It’s not just “us” versus “them”: Moving beyond binary perspectives on intergroup processes

Mobilizing or Sedative Effects? A Narrative Review of the Association Between Intergroup Contact and Collective Action Among Advantaged and Disadvantaged Groups

ACADEMIC ABSTRACT

In this narrative review, we examined 134 studies of the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action benefiting disadvantaged groups. We aimed to identify whether, when, and why contact has mobilizing effects (promoting collective action) or sedative effects (inhibiting collective action). For both moderators and mediators, factors associated with the intergroup situation (compared with those associated with the out-group or the in-group) emerged as the most important. Group status had important effects. For members of socially advantaged groups (examined in 98 studies, 100 samples), contact had a general mobilizing effect, which was stronger when contact increased awareness of experiences of injustice among members of disadvantaged groups. For members of disadvantaged groups (examined in 49 studies, 58 samples), contact had mixed effects. Contact that increased awareness of injustice mobilized collection action; contact that made the legitimacy of group hierarchy or threat of retaliation more salient produced sedative effects.

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

We present a review of existing studies that have investigated the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action aimed at promoting equity for disadvantaged groups. We further consider the influence of contact that is positive or negative and face-to-face or indirect (e.g., through mass or social media), and we distinguish between collective action that involves socially acceptable behaviors or is destructive and violent. We identified 134 studies, considering both advantaged (100 samples) and disadvantaged groups (58 samples). We found that intergroup contact impacts collective action differently depending on group status. Contact generally leads advantaged groups to mobilize in favor of disadvantaged groups. However, contact has variable effects on members of disadvantaged groups: It sometimes promotes their collective action in support of their own group; in other cases, it leads them to be less likely to engage in such action. We examine when and why contact can have these different effects.

Is contact among social class groups associated with legitimation of inequality? An examination across 28 countries

Is class-based contact associated with legitimation of inequality? Drawing from the idea that people adopt beliefs predominant in groups with whom they interact, we hypothesized that upper-class contact would correspond to greater legitimation of inequality, whereas lower-class contact would correspond to lesser legitimation of inequality among lower- and upper-class individuals. We also hypothesized that middle-class individuals might possess a more precarious identity, leading lower-class contact to correspond to higher legitimation of inequality. We tested hypotheses using a nationally representative sample from Chile (N = 4446; Study 1), and nationally representative samples from 28 countries (N = 43,811; Study 2). Support for hypotheses was mixed. Upper-class contact was often associated with greater legitimation of inequality, whereas lower-class contact was frequently related to lower legitimation of inequality. Patterns emerged among most social class groups, but there was also variation across groups. We discuss potential explanations for results along with theoretical implications for class-based contact.

(Not) part of the team: Racial empathy bias in a South African minimal group study

Minimal Group Paradigm (MGP) research suggests that recategorization with an arbitrarily defined group may be sufficient to override empathy biases among salient social categories like race. However, most studies utilizing MGPs do not consider sufficiently the socio-historical contexts of social groups. Here we investigated whether the recategorization of White participants into arbitrarily defined mixed-race teams using a non-competitive MGP would ameliorate racial empathy biases towards ingroup team members in the South African context. Sixty participants rated their empathic and counter-empathic (Schadenfreude, Glückschmerz) responses to ingroup and outgroup team members in physically painful, emotionally distressing, and positive situations. As anticipated, results indicated significant ingroup team biases in empathic and counter-empathic responses. However, mixed-race minimal teams were unable to override ingroup racial empathy biases, which persisted across events. Interestingly, a manipulation highlighting purported political ideological differences between White and Black African team members did not exacerbate racial empathy bias, suggesting that such perceptions were already salient. Across conditions, an internal motivation to respond without prejudice was most strongly associated with empathy for Black African target individuals, regardless of their team status. Together, these results suggest that racial identity continues to provide a salient motivational guide in addition to more arbitrary group memberships, even at an explicit level, for empathic responding in contexts characterized by historical power asymmetry. These data further problematize the continued official use of race-based categories in such contexts.

Child’s presence shapes immigrant women’s experiences of everyday intergroup contact

Research on intergroup contact has considered how the occurrence and experience of contact is affected by ingroup members. Qualitative studies of contact in real-life settings have additionally highlighted how multiple actors can affect the manifestation of contact. This article shows how the presence of one’s child can shape immigrant mothers’ contact experiences in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods. Ten immigrant mothers living in Helsinki, Finland, were interviewed twice over a six-month period about their intergroup interactions in their locale. Using a thematic analysis, we identified three themes depicting immigrant mothers’ experiences of intergroup contacts in their child’s presence: i) feeling visible to others, ii) seeking harmonious contact, and iii) anticipating problems. The results illustrate how a child affords unique opportunities for an immigrant mother to engage in interethnic contact, but also brings distinctive threats. This suggests the need to further consider how different types of intragroup dynamics can shape intergroup contacts.

Hate crime towards minoritized groups increases as they increase in sized-based rank

People are on the move in unprecedented numbers within and between countries. How does demographic change affect local intergroup dynamics? Complementing accounts that emphasize stereotypical features of groups as determinants of their treatment, we propose the group reference dependence hypothesis: violence and negative attitudes towards each minoritized group will depend on the number and size of other minoritized groups in a community. Specifically, as groups increase or decrease in rank in terms of their size (for example, to the largest minority within a community), discriminatory behaviour and attitudes towards them should change accordingly. We test this hypothesis for hate crimes in US counties between 1990 and 2010 and attitudes in the United States and United Kingdom over the past two decades. Consistent with this prediction, we find that as Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian and Arab populations increase in rank relative to one another, they become more likely to be targeted with hate crimes and more negative attitudes. The rank effect holds above and beyond group size/proportion, growth rate and many other alternative explanations. This framework makes predictions about how demographic shifts may affect coalitional structures in the coming years and helps explain previous findings in the literature. Our results also indicate that attitudes and behaviours towards social categories are not intransigent or driven only by features associated with those groups, such as stereotypes.

Strategic Mindsets and Support for Social Change: Impact Mindset Explains Support for Black Lives Matter Across Racial Groups

How does the self-relevance of a social movement shape individuals' engagement with it? We examined the decision-making processes that underlie support for Black Lives Matter (BLM) among Black, Hispanic, Asian, and White Americans. We find significant between-group differences in levels of support for BLM, both in terms of past behavior (Study 1) and in terms of future intentions to support the movement (Study 2). These differences notwithstanding, thinking about how one's decisions impact others - which we label impact mindset - explains support for BLM across racial groups, cross-sectionally as well as longitudinally (over 8 months later). Our findings underscore the equivalence of the impact mindset construct across racial groups and its predictive power in the context of BLM. We conclude that, although the struggle for racial justice has different meanings for different racial groups, the same mindset underlies both in-group advocacy and allyship in the context of BLM.

Status-based coalitions: Hispanic growth affects Whites’ perceptions of political support from Asian Americans

Three experiments test whether considering a stereotypically lower status group’s social gains leads White Americans to expect political solidarity among stereotypically higher status groups. Information about Hispanic population growth (vs. current demographics) led White Americans to expect relative losses to both White and Asian Americans’ statuses (Study 1). Making growing Hispanic political power (vs. control information) salient led Whites to report that Asian Americans and White Americans would support one another’s policy positions more (Studies 2 and 3). Importantly, presenting information that Asian Americans oppose (vs. support) the racial status quo reduced Whites’ perceptions of a White–Asian status-based coalition in response to growing Hispanic power (Study 3), suggesting that disrupting beliefs that Asian Americans will maintain the racial hierarchy reduces expectations of a White–Asian coalition in response to Hispanic growth. This work highlights the utility of moving beyond dyadic conceptualizations of intergroup relations to understand how one group’s gains can shift coalitional expectations in diverse social hierarchies.

Privilege lost: How dominant groups react to shifts in cultural primacy and power

As a function of their race, gender, class, and other social categories, long-standing privileges in social hierarchies have been afforded to some groups of people to the detriment of others. Recently, scholars have made considerable headway studying the social gains made by disadvantaged groups, including a better understanding of how relatively advantaged groups (e.g., White people; men) often pushback against and resist shifts in group-based power or prestige. The present body of work curates social psychological perspectives on the sense of privilege lost, the belief that one’s dominant group is losing ground to other groups. Here, we outline several dominant themes emerging from scholars in this field, including a better understanding of the psychological nature of group-based threat reactions, and for whom such demographic/power changes are deemed troubling, thus triggering pushback. We make recommendations for shaping future research on the perceived loss of group status and power.

Social Identity, Perceived Emotional Synchrony, Creativity, Social Representations, and Participation in Social Movements: The Case of the 2019 Chilean Populist Protests

This paper analyzes the socio-cognitive and emotional processes related to collective action in the context of the 2019 populist social movement in Chile. It proposes an integrative explanation of populism as social movements and collective gatherings along with their relation with creativity and social representations of mass movements. A comprehensive online survey was used (n = 262) that included measures of participation in demonstrations, identification with protesters or the government, agreement with social movement grievances, collective efficacy, perceived emotional synchrony, collective action, self-reported cognitive creativity, and individuals’ proposals for improvement of society and ideas associated with stimuli (e.g., the concepts of majority or minority). Our results revealed that identification with demonstrators, agreement with protesters’ grievances, a high perceived emotional synchrony or collective effervescence, and higher creativity responses were associated with an active participation in the social movement. Higher participation and factors conducive to participation were associated with lexical clusters of responses to stimuli that include words such as rights, justice, injustice, bravery, dignity, or hope, which were conceived of as positive social representations of the populist social movement. These findings are discussed within the neo-Durkheimian framework of collective gatherings and the perspective of populism as a social movement that seeks to renew and expand democracy.

Humanizing racialization: Social psychology in a time of unexpected transformational conjunctions

The unexpected transformations produced by the conjunction of COVID-19, the murder of George Floyd and the resurgence of Black Lives Matter highlight the importance of social psychological understandings and the need for a step change in theorization of the social. This paper focuses on racialization. It considers issues that social psychology needs to address in order to reduce inequalities and promote social justice. It draws on theoretical resources of intersectionality and hauntology to illuminate the ways in which social psychological research frequently makes black people visible in ways that exclude them from normative constructions. The final main part of the paper presents an analysis of an interview with the racing driver Lewis Hamilton to illustrate possible ways of humanizing racialization by giving recognition to the multiplicity and historical location of racialized positioning. The paper argues that, while social psychology has made vital contributions to the understanding of group processes and of racisms, there remains a need to humanize racialization by conducting holistic analyses of black people's (and others') intersectional identities.

The Intersectionality Toolbox: A Resource for Teaching and Applying an Intersectional Lens in Public Health

Intersectionality is a theoretical framework that was developed to address the ways in which people's experiences are shaped based on their intersecting social identities (e. g., race/ethnicity, gender, class, age, etc.). This approach focuses on the importance of considering power, privilege, and social structures in relation to people's access to resources, experiences of discrimination, and interpersonal interactions. An intersectional approach in public health is critical for research and teaching to illuminate health disparities and the underlying structures that create and maintain disparities. While scholars have focused primarily on how to integrate an intersectional perspective into research methods, there is a need for a clear framework for applying intersectionality effectively in public health teaching. The Intersectionality Toolbox (ITB) is a framework developed from a variety of interdisciplinary resources designed to apply an intersectional perspective to public health issues. This article describes the Intersectionality Toolbox and details how it can be utilized in public health classes. Following a course where the ITB was implemented, student feedback was sought to determine the appropriateness and effectiveness of the design, and metrics were aligned with the learning outcomes. The ITB was refined and retained to integrate into courses and assignments focused on teaching about the intersecting nature of the social determinants of health.

Intergroup helping during the COVID-19 crisis: A moderated mediation with effects of ingroup identification, ingroup blame, and perceived global common fate

Strong identification with the national ingroup encourages acts of ingroup solidarity and helping of ingroup members, but it is less well understood how ingroup identification affects willingness to help outgroup members in need. This was tested in the context of the COVID-19 crisis, asking British nationals about their willingness to donate money to help those suffering from the coronavirus crisis in China. It was hypothesized that ingroup identification would have an indirect negative effect on willingness to help outgroup members, mediated by ingroup blame, i.e. preparedness to attribute blame for the worldwide problems caused by the coronavirus crisis to the British national ingroup. Identification was expected to be negatively associated with ingroup blame, and ingroup blame was expected to be positively associated with outgroup helping. Moreover, it was hypothesized that the link between ingroup blame and outgroup helping would be attenuated if perceived global common fate in terms of managing the pandemic was high. Support for these predictions was found in a survey of British participants (N = 210).

Dietary behaviour as a form of collective action: A social identity model of vegan activism

Adopting plant-based, or vegan, diets can have a number of benefits, including mitigating climate change, promoting animal welfare, or improving public health. In the current research, we use social psychological theory to better understand what motivates vegans to engage in collective action on behalf of this social group - that is, what motivates individuals to promote, or encourage others to adopt, a vegan lifestyle. We develop and test a Social Identity Model of Vegan Activism, which highlights the roles of individuals' social identities, sense of efficacy, emotions and moral convictions in fostering collective action. In two pre-registered studies, the first with self-identified vegans from Australia and the UK (N = 351), and the second with self-identified vegans from the UK and the US (N = 340), we found that individuals more frequently engaged in vegan activism (i.e., actions to promote vegan lifestyles) when they had stronger moral convictions (i.e., deontological or consequentialist), greater collective efficacy (i.e., beliefs that vegans can make a positive difference), anger (i.e., when thinking about the reasons why they are vegan), and identification (both with vegans, and with animals). Deontological and consequentialist moral convictions had significant indirect effects on vegan activism via different mediators. We conclude by discussing the implications and importance of studying dietary behavior from a social identity perspective, including its ability to help explain how and why individuals become motivated to not only adopt a certain (e.g., vegan) lifestyle themselves, but to also 'act collectively' on behalf of that shared group membership (e.g., promote vegan-friendly behaviors). We also highlight some key insights for policy makers and campaigners aiming to promote plant-based diets.

Intergroup alliance orientation among intermediate-status group members: The role of stability of social stratification

Three studies have tested the hypothesis that intermediate-status groups are more oriented to ally with outgroups when their social position is under threat. In study 1, participants believed that their ingroup was intermediate in status and social stratification was manipulated as either stable or status-detrimental unstable. Results indicated that participants were more likely to seek alliances a) with a high-status group and b) when social stratification was status-detrimental unstable. Study 2 showed that participants were more likely to seek alliances with a lower status group when social stratification was status-detrimental unstable rather than stable, while they were supportive of policies helping disadvantaged groups regardless of the stability of social stratification. Study 3 showed that when social stratification was status-detrimental unstable, intermediate-status group members were more oriented to ally with a low-status group, equally supportive of policies helping disadvantaged groups, but less oriented to supplying direct help to a low-status group.