Modifying perceived variability: four laboratory and field experiments show the effectiveness of a ready-to-be-used prejudice intervention

What matters for the scalability of prejudice reduction programs and interventions? A Delphi study

Background

In many countries, policy makers and practitioners turn to prejudice reduction programs and interventions to tackle prejudice in the community. However, successfully addressing prejudice requires an effective intervention that can scale to match the broad span of the problem. The scalability assessment frameworks from health sciences have varying emphasis on four categories—intervention, delivery, costs, and context. For example, the high-level factors in the two Milat et al. scalability assessments are weighted towards details of the intervention (Milae et al. in Health Promot Int 28(3):285–981, 2013; Health Res Policy Syst 2:1–17, 2020). Investigation into scalability, specific to prejudice reduction, is necessary to understand how scalability frameworks apply in a different discipline.

Methods

Using a Delphi approach—a structured method to obtain consensus from experts (Milae et al. Health Promot Int 28(3):285–981, 2013; Linstone and Turoff in The Delphi method—techniques and applications, Addison-Wesley, 1975; de Meyrick in Health Educ 103(1):7–16, 2003)—to bring together 16 prejudice reduction experts from multiple sectors including NGOs, private, government and academia, we developed a scalability assessment framework of criteria that are important for the successful scaling of prejudice interventions. We then applied that framework to exemplars of prejudice reduction interventions published in the academic literature.

Results

For prejudice reduction interventions, contextual factors are key considerations for successful scaling. Commonly used prejudice reduction intervention approaches like contact, whether face-to-face or online, can have limited scalability.

Conclusions

To reduce prejudice there needs to be consideration of scalability. This paper presents a first-of-its-kind framework for assessing scalability for prejudice reduction interventions. Applying the empirically developed framework to actual interventions demonstrated that for interventions to be effective and scalable, a greater focus on approaches beyond face-to-face contact is required.

What reduces prejudice in the real world? A meta-analysis of prejudice reduction field experiments

Despite advances to promote acceptance and equity in many countries, prejudice remains a significant social problem. Promoting intergroup harmony requires knowledge about what works to reduce prejudice in community settings. This meta-analysis of field experiments reveals the most effective intervention types and conditions for reducing negative attitudes towards minority groups in real-world settings. Across 69 intervention arms and 24,378 participants, results reveal that prejudice reduction interventions are effective at improving attitudes towards minority groups in real-world settings (d = 0.51, 95% CI [0.33; 0.68]). The prediction interval was -0.90 to 1.92. In this case, the prediction interval was particularly wide because of the high degree of heterogeneity detected in effect size. Subgroup analyses indicate that less commonly explored approaches, such as perceived variability, may have larger effect sizes than contact-based interventions. Still, more research is needed to confirm the effects of these less-researched approaches. Additionally, results show that interventions are more effective for school and college cohorts than for adults, and that the effects of prejudice reduction interventions endure over time.

Exposure to peers' pro-diversity attitudes increases inclusion and reduces the achievement gap

There is a dearth of empirically validated pro-diversity methods that effectively create a more inclusive social climate. We developed two scalable interventions that target people's perceptions of social norms by communicating to them that their peers hold pro-diversity attitudes and engage in inclusive behaviours. We tested the interventions in six randomized controlled trials at a large public university in the United States (total n = 2,490). Non-marginalized students exposed to our interventions reported more positive attitudes toward outgroups and greater appreciation of diversity, whereas marginalized students had an increased sense of belonging, reported being treated more inclusively by their peers and earned better grades. While many current pro-diversity initiatives focus on raising awareness about the fact that implicit bias and subtle discrimination are widespread, our findings spotlight the importance of drawing people's attention to their peers' pro-diversity values and attitudes to create positive and lasting effects on the social climate.

Painting all foreigners with one brush? How the salience of muslims and refugees shapes judgements

Attitudes towards foreigners are widely researched, most frequently in survey studies. However, in that context it is often unclear which attitude object respondents have in mind, and thus what their answers refer to. This paper uses a representative sample of 3,195 Germans who reported which groups they think of when thinking about foreigners living in Germany. We found that Germans disproportionately think of groups who are Muslim, and that such salience is associated with more negative attitudes towards “foreigners.” This holds true when controlling for attitudes towards Muslims; in fact, thinking of Muslim groups when thinking about foreigners moderates the relationship between anti-Muslim and anti-foreigner attitudes. The relationships were weaker when respondents think of Turks, a large and long-standing minority in Germany, suggesting an attenuation of the links through familiarity or intergroup contacts. No relationship was found between thinking of refugees and attitudes towards foreigners. Implications for research are discussed, particularly regarding the interpretation of self-reported attitudes towards foreigners and the study of populist strategies.

Why We Hate

We offer a functional perspective on hate, showing that hate has a unique pattern of appraisals and action tendencies. Hate is based on perceptions of a stable, negative disposition of persons or groups. We hate persons and groups more because of who they are, than because of what they do. Hate has the goal to eliminate its target. Hate is especially significant at the intergroup level, where it turns already devalued groups into victims of hate. When shared among group members, hate can spread fast in conflict zones where people are exposed to hate-based violence, which further feeds their hate. Hate can be reassuring and self-protective, because its message is simple and helps confirming people’s belief in a just world.