Bridging racial divides: Social constructionist (vs. essentialist) beliefs facilitate trust in intergroup contexts

Abstract

Trust serves as the foundation for social harmony and prosperity, but it is not always easy to build. When people see other groups as different, e.g., members of a different race or ethnicity, the perceived boundary often obstructs people from extending trust. This may result in interracial conflicts. The current research argues that individual differences in the lay theory of race can systematically influence the degree to which people extend trust to a racial outgroup in conflict situations. The lay theory of race refers to the extent to which people believe race is a malleable social construct that can change over time (i.e., social constructionist beliefs) versus a fixed essence that differentiates people into meaningful social categories (i.e., essentialist beliefs). In our three studies, we found evidence that social constructionist (vs. essentialist) beliefs promoted interracial trust in intergroup contexts, and that this effect held regardless of whether the lay theory of race was measured (Studies 1 and 3) or manipulated (Study 2), and whether the conflict was presented in a team conflict scenario (Study 1), social dilemma (Study 2), or a face-to-face dyadic negotiation (Study 3). In addition, results revealed that the lay theory's effect on interracial trust could have critical downstream consequences in conflict, namely cooperation and mutually beneficial negotiation outcomes. The findings together reveal that the lay theory of race can reliably influence interracial trust and presents a promising direction for understanding interracial relations and improving intergroup harmony in society.

Construals of self and group: How racial nominalism can promote adaptive intergroup outcomes for interdependent selves

“…On the other hand, racial nominalism is the notion that races were created and are maintained through social, historical, and political circumstance; for example, the idea that race was developed as a way to rationalize slavery (Kvaale & Haslam, 2015; Sundstrom, 2002; Tawa, 2018). The impact of racial nominalism on intergroup outcomes has been scantly observed; moreover, the research that has been conducted on racial nominalism has tended to assess the extent to which racial essentialism is not endorsed (Kung et al, 2018; No et al, 2008; Shih, Bonam, Sanchez, & Peck, 2007), rather than directly measure racial nominalism. We argue here that racial nominalism is an active belief in its own right, not merely the absence or rejection of essentialism; in fact, there may be more than one type of racial nominalism.…”

The Impact of Mixed Emotions on Creativity in Negotiation: An Interpersonal Perspective

“…Nonetheless, it is possible that in other contexts, such as a more competitive distributive negotiation, displays of happiness may be useful in inducing more cooperative exchanges and rapport with the partner (Kopelman et al, 2006). These are exciting nuances that future research will benefit from manipulating the negotiation contexts and measuring subjective outcomes (e.g., trust, relationship satisfaction; Kung et al, 2018) to more fully understand the moderating role of contexts.…”

Difference Matters: Teaching Students a Contextual Theory of Difference Can Help Them Succeed

“…Across a wide range of studies, social psychologists have sought to document the pernicious consequences of using an essentialist theory to understand social-group differences. Specifically, they have shown that an essentialist compared with a contextual theory leads to increased stereotyping and race-based categorization (Bastian & Haslam, 2006; Chao, Hong, & Chiu, 2013; Keller, 2005), less identification and perceived similarity across different groups (No et al, 2008), and lower levels of intergroup trust and desire for intergroup contact (Kung et al, 2018; Lee, Wilton, & Kwan, 2014; M. J. Williams & Eberhardt, 2008).…”