Contact, Perspective Taking, and Anxiety As Predictors of Stereotype Endorsement, Explicit Attitudes, and Implicit Attitudes Christopher L
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Contact, Perspective Taking, and Anxiety as Predictors of Stereotype Endorsement, Explicit Attitudes, and Implicit Attitudes Christopher L. Aberson, Sarah C. Haag To cite this version: Christopher L. Aberson, Sarah C. Haag. Contact, Perspective Taking, and Anxiety as Predictors of Stereotype Endorsement, Explicit Attitudes, and Implicit Attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, SAGE Publications, 2007, 10 (2), pp.179-201. 10.1177/1368430207074726. hal-00571645 HAL Id: hal-00571645 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00571645 Submitted on 1 Mar 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2007 Vol 10(2) 179–201 Contact, Perspective Taking, and Anxiety as Predictors of Stereotype Endorsement, Explicit Attitudes, and Implicit Attitudes Christopher L. Aberson Humboldt State University Sarah C. Haag University of Iowa We proposed a model of intergroup contact wherein contact promotes understanding of outgroup perspectives, perspective taking relates to reduced intergroup anxiety that in turn is associated with lessened stereotyping and more positive intergroup attitudes. Additionally, we examined if implicit attitudes followed this model or were directly impacted by contact. White undergraduates (n = 153) completed measures of contact, perspective taking, intergroup anxiety, stereotype endorsement, and implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. Our model fi tted the data well but explained explicit attitudes and stereotyping better than implicit attitudes. Supporting an environmental association interpretation, contact was the only signifi cant predictor of implicit attitudes. Findings support a dual-process model wherein implicit and explicit attitudes represent separate constructs and support the value of contact in improving intergroup attitudes. keywords contact, evaluative associations, explicit attitudes, implicit attitudes Intergroup prejudice is a well-established We propose a model wherein intergroup phenomenon. Put simply, individuals tend to attitudes are impacted by a three-stage process. evaluate members of other groups (e.g. ethnic, Figure 1 presents the general model and Figure racial, religious groups) less favorably than mem- 2 extends this model by presenting competing bers of their own groups. Several theories address predictions regarding implicit and explicit factors that reduce prejudice. The current study attitudes. The initial stage is contact. Contact applies aspects of intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998), integrated threat Author’s note theory (W. G. Stephan & Stephan, 2000), and Address correspondence to Chris Aberson, research on perspective taking (e.g. Galinsky & Department of Psychology, Humboldt State Moskowitz, 2000) to an examination of explicit University, Arcata, CA 95521, USA and implicit prejudice. [email: [email protected]] Copyright © 2007 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) 10:2; 179–201; DOI: 10.1177/1368430207074726 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 10(2) experiences relate to improved understanding of more than contact that does not (Pettigrew, the perspectives of outgroup members. Improved 1998). Though contact quality plays an important perspective taking relates to reduced intergroup role in improving intergroup attitudes, even anxiety, which lessens stereotype endorsement when contact conditions are not ideal, contact is and reduces negative intergroup attitudes. As benefi cial to intergroup attitudes. Meta analytic the literature examining the impact of contact, results demonstrate signifi cant, albeit, smaller perspective taking, and anxiety on stereotyping effects for contact that does not meet optimal and explicit attitudes is more abundant, we fi rst conditions (i.e. contact quantity; Pettigrew & discuss these relationships. Next, we address Tropp, 2000). how these variables potentially impact implicit Studies demonstrating the impact of contact attitudes and discuss the implicit/explicit on attitudes are too numerous to review here. attitude distinction. However, a recent investigation informs our approach through examination of the multi- Contact plicative combination (i.e. interaction) of quality and quantity of contact. In this study, Our model, as represented in Figure 1, begins the interaction between contact quality and with intergroup contact. A large body of re- quantity predicted several aspects of attitudes search establishes the benefi ts of intergroup toward an outgroup that the main effects of contact on attitudes toward ethnic minorities quality and quantity could not predict (Voci & and other outgroups. The bulk of this research Hewstone, 2003). The interaction was such that focuses on the relationship between contact the combination of more frequent and better and explicit measures of bias (e.g. social dis- quality contact was related to the most positive tance, affect, stereotype endorsement). A meta- intergroup attitudes. Though the authors did analysis examining over 200 studies provided not specifi cally address the issue, we suggest convincing support for the value of contact, the following hierarchy regarding quality and fi nding moderate to strong relationships be- quantity combinations. We expect that contact tween contact with outgroup members and more that is both high in quantity and high in quality positive attitudes toward the outgroup as well has the most positive impact on intergroup as reduced endorsement of negative outgroup attitudes. Contact that combines high quality stereotypes (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000). and low quantity should also positively impact We conceptualize contact as a distal rather attitudes, though not as strongly as frequent than a proximal predictor of attitudes (e.g. W.G. high quality contact. We expect low quality-low Stephan & Stephan, 2000). A proximal pre- quantity contact to exert a negative impact on dictor directly impacts the construct of interest, attitudes; however, low quality-high quantity whereas a distal predictor’s impact is mediated should promote the least positive attitudes. by proximal variables. As a distal predictor, we Combined with meta analytic results, this suggests propose contact affects attitudes and stereotypes that not only are contact quality and quantity im- about outgroups by infl uencing anxiety and portant individually, but the interaction between perspective taking. them also improves prediction of attitudes. We examine contact in terms of quantity, Throughout this article, we distinguish be- quality, and their interaction. Allport’s (1954) tween contact quantity, contact quality, and their contact hypothesis focused primarily on what we interaction as predictors of variables in our term quality of contact. The contact hypothesis model. However, quantity and quality may not specifi es that contact with outgroup members is be independent. Studies examining both quality benefi cial to attitudes about the outgroup when and quantity of contact demonstrate that more individuals have equal status, common goals, are contact experiences relate to better perceptions of in a cooperative or interdependent setting, and contact quality (Brown, Maras, Masser, Vivian, & have support from authorities. Contact meeting Hewstone, 2001; Voci & Hewstone, 2003). This these conditions improves intergroup attitudes implies that the pairings in the hierarchy above 180 Aberson & Haag contact, perspective taking, and anxiety are not equally likely. Given that high quantity focus of the current study is cognitive empathy, contact relates to better quality perceptions, we discuss studies examining several types of experiencing high quantity and low quality empathy below as many studies incorporate contact in combination may be unlikely. perspective taking in conjunction with other Although the positive impact of contact forms of empathy (e.g. Galinsky & Moskowitz, on attitudes is well documented, there is less 2000) and because perspective taking may lead research examining how contact works. As to emotional empathy (Isen, 1984). shown in Figure 1, we propose that contact At a general level, empathy for outgroup infl uences perspective taking, which in turn members results in improved attitudes toward infl uences intergroup anxiety, and intergroup outgroups (W. G. Stephan & Finlay, 1999). A anxiety influences attitudes and stereotype series of studies demonstrated that participants endorsement. Thus, we propose that contact who empathized with members of stigmatized works by infl uencing mediating variables, and groups such as people with AIDS, the homeless, describe the rationale for this model below. and murderers, demonstrated improved attitudes toward members of the group (Batson et al., 1997). Perspective taking Participants who imagined themselves experi- encing the emotions of an African American One mechanism that we propose to mediate while reading scenarios depicting discrimination contact infl uences on attitudes is the ability to against an African American target demonstrated understand outgroup perspectives.