MinorityMajority relationships in Europe: a social psychological approach

1
Minority-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
2
Some 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
3
Some 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
4
Methodological 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

5
Study 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?

6
The 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?).

7
Direction 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.

8
Majorities 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

9
The 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.

10
Sample 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

11
Measures

• 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)

12
Basic strategy for analysis
13
Overall effects

• Prejudice effect stronger than contact effect.

14
Majority Minority effects

• Contact effects are stronger for majority.
• Contact effects are negligible for minorities.

15
Longitudinal moderation effects

• Added to model moderator and interaction between
  moderator and contact.
• Stronger effects when typicality is High.

16
Mediation 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
17
Study 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

18
Practical implications

• Implications for intervention programmes
• Contact not the whole answer
• Roles of typicality and anxiety

19
Study 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?

20
Acculturation 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)

21
Berrys acculturation taxonomy
22
Some 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

23
Sample 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

24
Measures Ethnic identification
25
Acculturation 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)

26
Acculturation 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)

27
Measures 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?

28
Measures 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.

29
Measures perceived discrimination

• Has this ever happened to you? How often does
  this happen to you?

30
Measures 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
31
Preferred acculturation preferences amongst
minority children
32
Changes over time (I) Peer acceptance in
Majority Minority groups
33
Changes over time (II) Desire for intergroup
contact and Age
34
Predicting peer acceptance (t2) from
acculturation attitudes (t1)
Peer acceptance (t2)
35
Predicting social anxiety (t2) from acculturation
attitudes (t1)
Social anxiety (t2)
36
Predicting perceived discrimination (t2) from
acculturation attitudes (t1)
Perceived discrimination (t2)
37
Implications

• 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)
39
Longitudinal moderation effects II effects of
prior discrimination

• Prior experience of discrimination weakens the
  reverse of effect of prejudice on contact
  quality

40
Opportunities 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)