Obstacles to Intergroup Contact

Brief report Obstacles to intergroup contact: When outgroup partner’s anxiety meets perceived ethnic discrimination Luca Andrighetto1*, Federica Durante2, Federica Lugani2, Chiara Volpato2 and Alberto Mirisola3 1University of Genova, Italy 2University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy 3Italian National Research Council, Institute for Educational Technology, Palermo, Italy

Emerging research suggests that outgroup partner’s anxiety can disrupt intergroup rapport-building. This study extends previous ﬁndings by investigating the interactive effects of anticipated outgroup partner’s anxiety and perceived ethnic discrimination on self-anxiety and intergroup contact avoidance. A sample of immigrant adolescents belonging to different ethnic minorities in Italy (N = 118) was considered. Results showed that when participants expected to interact with an anxious outgroup (Italian) versus in-group partner, self-anxiety increased and, as a consequence, their intentions to avoid future encounters. However, these effects were observed only for participants with higher (vs. lower) perceptions of being discriminated against. The implications of these results for interethnic communication and misunderstandings are discussed.

In the last few decades, most European countries have become host to an unprecedented number of immigrants (Stanley, 2008). Consequently, the opportunities for interethnic encounters have constantly increased. Unfortunately, more contact opportunities do not necessarily lead to more actual interethnic social interactions. Socio-psychological research has in fact shown, on the one hand, how interethnic interactions elicit high levels of self-anxiety, which increase people’s intentions to avoid the contact (e.g., Plant & Devine,2003;Stephan&Stephan,1985,2000);ontheotherhand,hownegativeintergroup expectations, sometimes due to previous experiences of ethnic discrimination, system- atically prevent the formation of new intergroup relations (e.g., Mallett, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2008; Shelton & Richeson, 2005). Finally, recent studies reveal that partner’s anxiety is just as important as self-anxiety in decreasing interest in future interethnic interactions (West, Shelton, & Trail, 2009). By bridging and extending these ﬁelds of research, we consider a

*Correspondence should be addressed to Luca Andrighetto, Universita di Genova, DISFOR, Corso Podesta 2, Genova 16128, Italy (e-mail: [email protected]).

DOI:10.1111/bjso.12039 2 Luca Andrighetto et al. pre-interaction situation, and examine experimentally the combined effects of perceived ethnic discrimination and anticipated partner’s anxiety on intergroup contact avoidance, testing furthermore the role of self-anxiety as the psychological mechanism underlying the relationship between anticipated partner’s anxiety and contact avoidance. More speciﬁcally, we hypothesize that perceiving ethnic discrimination (Johnson & Lecci, 2003; Mendoza-Denton, Downey, Purdie, Davis, & Pietrzak, 2002; Pinel, 1999) would interact with anticipated partner’s anxiety in increasing self-anxiety and, as a consequence, in decreasing people’s desire to engage in future interethnic interactions. To this aim, we focus on ethnic minorities because concerns about encountering discrimination are especially present in their lives (e.g., Mendoza-Denton et al., 2002; Swim, Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, 2003); therefore considering their perspective seems particularly relevant (see, e.g., Graham, 1992; Swim & Stangor, 1998).

Intergroup anxiety and perceived ethnic discrimination Intergroup anxiety involves feelings of uneasiness and tension when anticipating or actually interacting with outgroup members (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Traditionally, different factors have been associated with increased intergroup anxiety, such as a lack of previous contact, differential status, and negative outgroup stereotypes (see Stephan & Stephan, 1985, 2000). Recently, scholars have placed an emphasis on the relational nature of intergroup anxiety, and how the partner’s anxiety shapes the interaction’s development (see West & Dovidio, 2012). For instance, Dovidio, West, Pearson, Gaertner, and Kawakami (2007) found that both Whites and African Americans interpret outgroup members’ anxious behaviours (e.g., inconsistent gaze) as unfriendly, while they interpret in-group members’ anxious behaviours as mere anxiety. In addition, West et al. (2009) conducted a diary study involving college roommates, and found that the roommate’s anxiety was an important predictor of self-anxiety over time for both White and African American students in mixed-ethnic (but not in same-ethnic) dyads. Similarly, Pearson et al.’s (2008) work revealed that the perceived partner’s anxiety predicted the quality of the contact in interethnic (but not in same-ethnic) relations. The aforementioned outcomes could be further exacerbated by individuals’ perceptions of discrimination. Perceived and existing intergroup prejudice leads ethnic minority members to be particularly afraid of being the target of discrimination, with obvious consequences on intergroup contact. A growing body of research reveals that concerns about encountering prejudice negatively inﬂuence emotional and behavioural responses during interethnic interactions (Shelton, Richeson, & Salvatore, 2005), and undermine the beneﬁts of intergroup contact (Tropp, 2007). Furthermore, a number of studies indicated that expectations of being treated with prejudice negatively predict the intentions to engage in future contact (Doerr, Plant, Kunstman, & Buck, 2011; Mendoza-Denton et al., 2002), and that prior negative experiences of discrimination, even with just one outgroup member, enhance the minority members’ feelings of anxiety and lead them to want to avoid intergroup contact (Tropp, 2003). This research aims to extendand integrate previous works in two ways: (1) byexamining how, within a pre-interaction situation, anticipating that an unknown outgroup partner is anxious may affect the intentions to avoid future contact; (2) by shedding new light on the psychological mechanism underlying such effects. As said, partner’s anxiety has proven an important predictor of self-anxiety (West et al., 2009), and self-anxiety increases people’s intentions to avoid the contact (e.g., Plant & Devine, 2003; Tropp, 2003). Therefore, we Partner’s anxiety and perceived ethnic discrimination 3 hypothesize that expecting to interact with an anxious majority partner would increase minority members’ anxiety and, in turn, their desire to disengage from the contact even before it begins. However, we expect these effects to be stronger for individuals with higher perceptions of discrimination. As suggested by West et al. (2009), in an interethnic context people may more readily attribute manifestations of partner’s anxiety to prejudice and discomfort for the interaction. Although such a misattribution might occur for both majority and minority members, it is plausible to suppose that this is especially true for the latter, because they are particularly concerned of being discriminated (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Mendoza-Denton et al., 2002). Discrimination is a psychological stressor (Contrada et al., 2000), and ethnic minority members with higher perceptions of discrimination hold accentuated anxious expectations that future ethnic-based discrimination will occur (Feldman Barrett & Swim, 1998). In coherence with motivational theory of emotion (Lang, 1995), such anxious expectations lower the threshold for perceiving discrimination and prepare such minority members to react more intensely, both affectively and behaviourally. Thus, we argue that in a pre-interaction situation with potential cues of prejudice (i.e., partner’s anxiety) minority members with higher (vs. lower) perceptions of being discriminated against would react more intensively, namely, they would feel more anxiety. In other words, we predict that the mediational effect of self-anxiety would be moderated by individual differences in perceptions of discrimination. Crucially, in line with previous works (Pearson et al., 2008; West et al., 2009), we expect these effects to occur only when the partner is an outgroup (vs. in-group) member.

Method Preliminary study A preliminary study was carried out to establish the link between anticipated partner’s anxiety and minorities’ attributions of prejudice in the Italian context. The study involved 20 Albanians (i.e., the ethnic minority group) and 24 Italian high school students. Participants were presented with a scenario in which they were asked to imagine a future interaction with an outgroup partner who displayed anxiety and nervousness for the upcoming encounter. Afterwards, participants undertook an open-ended questioning session to explain why their partner was anxious. Five ruled lines were provided for responses. Next, three independent judges (blind to the study’s purpose) were asked to rate the extent to which each response indicated that the partner’s anxiety was interpreted by participants as prejudice on a 5-point scale, from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). As expected, Albanians’ responses (M=4.10) were judged as more related to prejudice issues than were Italians’ responses (M = 3.50), t(59) = 2.90, p = .005, d=0.81. These results suggest that minority group members interpreted the outgroup member’s anxiety as a sign of prejudice against them (e.g., He/she does not like Albanians) more than Italian majority members (e.g., He/she does not speak my language ﬂuently).

Main study Participants and design High-school students (N=118; 52 female students, between 14 and 20 years old, Mage = 17.25, SD = 1.44), belonging to different ethnic minority groups, voluntarily participated in the study. Participants (either ﬁrst or second generation) came from Eastern Europe (47%), Africa (27.4%), South America (18%), and Asia (7.6%). For under- 4 Luca Andrighetto et al. aged students, parents were asked to sign the consent form and return it to the school. A 2 (Anticipated partner’s anxiety: primed vs. not primed) 9 2 (Partner’s ethnicity: in-group vs. outgroup) between-subjects design was used, with participants randomly assigned to experimental conditions.

Procedure During the school day, participants were asked to complete a two-part questionnaire in their classrooms. The study was presented as a research concerning social relationships. In the ﬁrst part, participants provided some demographic information and completed the PED measure (PEDQ-CV, Brondolo et al., 2005; Contrada et al., 2001). In the second part, participants read a brief scenario, in which they were asked to imagine a future collaboration with an unknown student of their same age and gender. To manipulate the partner’s ethnicity, participants read that either their interaction partner belonged to the in-group (in-group partner’s ethnicity condition) or to the Italian outgroup (outgroup partner’s ethnicity condition). The partner’s anxiety for the upcoming interaction was manipulated by making or not making (primed vs. not primed) explicit reference to the partner’s affective state. The scenario for ethnic minority participants expecting to interact with an anxious outgroup member follows:

‘Imagine that you have been selected to participate in a program involving other students from different high schools of your own town. You have been assigned to collaborate with an Italian student of your own age and gender. This Italian student says that he [she] feels anxious, nervous and uncomfortable for the upcoming collaboration.’

After the scenario, all participants completed a manipulation-check item, and measures of self-anxiety and intentions to avoid the contact. Then, they were fully debriefed and thanked.

Measures Perceived ethnic discrimination A brief (16-item) version of the PED scale (PEDQ-CV; Brondolo et al., 2005) adapted to the Italian context, measured the respondents’ perceived exposure to ethnic discrimination.1 The scale included items such as (Because of my ethnicity) ‘my Italian classmates are nice to my face, but say bad things behind my back’; ‘my Italian classmates hint that I am dishonest’. Responses were made on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (very often). The 16 items were averaged in a reliable scale (a = .78; M = 1.64; SD = 0.58).

Manipulation check To check the manipulation of partner’s anxiety, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which their ﬁctitious partner felt anxious for the upcoming interaction. The response was made on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).

1 The PED scale is a versatile tool, ideal for assessing a variety of everyday experiences of perceived discrimination in high-school samples of any ethnic background (Contrada et al., 2001). In fact, the PED items are particularly easy to comprehend, and thus appropriate to our sample. One item (assessing exposure to discrimination from the police) of the brief version of the PED scale (PEDQ-CV; Brondolo et al., 2005) used for this study was excluded because it was not pertinent to the study’s context. Partner’s anxiety and perceived ethnic discrimination 5

Self-anxiety Three items (adapted from Plant & Devine, 2003) measured the extent to which participants expected to feel anxious during the interaction with the partner (e.g., ‘I would feel awkward when interacting with this person’). Participants responded to the items on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). The three items formed a reliable scale (a = .82; M = 2.96; SD = 1.27).

Contact avoidance Four items (adapted from Plant & Devine, 2003) measured participants’ intentions to avoid the upcoming interaction (e.g., ‘If I had a choice, I would rather not interact with this person’). Participants were asked to respond on a 7-point scale, from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). The four items were averaged in a reliable scale (a = .82; M = 2.73; SD = 1.29).

Results Preliminary analyses To test the efficacy of our manipulation, a 2 (Anticipated partner’s anxiety: primed vs. not primed) 9 2 (Partner’s ethnicity: in-group vs. outgroup) ANOVA was run on participants’ evaluations of the partner’s anxiety. As expected, results revealed an anticipated partner’s anxiety main effect, with participants in the primed condition perceiving their partner as more anxious (M = 5.47, SD = 0.18) than those in the not primed condition (M = 2.72, SD = 0.17), F (1, 114) = 128.2, p < .001, x2 = .51. Unexpectedly, the main effect of partner’s ethnicity was also significant: Participants assigned to interact with an in-group partner perceived him/her as more anxious (M = 4.39, SD = 0.18) than those assigned to interact with an Italian partner (M = 3.80, SD = 0.17), F (1, 114) = 5.88, p = .02, x2 = .02. However, the interaction Partner’s ethnicity 9 Anticipated partner’s anxiety was not significant, F (1, 114) = 0.43, p = .51.

Moderated mediation analyses To test the hypotheses that (1) self-anxiety mediates the effect of anticipated partner’s anxiety on increased intentions to avoid the contact and that (2) the effects of anticipated partner’s anxiety on self-anxiety are moderated by both partner’s ethnicity and PED, we conducted moderated mediation analyses following the approach suggested by MacK- innon (2008; see also Fairchild & MacKinnon, 2009). The conceptual framework of the proposed model is shown in Figure 1. Prior to performing the analyses, anticipated partner’s anxiety ( 1 = not primed; 1 = primed) and partner’s ethnicity ( 1 = in-group;1= outgroup) wereÀ effect coded, whereas PED2 and self-anxiety scoresÀ were centred at their means (Aiken & West, 1991). As suggested by Fairchild and MacKinnon (2009), we tested three different models to simultaneously estimate mediation and moderation, and to investigate how the effects work together. The tested regression models are reported in Table 1.

2 To reduce the highly skewed distribution (skewness = 1.45) of PED scores, we performed a reciprocal transformation that resulted in the reduction in the skewness distribution (skewness = .09). 6 Luca Andrighetto et al.

Perceived ethnic discrimination × Partners ethnicity

Self-anxiety

Anticipated Contact partners anxiety avoidance

Figure 1. Theoretical moderated mediation model.

The model measuring the direct effects on contact avoidance (see Model 1 in Table 1) showed that partner’s ethnicity (b = 0.27, p = .016), anticipated partner’s anxiety (b = 0.24, p = .033) and PED (b = 1.39, p = .021) positively predicted contact avoidance. In contrast, all the two-way interactions (bs < 1, ps > .09) and the three-way interaction Anticipated partner’s anxiety 9 Partner’s ethnicity 9 PED (b = 0.57 p = .335) yielded no significant effects. The moderated path (i.e., from anticipated partner’s anxiety to self-anxiety; see Model 2 in Table 1) showed that partner’s ethnicity (b = 0.27, p = .011), anticipated partner’s anxiety (b = .35, p = .001) and PED (b = 1.55, p = .007) led to increased self-anxiety. However, as hypothesized, the main effects were qualified by the three-way interaction, Anticipated partner’s anxiety 9 Partner’s ethnicity 9 PED (b = 1.07 p = .061). By using the R package pequod (Mirisola & Seta, 2011), we analysed the four simple slopes (Aiken & West, 1991) obtained by combining higher versus lower levels of PED ( 1 SD from the PED mean) and outgroup versus in-group partner’s ethnicity conditions.Æ As expected, simple slope analyses revealed that, among participants with higher levels of PED, expecting to interact with an anxious outgroup partner increased self-anxiety for the upcoming interaction (b = 0.77, t(109) = 3.94, p < .001; see Figure 2). On the contrary, the relationship between outgroup partner’s anxiety and self-anxiety was non-significant for those with lower levels of PED (b = 0.24, t(109) = 1.17, p = .24). Relevantly, anticipated partner’s anxiety did not predict self-anxiety when the anxious partner was an in-group member, regardless of the levels of PED (higher: b = 0.05, t(109) = .21, p = .83; lower: b = 0.34, t(109) = 1.55, p = .12). In Model 3 (see Table 1), contact avoidance was regressed on partner’s anxiety, partner’s ethnicity, self-anxiety, and all their interaction terms. Crucially, in this model self-anxiety increased contact avoidance (b = 0.62, p < .001), whereas anticipated partner’s anxiety did not (b = .04, p = .671). Moreover, no interaction terms moderated the effect of self-anxiety on contact avoidance (b < |.77|, p > .110). Interestingly, partner’s ethnicity moderated the effect of PED on contact avoidance (b = 1.61, p = .009). Simple slopes analysis revealed that PED heightened the desire to avoid the contact in the outgroup (b = 1.67, t(102) = 2.17, p = .032), but not in the in- group condition (b = 0.94, t(102) = 1.14, p = .256). Following the MacKinnonÀ and colleagues’À (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002) approach, we estimated the indirect effects of our moderated mediation model through the R mediation package (Tofighi & MacKinnon, 2011). In particular, we Partner’s anxiety and perceived ethnic discrimination 7

Table 1. The conditional indirect effect of anticipated partner’s anxiety on contact avoidance when self- anxiety is the mediator, perceived ethnic discrimination and partner’s ethnicity are the moderators

Two- b SE b tailed p Model R2 Model 1: Dependent variable (contact avoidance) model, without mediator Intercept 2.69 .11 .000 Partner’s ethnicity 0.27 .11 .21 .016 Anticipated partner’s anxiety 0.24 .11 .18 .033 Perceived ethnic discrimination (PED) 1.39 .59 .21 .021 Anticipated partner’s anxiety 9 Partner’s ethnicity 0.17 .11 .13 .122 Partner’s ethnicity 9 PED 0.99 .59 .15 .094 Anticipated partner’s anxiety 9 PED 0.45 .59 .07 .445 Anticipated partner’s anxiety 9 Partner’s 0.57 .59 .08 .335 .21*** ethnicity 9 PED Model 2: Mediator (self-anxiety) model Intercept 0.04 .10 .725 Partner’s ethnicityÀ 0.27 .10 .21 .011 Anticipated partner’s anxiety 0.35 .10 .28 .001 Perceived ethnic discrimination (PED) 1.55 .57 .23 .007 Anticipated partner’s anxiety 9 Partner’s ethnicity 0.15 .10 .12 .143 Partner’s ethnicity 9 PED 0.08 .57 .01 .885 Anticipated partner’s anxiety 9 PED 0.31 .57 .05 .581 Anticipated partner’s anxiety 9 Partner’s ethnicity 9 PED 1.07 .57 .16 .061 .25*** Model 3: Dependent variable (contact avoidance) full model Intercept 2.82 .11 .000 Partner’s ethnicity 0.12 .11 .09 .270 Anticipated partner’s anxiety 0.04 .11 .03 .671 Perceived ethnic discrimination (PED) 0.34 .61 .05 .577 Self-anxiety 0.62 .08 .61 .000 Anticipated partner’s anxiety 9 Partner’s ethnicity 0.19 .11 .15 .074 Partner’s ethnicity 9 PED 1.61 .61 .24 .009 Anticipated partner’s anxiety 9 PED 1.04 .61 .15 .089 Partner’s ethnicity 9 Self-anxiety 0.12 .08 .12 .141 Anticipated partner’s anxiety 9 Self-anxiety À0.06 .08 À.05 .498 PED 9 Self-anxiety À0.77 .48 À.14 .111 Anticipated partner’s anxiety 9 Partner’s ethnicity 9 PEDÀ 0.03 .61À .01 .955 Anticipated partner’s anxiety 9 Partner’s 0.02 .08 .02 .818 ethnicity 9 Self-anxiety Partner’s ethnicity 9 PED 9 Self-anxiety 0.15 .48 .03 .752 Anticipated partner’s anxiety 9 PED 9 Self-anxietyÀ 0.31 .48À .06 .521 Anticipated partner’s anxiety 9 Partner’s 0.46 .48 .09 .336 .52*** ethnicity 9 PED 9 Self-anxiety À À

Note. b = unstandardized beta weight; SE = standard error; b = standardized beta weight; p-value. ***p < .001. computed the confidence interval (distribution of the product method) concerning the product between the three-way interaction coefficient (Partner’s anxiety 9 Partner’s ethnicity 9 PED) of Model 2 and the self-anxiety coefficient of Model 3. Both PED and partner’s ethnicity moderated the mediation of self-anxiety (94.1% CI: 0.003, 1.327): In 8 Luca Andrighetto et al.

Figure 2. Interactive effects of anticipated partner’s anxiety, partner’s ethnicity, and perceived ethnic discrimination on self-anxiety. the outgroup condition, the indirect effect of partner’s anxiety on contact avoidance was signiﬁcant for participants with higher levels of PED (99% CI: 0.919, 0.146), whereas it was not for participants with lower levels of PED (95% CI: 0.433,À 0.095).À Instead, in the in-group condition no signiﬁcant indirect effects emerged,À for both those with higher (95% CI: 0.338, 0.244) and lower (95% CI: 0.523, 0.052) levels of PED. À À

Discussion The results reveal that when minority group members expect to interact with an anxious majority partner, their own anxiety increases. In turn, this heightened self-anxiety mediates the effect of the anticipated partner’s anxiety on minority members’ intentions Partner’s anxiety and perceived ethnic discrimination 9 to avoid future contact. However, such a pattern occurs only for those who have higher perceptions of being discriminated against because of their ethnicity. As expected, this mechanism does not take place when the partner is an in-group member, because in intra-group situations the partner’s anxiety is more likely perceived as reflecting something external to the interpersonal relationship (see West et al., 2009). Our findings extend and integrate the burgeoning literature on intergroup contact avoidance in several ways. First, they provide further support for the contention that the partner’s anxiety negatively affects intergroup interactions. Second, to our knowledge, this is the first contribution that shows how the mere expectation of interacting with an anxious outgroup partner may induce individuals to withdraw from the interaction, even before it begins. We believe that it is of primary importance to investigate ethnic minorities’ perceptions of outgroup partners’ anxiety within pre-interaction contexts. The minority members’ chronic focus on outgroup members’ behaviours (Shelton & Richeson, 2006; Trawalter, Richeson, & Shelton, 2009), together with perceptions of discrimination (Mendoza-Denton et al., 2002; Pinel, 1999), may lead minority members to anticipate their partners’ anxiety. Third, this work sheds new light on the cognitive biases that influence minorities’ attributions of and reactions to outgroup members’ anxiety. In an extension of previous research on intergroup misunderstandings in emotion communication (see Hess, Adams, & Kleck, 2009), our findings show that the interpretation and the consequent reactions to outgroup members’ emotions are filtered through the lenses of specific concerns that group members bring to the interaction. The results also deepen previous investigations by uncovering a mediating mechanism that drives the detrimental consequences of outgroup partners’ anxiety on intergroup contact. Our moderated mediation analysis shows that the heightened self-anxiety explains the relationship between the outgroup partner’s anxiety and the increased people’s desire to disengage from intergroup contact. Finally, our work contributes to the literature with respect to the dynamics of anticipated intergroup interactions by considering a novel interethnic interaction (i.e., ethnic minority and Italian adolescents). Because opportunities for interethnic encounters are constantly increasing in most Western societies, going beyond the extensively examined relationship between Whites and African Americans in the United States seems particularly relevant. There are a few noteworthy limitations to this work that could be addressed through future research. First, it is plausible that additional psychological mechanisms may be involved in the relationship between partners’ anxiety and intergroup contact avoidance. For instance, expecting the interaction partner to be prejudiced could also play a mediating role. Furthermore, the tested process may plausibly operate in the reverse direction, namely, self-anxiety projected onto anticipated outgroup partner’s anxiety, prompting contact avoidance. Thus, further research is needed to verify the possibility of other mediating mechanisms and/or reciprocal processes. Second, our participants were minority high-school students who were examined within an educational context. Although there is no reason to expect that the processes illustrated above should operate differently in other contexts, it is noteworthy that in our sample the mean level of perceived discrimination was low. Therefore, future research should extend these findings by considering other populations in other contexts (e.g., adults in working environments), where the perceived and actual discrimination could potentially be higher. Third, although it is a reasonable first step to use a scenario methodology, more realistic interethnic settings are required for further validations of our results. Notably, however, the key benefit of adopting such an approach is that we were able to hold the 10 Luca Andrighetto et al. nature of the overture constant (see Vorauer, Cameron, Holmes, & Pearce, 2003), so that the impact of the anticipated partner’s anxiety could be precisely assessed. Moreover, we found significant effects by simply asking participants to imagine a fictitious situation; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a similar or stronger pattern would emerge in realistic settings. Finally, for a complete analysis of the impact of partners’ anxiety on the initiation of interethnic relations, it would be crucial to examine the perspective of both majority and minority groups (Devine, Evett, & Vasquez-Suson, 1996; Shelton, 2000). In fact, a similar pattern of effects could also occur for majority members. However, in addition to perceptions of being discriminated against, different psychological mechanisms may affect the majority members’ interpretation of outgroup partners’ anxiety, such as concerns of appearing prejudiced (Shelton, West, & Trail, 2010; Vorauer, Main, & O’Connell, 1998).

Conclusion Despite the increasing ethnic diversity in most domains of everyday life (e.g., school, work) and the numerous initiatives to promote integration, people in general tend to avoid contact with outgroup members (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; Mallett et al., 2008). This study broadens the investigation on the psychosocial processes that move people away from intergroup encounters. It suggests a compelling need to develop educational interventions to promote interethnic encounters. As noted, the partner’s anxiety may be misattributed, perceived as unfriendliness, and ultimately received as a sign of prejudice. All this negatively affects minorities’ intentions to engage in intergroup contact. Therefore, it is of primary importance to promote interventions that assist in changing people’s attributions of their outgroup partner’s anxiety (see Richeson & Trawalter, 2005), which may increase interest in intergroup contact, especially in younger generations.

References Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identiﬁcation and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135–149. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.135 Brondolo, E., Kelly, K. P., Coakley, V., Gordon, T., Thompson, S., Levy, E.,… Contrada, R. J. (2005). The perceived ethnic discrimination questionnaire: Development and preliminary validation of a community version. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 335–365. doi:10.1111/j.1559- 1816.2005.tb02124.x Contrada, R. J., Ashmore, R. D., Gary, M. L., Coups, E., Egeth, J. D., Sewell, A.,… Chasse, V. (2000). Ethnicity-related sources of stress and their effects on well- being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 136–139. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00078 Contrada, R. J., Ashmore, R. D., Gary, M. L., Coups, E., Egeth, J. D., Sewell, A.,… Chasse, V. (2001). Measures of ethnicity-related stress: Psychometric properties, ethnic group differences, and associations with well-being. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1775–1820. doi:10. 1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb00205.x Devine, P. G., Evett, S. R., & Vasquez-Suson, K. A. (1996). Exploring the interpersonal dynamics of intergroup contact. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (pp. 423–464). New York, NY: Guilford. Partner’s anxiety and perceived ethnic discrimination 11

Doerr, C., Plant, E. A., Kunstman, J., & Buck, D. (2011). Interactions in Black and White: Racial differences and similarities in response to interracial interactions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14, 31–43. doi:10.1177/1368430210375250 Dovidio, J. F., West, T. V., Pearson, A. R., Gaertner, S. L., & Kawakami, K. (2007, October). Racial prejudice and interracial interaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Experimental Social Psychology, Chicago, IL. Fairchild, A. J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2009) A general model for testing mediation and moderation effects. Prevention Science, 10, 87–99. doi:10.1007/s11121-008-0109-6 Feldman Barrett, L., & Swim, J. K. (1998). Appraisals of prejudice and discrimination. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 11–36). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61–89). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Graham, S. (1992). “Most of the subjects were White and middle class”: Trends in published research on African Americans in selected APA journals, 1970-1989. American Psychologist, 47, 629– 639. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.47.5.629 Hess, U., Adams, R. B. Jr, & Kleck, R. E. (2009). Intergroup misunderstandings in emotion communication. In S. Demoulin, J.- Ph. Leyens & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 85–100). London, UK: Psychology Press. Johnson, J. D., & Lecci, L. (2003). Assessing anti-White attitudes and predicting perceived racism: The Johnson–Lecci scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 299–312. doi:10.1177/0146167202250041 Lang, P. J. (1995). The emotion probe: Studies of motivation and attention. American Psychologist, 50, 372–385. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.5.372 MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York, NY: Erlbaum. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83 Mallett, R. K., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2008). Expect the unexpected: Failure to anticipate similarities leads to an intergroup forecasting error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 265–277. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.94.2.265 Mendoza-Denton, R., Downey, G., Purdie, V. J., Davis, A., & Pietrzak, J. (2002). Sensitivity to status- based rejection: Implications for African American students’ college experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 896–918. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.896 Mirisola, A., & Seta, L. (2011). Pequod: Moderated regression package. R package version 0.0-2. Retrived from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pequod Pearson, A. R., West, T. V., Dovidio, J. F., Powers, S. R., Buck, R., & Henning, R. (2008). The fragility of intergroup relations: Divergent effects of delayed audiovisual feedback in intergroup and intragroup interaction. Psychological Science, 19, 1272–1279. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008. 02236.x Pinel, E. C. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 114–128. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.114 Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (2003). The antecedents and implications of interracial anxiety. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 790–801. doi:10.1177/0146167203029006011 Richeson, J. A., & Trawalter, S. (2005). Why do interracial interactions impair executive function? A resource depletion account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 934–947. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.934 Shelton, J. N. (2000). A reconceptualization of how we study issues of racial prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 374–390. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0404_6 Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2005). Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 91–107. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.91 12 Luca Andrighetto et al.

Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2006). Interracial interactions: A relational approach. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 121–181. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38003-3 Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., & Salvatore, J. (2005). Expecting to be the target of prejudice: Implications for interethnic interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1189–1202. doi:10.1177/0146167205274894 Shelton, J. N., West, T. V., & Trail, T. E. (2010). Concerns with appearing prejudiced: Implications for anxiety during daily interracial interactions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13, 329–344. doi:10.1177/0146167205274894 Stanley, F. (2008). On belonging in/to Italy and Europe: Citizenship, race, and the “immigration problem”. In D. Reed-Danahay & C. Brettell (Eds.), Citizenship, political engagement, and belonging (pp. 43–60). Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–175. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01134.x Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–46). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Swim, J., Hyers, L., Cohen, L., Fitzgerald, D., & Bylsma, W. (2003). African American college students’ experiences with everyday racism: Characteristics of and responses to these incidents. Journal of Black Psychology, 29, 38–67. doi:10.1177/0095798402239228 Swim, J. K., & Stangor, C. (Eds.) (1998). Prejudice: The target’s perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 692–700. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0076-x Trawalter, S., Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2009). Predicting behavior during interracial interactions: A stress and coping approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 243–268. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0076-x Tropp, L. R. (2003). The psychological impact of prejudice: Implications for intergroup contact. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 131–149. doi:10.1177/1368430203006002001 Tropp, L. R. (2007). Perceived discrimination and interracial contact: Predicting interracial closeness among Black and White Americans. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70, 70–81. doi:10. 1177/1368430203006002001 Vorauer, J. D., Cameron, J. J., Holmes, J. G., & Pearce, D. G. (2003). Invisible overtures: Fears of rejection and the signal amplification bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 793–812. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.793 Vorauer, J. D., Main, K. J., & O’Connell, G. B. (1998). How do individuals expect to be viewed by members of low status groups? Content and implications of meta-stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 917–937. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.917 West, T. V., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). Intergroup contact across time: Beyond initial contact. In G. Hodson & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Advances in intergroup contact (pp. 152-175). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. West, T. V., Shelton, J. N., & Trail, T. E. (2009). Relational anxiety and interracial interactions. Psychological Science, 20, 289–292. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02289.x

Received 3 June 2012; revised version received 29 April 2013