How Can Intergroup Interaction Be Bad If Intergroup Contact Is Good? Exploring and Reconciling an Apparent Paradox in the Science of Intergroup Relations

Abstract

The outcomes of social interactions among members of different groups (e.g., racial groups, political groups, sexual orientation groups) have long been of interest to psychologists. Two related literatures on the topic have emerged—the intergroup interaction literature and the intergroup contact literature—in which divergent conclusions have been reported. Intergroup interaction is typically found to have negative effects tied to intergroup bias, producing heightened stress, intergroup anxiety, or outgroup avoidance, whereas intergroup contact is typically found to have positive effects tied to intergroup bias, predicting lower intergroup anxiety and lower prejudice. We examine these paradoxical findings, proposing that researchers contributing to the two literatures are examining different levels of the same phenomenon and that methodological differences can account for the divide between the literatures. Further, we introduce a mathematical model by which the findings of the two literatures can be reconciled. We believe that adopting this model will streamline thinking in the field and will generate integrative new research in which investigators examine how a person’s experiences with diversity unfold.

Extending the benefits of intergroup contact beyond attitudes: When does intergroup contact predict greater collective action support?

“…Similarly—but contrary to their findings for disadvantaged groups—Reimer et al () found that only positive (and not negative) intergroup contact promoted LGBT activism among heterosexuals. Consistent with this, when group differences are recognized, and when contact involves repeated positive interactions (consistent with reaching a contact threshold, see MacInnis & Page‐Gould, ), intergroup contact is associated with heightened collective action motivation among advantaged group members (Vezzali et al, ).…”

“…Upon reaching a contact threshold as identified by MacInnis and Page‐Gould (), intergroup contact produces largely positive attitudinal outcomes in the form of reduced prejudice. As demonstrated above, there is growing evidence supporting this proposition.…”

“…Here we discuss a paradox on the outcome end of these relationships (i.e., relating to bias‐relevant outcome variables). Previous work (i.e., MacInnis & Page‐Gould, ), however, has recognized a paradox at the predictor end of these relationships (i.e., relating to contact‐relevant predictor variables). Specifically, not only is there a sizable literature documenting that intergroup contact is associated with lower intergroup anxiety and more positive intergroup attitudes (e.g., Pettigrew & Tropp, ), but it is also well established that interactions between members of different social groups are associated with stress, anxiety, and avoidance of outgroup members (e.g., Blascovich, Barry Mendes, Hunter, Lickel, & Kowai‐Bell, ; Hyers & Swim, ; Littleford, Wright, & Sayoc‐Parial, ; Shelton, ; Shelton, Dovidio, Hebl, & Richeson, ; Shelton, Richeson, & Vorauer, ; Trawalter, Richeson, & Shelton, ).…”

“…As MacInnis and Page‐Gould () discuss, it is likely that methodological differences account for these discrepant findings and that both sets of findings are accurate but focus on different levels of the same phenomenon: the intergroup interaction findings focus on shorter term intergroup contact (e.g., one's first intergroup interactions), whereas the intergroup contact findings focus on longer term intergroup contact (e.g., one's lifetime history of intergroup contact). That is, initial experiences interacting with outgroup members are anxiety‐provoking and lead to outgroup avoidance, but after a number of positive intergroup interactions take place, intergroup interactions generally become more positive and predictive of more positive intergroup attitudes.…”

Intergroup dissimilarity predicts physiological synchrony and affiliation in intergroup interaction

“…While dissimilarity can give rise to anxiety during intergroup interactions, the anxiety-producing aspects of dissimilarity are less relevant in diverse contexts where intergroup contact is both frequent and benign. Indeed, after people experience a certain number of benign intergroup interactions they may cross a "contact threshold" wherein subsequent intergroup interactions reduce prejudice rather than increase anxiety (MacInnis & Page-Gould, 2015). Thus, in keeping with the predictions of social identity theory, we anticipate that emphasizing intergroup dissimilarity will enhance intergroup interactions and we test this assumption in the context of an ethnically diverse university campus: The University of Toronto, Scarborough.…”