Measured
• Immediacy index seating distance, forward lean,
  eye contact, shoulder orientation
• Interview length
• Speech errors

4
Intergroup Interactions

• Results
• Race of Applicant
• Measure Black White
• Immediacy Index -.11 .38
• Interview Length 9.42 12.77
• Speech Errors 3.54 2.37
• So discomfort for white partner as well. Why?
  And what consequences?
• Self-regulation requires resources. Can impair
  performance on other tasks.

5
Intergroup Interactions

• Cross-group friendship formation (Vorauer
  Sakamoto, 2006)
• Overtures to friendship -- some obstacles
• Signal amplification
• Defensive distancing
• Same-sex pairs Wh-Wh, Wh-Ch, Ch-Ch study on
  perceptions in first meeting
• Ps separated wrote answers to 4 questions
• Ps read partners answers
• Spoke responses (taped) to partners answers,
  then questionnaire 1
• Listened to partners tape, then questionnaire 2

6
Intergroup Interactions

• DVs
• Perceptions initial feelings what their tape
  will convey to partner
• Impressions of partners feelings how
  interested in friendship -- and Ps final
  feelings toward partner

7
Intergroup Interactions

• Results
• Signal amplification diff. betw. Ps
  perceptions of feelings conveyed and partners
  impression
• Larger diffs. when Wh Ps paired with Ch partner
  than Wh partner
• Larger diffs. for Wh Ps with lower levels of
  previous contact with Ch persons
• Consequences of signal amplification
• Wh Ps felt they conveyed more interest when
  partner was Ch than when Wh
• Social distancing
• Ch partners did not corroborate no diff in
  perception of Ps interest

8
Intergroup Interactions

• Interracial interaction and cognitive function
  (Richeson Shelton, 2003). Effects of
  interracial interaction on subsequent cognitive
  task. Multi-stage study.
• 1st part word categorization task. Ps do IAT
  (bl/wh names, plsnt/unplsnt words).
• 2nd part different study, E is white or
  black. E interviews P on issues, incl. racial
  profiling.
• 3rd part return to 1st E, did Stroop task.
• Words or XXXX presented in 4 different colors.
  Ps task name color. RTs recorded.

9
Intergroup Interactions

• Stroop task say color of ink
• xxxxx
• yyyyy
• blue
• yellow
• table
• sparrow
• liberal
• friendly

10
Intergroup Interactions

• DV RT for words RT for XXXX.
• Task requires inhibition of primary response
  (word).
• Question how is Stroop performance influenced by
  
• Interracial interaction
• Ps prejudice level

11
(No Transcript)
12
Intergroup Interactions

• Results
• High IAT bias ? more Stroop interference after
  interactions with black, but not with white,
  partner.
• Low IAT bias no effect of partners race.
• Engaging in one activity that requires
  self-regulation depletes resources for performing
  another

13
Intergroup Interactions

• Is this a one-way street? What about blacks do
  they experience same discomfort, disruption of
  self-regulation, impairment on subsequent tasks?
• Tested in study parallel to previous one, but
  with black Ps (Richeson, Trawalter, Shelton,
  2005)

14
Intergroup Interactions

• Same multi-stage procedure.
• 1st part word categorization task. Ps do IAT
  (bl/wh names, plsnt/unplsnt words).
• 2nd part different study, P has interaction
  with white or black E.
• 3rd part return to 1st E, did Stroop task.
• Words or XXXX presented in 4 different colors.
• Ps task name color.
• RTs recorded.

15
Intergroup Interactions

• Results
• IAT scores black Ps racial attitude bias --
  showed outgroup favoritism
• Stroop task
• Pro-white bias ? less Stroop interference
• More pro-white bias, less interference after
  interacting with white, but not black, partner
• In other words, more ingroup favoritism, more
  interference, presumably due to discomfort in
  interracial interaction
• These results mirror Richeson Shelton (2003)
  more ingroup favoritism ? more resources are
  depleted in interracial context

16
Intergroup Interactions

• Effects of vigilance on behavior (Vorauer
  Turpie, 2004)
• Dont want to behave, or appear, prejudiced.
  Therefore people watch themselves this
  involves
• Monitoring own behavior
• Self-focus
• in ways that dont occur in same-race
  interaction.
• Effects of monitoring choking under pressure.
• Conscious attention to routine, automatic
  responses
• Leads to poorer performance
• Can same occur in interracial interaction?

17
Intergroup Interactions

• Compare high and low prejudice Ps.
• Low prejudice egalitarian, routinely friendly
  toward blacks. Self-focused monitoring ?
  disruption of normal routines, less success in
  communicating positive impression to outgroup
  member. Choking under pressure.
• High prejudice less skilled at favorable
  behavior to outgroup, fewer routinized positive
  behaviors for self-censoring to disrupt.
  Attention to self-presentation may even be
  effective. Shining effect.

18
Intergroup Interactions

• Procedure
• White Ps see video of ethnic minority partner.
• Manipulation of self-monitoring concern
• High/low perception of discrimination against
  group
• Make video response to partner.
• Ps video coded for intimacy-building behaviors
• Positive regard, responsiveness, self-disclosure,
  eye contact
• Questionnaire measure of prejudice

19
Intergroup Interactions

• Results intimacy-building behavior index
• Partner Percept of Discrim.
• Prejudice Low High
• Low 0.50 -0.09
• High -0.30 -0.09 ns
• ns
• Implications
• Efforts to monitor behavior toward outgroup
  members can sometimes backfire.
• Low prejudice disrupt positive behaviors.
  Choking effect.
• High prejudice more positive behavior toward
  outgroup member. Shining effect.
• These effects coded from video. How seen by
  partner?

20
Intergroup Interactions

• Ironic effects of racial bias during interaction
  (Shelton et al., 2005).
• Avoiding appearing prejudicedself-regulationdoes
  black perceive it? If so, how?
• Detect white self-regulation?
• Differences between hi and lo prejudice?
• High prejudice more self regulation, more
  positive behaviors. Will black partner see
  high-bias white more favorably?

21
Intergroup Interactions

• Procedure multi-stage --
• Race bias race IAT
• Study on first impressions 10-min interaction
• White-Black
• White- White
• Conversation topic opinions about race
  relations (racial profiling, affirmative action,
  immigration)
• Separated, complete questionnaire measures
• Favorability index
• Perceived engagement

22
Intergroup Interactions

• Results
• Favorability
• Race of Partner
• Prejudice Black White
• Low 4.40 4.96
• High 5.29 4.06
• Perceived engagement
• Race of Partner
• Prejudice Black White
• Low 5.20 4.89
• High 5.88 5.21

23
Intergroup Interactions

• Conclusions
• Challenge of intergroup interaction
• Discomfort
• Misperceptions of communication intent
• Self-regulation, impact on subsequent task
• Effects on intimacy-building behaviors
• High prej choking effect
• Low prej shining effect
• Perceptions of whites by black partners

24
Intergroup Interactions
25
Intergroup Interactions
26
Intergroup Interactions