Social Psychology Quarterly 2015, Vol. 78(2) 127–150 Understanding the Ó American Sociological Association 2015 DOI: 10.1177/0190272514565252 Selection Bias: Social http://spq.sagepub.com Network Processes and the Effect of Prejudice on the Avoidance of Outgroup Friends Tobias H. Stark1,2 Abstract Research has found that prejudiced people avoid friendships with members of ethnic out- groups. Results of this study suggest that this effect is mediated by a social network process. Longitudinal network analysis of a three-wave panel study of 12- to 13-year-olds (N = 453) found that more prejudiced majority group members formed fewer intergroup friendships than less prejudiced majority group members. This was caused indirectly by the preference to become friends of one’s friends’ friends (triadic closure). More prejudiced majority members did not have a preference for actively avoiding minority group members. Rather, they had the tendency to avoid friends who already had minority group friends and thus could not be intro- duced to potential minority group friends. Instead they became friends with the majority group friends of their friends. This research shows how a social networks perspective can fur- ther our understanding of the processes underlying intergroup contact. Keywords social networks, friendships, dynamic processes, intergroup contact, prejudice Research has established that intergroup outgroup (Pettigrew et al. 2011). This contact and particularly intergroup selection bias leads to a vicious circle: friendships reduce prejudice toward other intergroup friendships reduce prejudice racial or ethnic groups (Davies et al. 2011; most effectively (Hodson 2011; Paluck Pettigrew and Tropp 2006). It also has and Green 2009), but prejudice prevents been demonstrated that prejudiced people the development of intergroup friend- avoid outgroup friends (Binder et al. ships (Hewstone and Swart 2011). 2009; Eller and Abrams 2003; Levin, van Laar, and Sidanius 2003; Sidanius et al. 1Utrecht University/ICS, the Netherlands 2008). Those who already have more pos- 2Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA itive attitudes toward the outgroup form Corresponding Author: intergroup friendships, while those with Tobias Stark, ERCOMER, Utrecht University, less positive attitudes toward the out- Padualaan 14, CH Utrecht 3584, the Netherlands. group tend to avoid members of the Email: [email protected] Downloaded from spq.sagepub.com at ASA - American Sociological Association on June 4, 2015 128 Social Psychology Quarterly 78(2) Most previous research had an individ- The present research goes beyond the ualistic theoretical perspective and con- existing empirical and theoretical sidered friendships as being the result of approaches by testing whether such net- individual attitudes and preferences. work processes are involved in intergroup The development of intergroup friend- friendship dynamics. ships was examined as if friendships are independent from each other. However, Intergroup Contact and the Question friendships develop within larger social of Causality networks (Pettigrew et al. 2007). With whom we become friends is not only based Decades of research on the contact on individual characteristics (e.g., ethnic- hypothesis (Allport 1954) has established ity or prejudice) but is partly the result of evidence for a correlation between more who approaches us and to whom we are intergroup contact and less prejudice. introduced by others (Goodreau, Kitts, Yet, contact with outgroup members and Morris 2009; Wimmer and Lewis might reduce prejudice and less preju- 2010). Friendships form because people diced people might also engage more tend to return friendship invitations (rec- readily in intergroup contact. In recent iprocity) and we are likely to become years, longitudinal studies have started friends with the friends of our friends (tri- to examine these causal processes. All of adic closure; see Cartwright and Harary these studies found that intergroup con- 1956; Wasserman and Faust 1994). Ignor- tact, particularly in the form of inter- ing network processes such as reciprocity group friendships, reduces prejudice and and triadic closure in the formation of thus confirmed the main premises of the social networks, and thus the develop- contact hypothesis (e.g., Brown et al. ment of intergroup friendships, may let 2007; Feddes, Noack, and Rutland 2009). researchers wrongly attribute friendship Less consistent are the findings about formation to individual preferences (Wim- the selection bias, the reversed causal mer and Lewis 2010). process from prejudice to less contact In contrast to previous interpretations over time. Some studies using relatively of the selection bias (e.g., Binder et al. small samples (N \ 110) found that con- 2009; Pettigrew et al. 2011; Sidanius et tact reduces prejudice and that prejudice al. 2008), more prejudiced people may has no effect on contact (Brown et al. not actively avoid outgroup friends just 2007; Feddes et al. 2009; Vezzali, Giovan- as less prejudiced people may not actively nini, and Capozza 2010). In contrast, approach outgroup friends. Rather, more research with larger samples found prejudiced individuals may not receive effects in both directions. For instance, friendship invitations from outgroup among a sample of over 2,000 U.S. college members, which they could reciprocate. students, having outgroup friends or Alternatively, more prejudiced individu- roommates from other racial groups als may select themselves into network reduced prejudice, but prejudice also positions where they have fewer opportu- was associated with fewer friends from nities to establish intergroup friendships. other racial groups a year later (Levin et In contrast, less prejudiced people may al. 2003; Sidanius et al. 2008). Further- form intergroup friendships because more, in a sample of 465 minority group they receive friendship invitations from high school students in South Africa, outgroup members or because they select intergroup anxiety led to fewer cross- themselves into network clusters where group friendships (Swart et al. 2011). they are introduced to outgroup members. There was, however, no effect of another Downloaded from spq.sagepub.com at ASA - American Sociological Association on June 4, 2015 Selection Bias in Social Networks 129 measure of outgroup attitudes on subse- Hewstone 2011) or simply because these quent contact. Additionally, a study with ingroup members can introduce a person 1,655 school students in 3 European coun- to outgroup members. In contrast, indi- tries found that effects from prejudice to viduals might be discouraged from seek- contact were either as strong as the ing intergroup contact if none of their effects from contact to prejudice or even ingroup friends have contact with out- stronger (Binder et al. 2009). Since stud- group members. Furthermore, driven by ies with larger samples and thus more their attitudes toward the outgroup, statistical power have produced evidence some people may decide to join or avoid for the contact effect and the selection friendship cliques that already involve bias, I expect: outgroup members, making it subse- quently easier or more difficult to estab- Hypothesis 1: Having more outgroup lish actual intergroup contact. friends reduces prejudice toward the Ignoring such social network processes outgroup (contact effect). may lead to inadequate theoretical con- Hypothesis 2: More prejudiced individu- clusions. For instance, friendships that als tend to select fewer outgroup mem- actually form within an ethnic group in bers as friends than less prejudiced response to friendship invitations (reci- individuals (selection bias). procity) or because people have a friend in common (triadic closure) can be A Social Network Perspective wrongly attributed to individual prefer- Social psychological research on the con- ence for ingroup friends (ethnic homo- tact hypothesis predominantly focuses phily) if such network processes are over- on individual attitudes and preferences: looked (Wimmer and Lewis 2010). Outgroup contact, particularly in the Likewise, the tendency of more prejudiced form of a friendship, affects an individu- individuals to avoid friends from other al’s attitude and an individual’s prejudi- ethnic groups may be weaker than previ- cial attitude is responsible for not having ously assumed. More prejudiced individu- outgroup friendships. Friendships, how- als may receive fewer friendship invita- ever, require at least two individuals: tions from outgroup members that the ability of one person to develop an they can reciprocate and they may not intergroup friendship depends on the have friends who can introduce them willingness of an outgroup member to to outgroup members. Although contact reciprocate this contact. research has seen important theore- A social network perspective allows tical and methodological improvements examining such dyadic processes and (Christ and Wagner 2013), cross-lagged also theoretical considerations that go models that have been used in research beyond two persons. Real-life contact on the selection bias have not adequately between two individuals does not take considered these network processes in the place in a social vacuum but in social set- formation of intergroup friendships (Steg- tings that involve other people (Pettigrew lich, Snijders, and Pearson 2010). 2008; Pettigrew et al. 2007). Ingroup members may have already established contact with outgroup members, and Reciprocity as Mediator this might facilitate