Intergroup anxiety

Last updated

Intergroup anxiety is the social phenomenon identified by Walter and Cookie Stephan in 1985 that describes the ambiguous feelings of discomfort or anxiety when interacting with members of other groups. Such emotions also constitute intergroup anxiety when one is merely anticipating interaction with members of an outgroup. [1] Expectations that interactions with foreign members of outgroups will result in an aversive experience is believed to be the cause of intergroup anxiety, with an affected individual being anxious or unsure about a number of issues. [2] Methods of reducing intergroup anxiety and stress including facilitating positive intergroup contact. [3]

Contents

Causes

Widely theorized causes of intergroup anxiety are based on the feeling that interactions will have negative consequences. These can be grouped as follows:

The amount of anxiety one feels in such an instance is hypothesized to vary according to a variety of personal factors. Negative prior relations between groups predict more intergroup anxiety, [4] and one's own experiences with individual members of the outgroup can affect anxiety about interaction with others from the group (often more salient if they are negative). [5] [6] Negative evaluations of outgroups often incorrectly stem from personal interactions due to a generalization from interpersonal contact to intergroup contact. [7] The subsequent lack of positive contact results in negative expectancies of upcoming intergroup contact, leading to anxiety, heightened hostility, and a desire to avoid this contact. This cycle limits the possibility for positive contact. [2]

Another factor that predicts intergroup anxiety is a strong level of identification with one's ingroup. This ethnocentrism can cause ingroup members to look down upon outgroup members, yielding negative interactions. [6] Imbalance of power in the specific situation can also increase anxiety. [3] [8] Linkage between intergroup anxiety and resulting intergroup hostility is likely, as individuals typically experience aversion to stimuli that arouse negative emotions. [9]

Consequences

Intergroup anxiety is particularly worthy of attention as its implications are apparent through various research findings. An average correlation of r=.46 exists between intergroup anxiety and prejudice, suggesting a notable relationship between the two. Furthermore, intergroup anxiety has been found to correspond with decreased frequencies of interactions with an outgroup, lower levels of contact with members of an outgroup, the utilization of negative stereotypes of outgroup members, and negative intergroup contact. [10] Because ingroup members experiencing anxiety are motivated to avoid contact with outgroups, they rely on stereotypes in assessing their few interactions, often judging the entire outgroup to be homogeneous. [6] Suffering this anxiety at all can cause ingroup members to instantly dislike outgroup members and to view interactions as more negative than they were. [3] These perceptions can lead to discrimination, hostility, and continued anxiety in outgroup contact situations.

Anxiety causes exaggerated behaviors in many intergroup contact situations, often leading to overly aggressive behavior. However, anxiety can also manifest itself in the opposite manner: anxious ingroup members may act overly friendly in an attempt to avoid seeming ignorant or prejudiced. Such unnatural behavior can add to the distrust felt by ingroup and outgroup members, causing the interaction to be negatively perceived. [6] This phenomenon is not confined to majority group members; intergroup anxiety is also felt by minority groups interacting with the majority. For example, reported attitudes of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans toward White Americans include intergroup anxiety. [11] This trend is also reflected in nationality group members' ratings of one another, with higher levels of intergroup anxiety resulting in more negative ratings. [12]

Another notable characteristic of intergroup anxiety is its self-reinforcing nature, promoting behaviors that keep it actively present. The phenomenon motivates one to avoid contact with outgroup members, or at least make it as short as possible. Anxiety causes even necessary contact to be marred by lack of full attention. [3] Additionally, even outgroup-initiated behaviors will not necessarily force positive interactions upon anxious ingroup members. The fact that these interactions have been initiated by the group inspiring anxiety has been shown to cause ingroup members to perceive them as overly negative. [13] These factors consequentially extinguish the opportunity to have a positive experience with the perceived outgroup. Such positive experiences are the crucial component needed to undermine negative expectations and stereotypes. [14]

Simply the presence of anxiety may play a role in exacerbating tensions between groups. When an outgroup member can tell that an ingroup member is experiencing anxiety, it has been shown that the contact becomes tenser and is perceived less favorably by both groups. [15] This finding would be discouraging of continued intergroup contact among the anxious, but another study suggests that it may not have this consequence. Ingroup members tend to be significantly better than outgroup members at detecting other ingroup members' anxiety. [16] This finding would suggest that anxiety is better hidden than its sufferer thinks, and that the subsequent negative perception of the interaction is purely mental and can be overcome.

Anxiety reduction

The main idea on which intergroup anxiety research is founded is that facilitating positive intergroup contact leads to a reduction in intergroup anxiety. Most research methodology relies not on actually bringing groups together, but instead on having individuals imagine contact with an outgroup. [3] Imagination exercises alone have proven not only to be an accurate predictor of future behavior, but also to reduce intergroup anxiety without any actual contact. [17] This finding holds steady even when study participants are especially high in anxiety [18] or ideologically intolerant of people from the other outgroup. [19]

Gordon Allport's intergroup contact theory is the basis for this line of research into intergroup anxiety reduction. [6] The theory hypothesizes that only groups meeting under four conditions will succeed in reducing intergroup anxiety among their members: groups must be of equal status, work towards common goals, experience intergroup cooperation, and have the support of authorities, laws, or customs. [7] Since then, other researchers have found more factors that predict reduced intergroup anxiety. Interactions including a possibility of friendship have been shown to be more effective, [7] [20] particularly when that potential is reinforced by mutual self-disclosure, a characteristic usually absent in strained intergroup contact. [21] Situations facilitating the forging of a common ingroup identity are also commonly used to avoid and reduce intergroup anxiety, [22] and are often accompanied by the additionally helpful development of empathy between groups. [6] Activities or the imagination of scenarios involving cooperation between groups can also reduce anxiety. [23] Most importantly, it is critical that these reduction exercises take place in a society that fundamentally supports peaceful and successful intergroup contact. [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

Prejudice Attitudes based on preconceived categories

Prejudice can be an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership. The word is often used to refer to a preconceived evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived political affiliation, sex, gender, gender identity, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, complexion, beauty, height, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other personal characteristics.

Group dynamics is a system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group, or between social groups. The study of group dynamics can be useful in understanding decision-making behaviour, tracking the spread of diseases in society, creating effective therapy techniques, and following the emergence and popularity of new ideas and technologies. These applications of the field are studied in psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, epidemiology, education, social work, leadership studies, business and managerial studies, as well as communication studies.

The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.

In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.

In psychology and other social sciences, the contact hypothesis suggests that intergroup contact under appropriate conditions can effectively reduce prejudice between majority and minority group members. Following WWII and the desegregation of the military and other public institutions, policymakers and social scientists had turned an eye towards the policy implications of interracial contact. Of them, social psychologist Gordon Allport united early research in this vein under intergroup contact theory.

Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.

Realistic conflict theory, also known as realistic group conflict theory, is a social psychological model of intergroup conflict. The theory explains how intergroup hostility can arise as a result of conflicting goals and competition over limited resources, and it also offers an explanation for the feelings of prejudice and discrimination toward the outgroup that accompany the intergroup hostility. Groups may be in competition for a real or perceived scarcity of resources such as money, political power, military protection, or social status.

Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM) theory is known as the high levels of anxiety one may experience as they come in contact with those of another culture. This concept was first introduced by William B. Gudykunst to further define how humans effectively communicate based on their anxiety and uncertainty in social situations. Gudykunst believed that in order for successful intercultural communication a reduction in anxiety/uncertainty must occur. This is assuming that the individuals within the intercultural encounter are strangers. AUM is a theory based on the Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) which was introduced by Berger and Calabrese in 1974. URT provides much of the initial framework for AUM, and much like other theories in the communication field AUM is a constantly developing theory, based on the observations of human behaviour in social situations.

Stereotype Generalized belief about a particular category of people

Social psychology defines a stereotype as a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are sometimes overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information, but can sometimes be accurate.

The ultimate attribution error is a group-level attribution error that offers an explanation for how one person views different causes of negative and positive behavior in ingroup and outgroup members. Ultimate attribution error is the tendency to internally attribute negative outgroup and positive ingroup behaviour and to externally attribute positive outgroup and negative ingroup behaviour. So in other words, ultimate attribution error arises as a way to explain an outgroup's negative behaviour as flaws in their personality, and to explain an outgroup's positive behaviour as a result of chance or circumstance. It is also the belief that positive acts performed by ingroup members are as a result of their personality, whereas, if an ingroup member behaves negatively, it is a result of situational factors.

In social psychology, collective narcissism is the tendency to exaggerate the positive image and importance of a group to which one belongs. The group may be defined by ideology, race, political beliefs/stance, religion, social class, language, nationality, employment status, education level, cultural values, or any other ingroup. While the classic definition of narcissism focuses on the individual, collective narcissism extends this concept to similar excessively high opinions of a person's social group, and suggests that a group can function as a narcissistic entity.

In social identity theory, an implicit bias or implicit stereotype, is the pre-reflective attribution of particular qualities by an individual to a member of some social out group.

Self-expansion theory was proposed by Arthur Aron, which is always used to examine the relationship maintenance including family, friendship, and romantic. In this model, Aron believed that humans have an initial motivation to incorporate others’ resources into themselves to help establish a mutual identity, improve self-efficacy, and enhance the sense of self.

The imagined contact hypothesis is an extension of the contact hypothesis, a theoretical proposition centred on the psychology of prejudice and prejudice reduction. It was originally developed by Richard J. Crisp and Rhiannon N. Turner and proposes that the mental simulation, or imagining, of a positive social interaction with an outgroup member can lead to increased positive attitudes, greater desire for social contact, and improved group dynamics. Empirical evidence supporting the imagined contact hypothesis demonstrates its effectiveness at improving explicit and implicit attitudes towards and intergroup relations with a wide variety of stigmatized groups including religious minorities, the mentally ill, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, and obese individuals. Researchers have identified a number of factors that influence the effectiveness of the imagined contact hypothesis including vividness of the imagery and how typical the imagined outgroup individual is. While some researchers question the effectiveness of the imagined contact hypothesis, empirical evidence does suggest it is effective at improving attitudes towards outgroups.

The common ingroup identity model is a theoretical model proposed by Samuel L. Gaertner and John F. Dovidio that outlines the processes through which intergroup bias may be reduced. Intergroup bias is a preference for one's in-group over the out-group. Derived from the social identity approach to intergroup behaviour, the common ingroup identity model is rooted in the process of social categorization, or how people conceive of group boundaries. The model describes how intergroup bias can be reduced if members of different groups can be induced to conceive of themselves to be part of the same group, then they would develop more positive attitudes of the former outgroup members. An individual will change the way they view the out-group through a social categorization process called recategorization where former out-group members become incorporated into individual's representations of the in-group.

Intergroup relations

Intergroup relations refers to interactions between individuals in different social groups, and to interactions taking place between the groups themselves collectively. It has long been a subject of research in social psychology, political psychology, and organizational behavior.

In social psychology, a metastereotype is a stereotype that members of one group have about the way in which they are stereotypically viewed by members of another group. In other words, it is a stereotype about a stereotype. They have been shown to have adverse effects on individuals that hold them, including on their levels of anxiety in interracial conversations. Meta-stereotypes held by African Americans regarding the stereotypes White Americans have about them have been found to be largely both negative and accurate. People portray meta-stereotypes of their ingroup more positively when talking to a member of an outgroup than to a fellow member of their ingroup.

Diversity ideology refers to individual beliefs regarding the nature of intergroup relations and how to improve them in culturally diverse societies. A large amount of scientific literature in social psychology studies diversity ideologies as prejudice reduction strategies, most commonly in the context of racial groups and interracial interactions. In research studies on the effects of diversity ideology, social psychologists have either examined endorsement of a diversity ideology as individual difference or used situational priming designs to activate the mindset of a particular diversity ideology. It is consistently shown that diversity ideologies influence how individuals perceive, judge and treat cultural outgroup members. Different diversity ideologies are associated with distinct effects on intergroup relations, such as stereotyping and prejudice, intergroup equality, and intergroup interactions from the perspectives of both majority and minority group members. Beyond intergroup consequences, diversity ideology also has implications on individual outcomes, such as whether people are open to cultural fusion and foreign ideas, which in turn predict creativity.

In social psychology, social projection is the psychological process through which an individual expects behaviors or attitudes of others to be similar to their own. Social projection occurs between individuals as well as across ingroup and outgroup contexts in a variety of domains. Research has shown that aspects of social categorization affect the extent to which social projection occurs. Cognitive and motivational approaches have been used to understand the psychological underpinnings of social projection as a phenomenon. Cognitive approaches emphasize social projection as a heuristic, while motivational approaches contextualize social projection as a means to feel connected to others. In contemporary research on social projection, researchers work to further distinguish between the effects of social projection and self-stereotyping on the individual’s perception of others.

An empathy gap, also sometimes referred to as an empathy bias, is a breakdown or reduction in empathy where it might otherwise be expected to occur. Empathy gaps may occur due to a failure in the process of empathizing or as a consequence of stable personality characteristics, and may reflect either a lack of ability or motivation to empathize.

References

  1. ↑ Whitley, Bernard E.; Kite, Mary E. (2009), The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination, Cengage Learning, pp. 174–175, ISBN   9780495811282
  2. 1 2 Plant, E. Ashby; Devine, Patricia G. (June 2003), "The antecedents and implications of interracial anxiety", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (6): 790–801, doi:10.1177/0146167203029006011, PMID   15189634, S2CID   8581417
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 John Levine and Michael Hogg, ed. (2010). "Intergroup Anxiety". Encyclopedia of Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. pp. 465–468.
  4. ↑ Britt, Thomas; Kurt Bonieci; Theresa Vescio; Monica Biernat; Lisa Brown (1996). "Intergroup Anxiety: a Person x Situation Approach". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 22 (11): 1177–1188. doi:10.1177/01461672962211008. S2CID   144332523.
  5. ↑ Greenland, Katy; Rupert Brown (1999). "Categorization and intergroup anxiety in contact between British and Japanese nationals" (PDF). European Journal of Social Psychology. 29 (4): 503–521. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(199906)29:4<503::aid-ejsp941>3.0.co;2-y.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, ed. (2007). "Intergroup Anxiety". Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. pp. 492–493.
  7. 1 2 3 4 "Intergroup Relations and Culture". Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology. Elsevier Science & Technology. 2004.
  8. ↑ Stephan, Walter G.; Stephan, Cookie White (April 1985), "Intergroup Anxiety", Journal of Social Issues, 41 (3): 157–175, doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01134.x
  9. ↑ Deckers, Lambert (January 2009), Motivation: Biological, psychological, and environmental (3rd ed.), Boston: Allyn & Bacon, ISBN   9780205610815
  10. ↑ Riek, Blake M.; Mania, Eric W. & Gaertner, Samuel L. (November 2006), "Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 336–353, doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4, PMID   17201592, S2CID   144762865
  11. ↑ Islam, Mir Rabiul; Hewstone, Miles (December 1993), "Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived outgroup variability, and outgroup attitude: An integrative model", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19 (6): 700–710, doi:10.1177/0146167293196005, S2CID   145241495
  12. ↑ Stephan, Walter G.; Diaz-Loving, Rolando & Duran, Anne (2000), "Integrated threat theory and intercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United States", Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31 (2): 240–249, doi:10.1177/0022022100031002006, S2CID   146717655
  13. ↑ Van Zomeren, Martijn; Agneta Fischer; Russell Spears (2007). "Testing the Limits of Tolerance: How Intergroup Anxiety Amplifies Negative and Offensive Responses to Out-Group-Initiated Contact". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 33 (12): 1686–1699. doi:10.1177/0146167207307485. hdl:1871/16498. PMID   18000103. S2CID   3224633.
  14. ↑ Devine, Patricia G.; Monteith, Margo J. (1999), "Automaticity and control in stereotyping", in Chaiken, Shelly; Trope, Yaacov (eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 339–360, ISBN   9781572304215
  15. ↑ West, Tessa V.; Shelton, J. Nicole; Trail, Thomas E. (2009). "Relational Anxiety in Interracial Interactions". Psychological Science. 20 (3): 289–292. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02289.x. PMID   19207693. S2CID   42705103.
  16. ↑ Gray, Heather M.; Mendes, Wendy Berry; Denny-Brown, Carrigan (2008). "An In-Group Advantage in Detecting Intergroup Anxiety". Psychological Science. 19 (12): 1233–1237. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02230.x. PMC   2659396 . PMID   19121129.
  17. ↑ Turner, R. N.; Crisp, R. J.; Lambert, E. (2007). "Imagining Intergroup Contact Can Improve Intergroup Attitudes" (PDF). Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 10 (4): 427–441. doi:10.1177/1368430207081533. S2CID   144405432.
  18. ↑ Birtel, M. D.; Crisp, R. J. (2012). "Imagining intergroup contact is more cognitively difficult for people higher in intergroup anxiety but this does not detract from its effectiveness". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 15 (6): 744–761. doi:10.1177/1368430212443867. S2CID   145087737.
  19. ↑ Hodson, G. (2011). "Do Ideologically Intolerant People Benefit From Intergroup Contact?". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 20 (3): 154–159. doi:10.1177/0963721411409025. S2CID   145780944.
  20. ↑ Pettigrew, Thomas (1998). "Intergroup Contact Theory". Annual Review of Psychology. 49: 65–85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65. PMID   15012467.
  21. ↑ Tam, T. (2006). "Intergroup Contact and Grandparent-Grandchild Communication: The Effects of Self-Disclosure on Implicit and Explicit Biases Against Older People". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 9 (3): 413–429. doi:10.1177/1368430206064642. S2CID   143696107.
  22. ↑ Riek, B. M.; Mania, E. W.; Gaertner, S. L.; McDonald, S. A.; Lamoreaux, M. J. (2010). "Does a common ingroup identity reduce intergroup threat?". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 13 (4): 403–423. doi:10.1177/1368430209346701. S2CID   144949359.
  23. ↑ Kuchenbrandt, D.; Eyssel, F.; Seidel, S. K. (2013). "Cooperation makes it happen: Imagined intergroup cooperation enhances the positive effects of imagined contact". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 16 (5): 635–647. doi:10.1177/1368430212470172. S2CID   145401833.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.