Conversation Of The Week VI: Experiencing Contact ~ New Understandings

Cultural Diversity Based On: G. W. Allport ~The Nature of Prejudice (1954) Intergroup Contact Theory

Introduction:
Research on the causes of prejudice has been extensive, and though society has traditionally ascribed factors of prejudice to conscious issues of race, gender, and socioeconomic status, more recent views have broadened the concept. Before 1954, the concepts of prejudice and other attitudes were assumed to operate largely in conscious (explicit, deliberate, controllable, intentional) mode (Wittenbrink, 2004). Since 1954, they have generally become viewed as also operating in a less conscious (implicit, spontaneous, uncontrollable, unintentional) mode (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986; Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler, 2000). Along with other researchers, Wittenbrink (2004) observed that, “Some 20 years of research into the processes that underlie attitudinal responses have firmly established that an evaluation can occur spontaneously, without intent, and without control over or even awareness of its occurrence” (Devine, 1989; Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995; Greenwald, Klinger, & Liu, 1989; Perdue & Gurtman, 1990; Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997).

In other words, spontaneous evaluations that lead to prejudgment do not necessitate a dislike for a particular group of people. All it takes, according to Whittenbrink (2004), is the attainment of knowledge as it is perpetuated in the social environment. Similar research has demonstrated that stereotypes and prejudice can be developed about groups with which the individual has had very little or even no direct contact (Maio, Esses, & Bell, 1994). Thus, it appears these more modern views have helped to “demystify an otherwise troublesome concept like prejudice by placing it squarely within the purview of ordinary cognition” (Banaji, Nosek, & Greenwald, 2004, p. 280).

Formation of Perception: In-Groups and Out-Groups
Understanding the formation of human perception was pivotal to Allport’s theory of intergroup contact. As Allport (1954) explained: Group differences are one thing; how we perceive them and think about them is quite another. Nothing that strikes our eyes or ears conveys its message directly to us. We always select and interpret our impressions of the surrounding world….What I sense, what I perceive, and what I think become blended into one single act of cognition. It is important that we never fall into the error of supporting that we perceive group characteristics directly. Perception is more than a simple physical phenomenon; it is a psychic function from which we may draw the most far-going conclusions concerning the inner life (p. 165).

Simply stated, Crisp and Nicel (2004) define the term in-group as “a group to which someone belongs,” and the term out-group as “a group to which someone does not belong” (p. 248). “This difference in affiliation,” they continue, “has profound and robust effects on people's evaluations of members of the different groups. In-groups appear to have an inherent, and automatic, positivity associated with them, whereas out-groups have an inherent negativity. In other words, people appear to think of their own group in positive terms and of the other group in negative terms, at even preconscious levels” (p. 248).

According to Druckman (2003), studies examining the perceptions of in-groups and out-groups have consistently shown just how easy it is to establish an ethnocentric group identity (even with temporary, ad hoc groups) and how difficult it is to extinguish that identity (Tajfel, 1981). Various researchers have shown that when people are placed into arbitrary groups, they allocate more rewards (Allen & Wilder, 1975; Tajfel, 1970) and overestimate the performance (Sherif, 1966) of in-group members and, overall, evaluate other in-group members more favorably (Brewer, 1979; Locksley, Ortiz, & Hepburn, 1980) than out-group members. In-group bias, thus, affects how members perceive the actions of out-groups (Inman & Baron, 1996).

Negative perceptions have been shown to contribute to intergroup anxiety. Intergroup anxiety refers to feelings of threat and uncertainty that people experience in intergroup contexts (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). Such feelings grow out of concerns about how they should act, how they might be perceived, and whether they will be accepted (Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, & Lickel, 2000; Gudykunst, 1985; Mendes, Blascovich, Lickel, & Hunter, 2002; Stephan & Stephan, 1985). If not addressed, repercussions of unresolved anxiety in an intergroup contact situation may potentially escalate to attitudes reflecting prejudice; a process Allport (1954) described as follows. “Ordinarily, the factors leading individuals to form attitudes of prejudice are not piecemeal. Rather, their formation is functionally related to becoming a group member – to adopting the group and its values (norms) as the main anchorage in regulating experience and behavior” (p. 40).

Much of the research on intergroup contact is attributed to the pioneering work of G. W. Allport. Formally introduced in The Nature of Prejudice (1954), Allport’s Intergroup Contact Theory is considered a revolutionary effort in the study of contact as a means of reducing negative group prejudice. Allport (1954) argued that, “Casual contact does not dispel prejudice; it seems more likely to increase it” (p. 263). The reason, he explained, required an examination of the “perceptual situation in a casual contact” (p. 264).

Suppose that on the street or in a store one sees a visible out-group member. By the association of ideas there is likely to come to mind a recollection of rumor, hearsay, tradition, or stereotypes by which this out-group is known. Theoretically, every superficial contact we make with an out-group member could by the “law of frequency,” strengthen the adverse mental associations that we have. What is more, we are sensitized to perceive signs that will confirm our stereotypes. Casual contact, therefore, permits our thinking about out-groups to remain on an autistic level.
We do not effectively communicate with the outsider, nor he, with us (Allport, 1954, p. 264).

Empirical support for Allport’s claim appears strong. Numerous studies have put Allport’s contact hypothesis to the test; the majority of which support Allport’s original premise - that contact between social groups alone is not sufficient to increase respect, lessen prejudice, or promote an appreciation for individual or group differences (Valentine & MacDonald, 2004; Berryman-Fink, 2006). According to Valentine (2008) “The basis of Allport’s argument was that people are uncomfortable with the unknown and so feel anxious about encounters with difference” (p. 324).

To effectively lessen feelings of anxiety and uncertainty between groups, thus requires a planned contact. “It is not the mere fact of contact that is decisive,” Allport (1954) argued, “it is the forms of resulting communication that matter….We must not assume that contact automatically solves the problem of prejudice. At most we can say that it creates a condition where friendly contacts and accurate social perceptions can occur” (p. 272). The four contact conditions Allport posited important for achieving positive communication - institutional support, equal status in the situation, common goals, and intergroup cooperation - have repeatedly been supported in research (Pettigrew, 1998 & 2008). A brief summary of each contact condition is provided below.

Institutional Support:
Allport (1954) contended that “strong and forthright action from ‘higher up’” was important for establishing an organizational attitude that espoused “fair play and equal opportunity” (p. 276-277). He proposed that formal institutional support was instrumental if an impending contact situation was to have a positive influence on the wider groups represented (Slavin, 1985).

Equal Status:
“Oddly enough,” Allport (1954) contended, “when a change is introduced without raising the issue for discussion there is usually no more than a flurry of excitement of short duration. Soon the new policy is accepted as a matter of course. The newcomers are tolerated and respected as soon as their merits as individuals become apparent” (p. 275). In other words, a contact situation endorsed by institutional authorities increases the likelihood that all groups involved accepts and recognizes each other as status equals.

Common Goals:
Allport stated that a contact situation without a clear plan for proceeding would eventually dissolve, and perhaps not before group members experience suspicion, frustration, and distrustful feelings towards each other. “Psychologically,” he wrote, “the error lies in the lack of concretely defined objectives. The focus is unclear. No one can ‘improve [community] relations’ in the abstract” (Allport, 1954, p. 279).

Intergroup Cooperation:
Commonly established goals must then be executed through joint action. According to Allport (1954), “The nub of the matter seems to be that contact must reach below the surface in order to be effective in altering prejudice. Only the type of contact that leads people to do things together is likely to result in changed attitudes. It is the cooperative striving for the goal that engenders solidarity” (p. 276-277).

In his early studies on racial desegregation, Allport (1954) found “particularly interesting…differences in social perception” (p. 271). “Those who have closer contact,” he observed, “perceive less difference than those who are more remote….The shift here is from a fear-sustained perception to one sustained by a friendly point of view” (p. 272). The ability to be in close contact, Allport proposed, provides increased opportunity to form friendly relations.

Though Allport’s original work was largely a response to blatant racial prejudice in a segregated American society, it has since been applied in a variety of settings; broadening its applicability by examining a variety of prejudice, attitude, and contact effects toward a wide range of target groups--the elderly, (Caspi, 1984; Drew, 1988), homosexuals, (Eskilson, 1995; Herek & Capitanio, 1996), the mentally ill, (Desforges, Lord, Ramsey, Mason, & Van Leeuwen, 1991), disabled persons, (Anderson, 1995), victims of AIDS, (Werth & Lord, 1992), and even computer programmers, (McGinnis, 1990). Pettigrew & Tropp’s (2006) meta-analysis of 515 contact studies found intergroup contact to be effective in reducing prejudice across a variety of intergroup situations; and, contexts involving different target groups, age groups, geographical areas, and contact settings. As Wittenbrink (2004) observed, “One of Allport’s lasting contributions to our understanding of human nature is the recognition that prejudiced attitudes are not necessarily the result of a hateful ideology, or that of a limited intellect, or a disordered personality” (p. 306).

Allport’s Four Conditions of Contact:
Allport’s contact hypothesis maintains that bringing groups into contact under favorable conditions is an effective way to reduce intergroup tension, hostility, and prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). According to Valentine (2008), applying Allport’s model to reduce intergroup anxiety “lessens feelings of uncertainty by producing a sense of knowledge or familiarity between strangers which in turn, generates a perception of predictability and control” (p. 324).

Allport emphasized that the relationship between contact, intergroup liking, and evaluation was not a simple process. Additionally, he noted that the “Effect of the contact would depend on the nature of the contact that is established” and “upon the kinds of persons involved (Allport, 1954, p. 262). He also recognized that even in situations having all four contact conditions, not all group encounters would result in reduced prejudice or decreased anxiety. “It would seem fair to conclude,” wrote Allport, “that contact, as a situational variable, cannot always overcome the personal variable in prejudice. This is true whenever the inner strain within the person is too tense, too insistent, to permit him to profit from the structure of the outer situation” (1954, p. 280).

Allport’s realistic evaluation of contact theory’s limitations exemplifies still further his in-depth understanding of contact as a complex human phenomenon. Such human complexity mandated a substantive contact model that purposefully included conditions, that when present, offered the best hope for establishing intergroup dialog, forging new understandings, promoting peace, and effecting change.

The following quote, cited numerous times by numerous researchers is, in essence, the précis of Allport’s intergroup contact theory: At the same time, given a population of ordinary people, with a normal degree of prejudice, we are safe in making the following general prediction. Prejudice (unless deeply rooted in the character structure of the individual) may be reduced by equal status contact between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals. The effect is greatly enhanced if this contact is sanctioned by institutional supports (i.e., by law, custom or local atmosphere), and provided it is of a sort that leads to the perception of common interests and common humanity between members of the two groups (Allport, 1954, p. 281).