Brown University Diversity Summit

Jennifer A. Richeson ‘94Department of Psychology & Institute for Policy

Research

Northwestern University

Diversity: Promise or Peril?

Increases in Racial Diversity

(Potential) Benefits of Diversity

Diversity increases opportunity for intergroup contact/dialogue, which is generally associated with lower prejudice (Allport, 1954; Gurin et al., 2002; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).

Diversity increases group creativity and reduces the potential for groupthink (Apfelbaum et al., 2013; Sommers, 2006; van Knippenberg &

Schippers, 2007).

Challenges of Diversity

Increased tension (Allport, 1954; Blumer, 1958; Craig & Richeson, 2014; Enos, 2014)

Increased social isolation (Putnam, 2007)

Social Identity Threat (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Branscombe et al., 1999)

The Diversity Paradox

Potential Peril: increased intergroup tension & exclusionary attitudes

Potential Promise: increases opportunity for intergroup contact/dialogue

Interracial Contact

Why are our close social networks so homogenous?

Opportunity Segregation

Motivation Lack of interest

Fear/Apprehension Concerns about “looking

bad;” being rejected

Millennials Are Less Racially Tolerant Than You & They Think

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/01/millennials-are-less-tolerant-than-you-think.htmlby Sean McElwee

Interracial Contact is StressfulTrawalter, Richeson, & Shelton (2009)

Uncertainty regarding appropriate behavior (Devine, et al., 1996).

Leads to anxiety, discomfort, & self-consciousness (e.g., Stephan & Stephan, 1985; Trawalter et al., 2009).

Invoke a state of cardiovascular reactivity consistent with threat (Mendes et al., 2008, Page-Gould et al., 2010).

Participants came in to lab for “serial cognition” interaction paradigm.

Cognitive task 1-- race-IAT (race bias measure)

“Delay Task” involved being videotaped by black or white giving opinions on controversial topics:

1. race-related: racial profiling in light of 9/11, campus diversity

2. race-neutral: fraternity system; drinking

Cognitive task 2-- Stroop (1935) color-naming paradigm (inhibitory performance measure)

And, Cognitively Taxing

<

Control RTs Incompatible RTs

DV = Stroop Interference

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

RED

GREEN

YELLOW

BLUE

And, Cognitively Taxing

Mean Stroop Interference Score

Interracial Same-race0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Richeson & Shelton (2003), Psych Science

Mean

Stroop

Interference Score

Note: Error bars represent standard error of the mean

And, Cognitively Taxing

Interracial Contact

Self-Control

Activated Interracial

Contact Concerns

WhitesAppearing Prejudiced

Ethnic MinoritiesExperiencing Prejudice

Confirming Stereotypes

Working Model of Interracial Contact(adapted from Richeson & Shelton, 2007, CDPS)

Intra-personal Outcomes

Self-regulatory impairment

Negative Affect

Inter-personal Outcomes

Partner LikingPartner Affect

Physiological Arousal & Anxiety

Richeson & Trawalter (2005), JPSP

Prejudice Feedback Performance Feedback0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180 Interracial

Same-race

Increased Prejudice Concerns

Mean Stroop

Interference Score

Note: Error bars represent standard error of the mean

No-script Script0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180Interracial

Same-race

Alleviated Prejudice Concerns

Mean Stroop

Interference Score

Richeson & Trawalter (2005), JPSP

Note: Error bars represent standard error of the mean

Interracial Contact

Self-Control

Activated Interracial

Contact Concerns

WhitesAppearing Prejudiced

Ethnic MinoritiesExperiencing Prejudice

Confirming Stereotypes

Working Model of Interracial Contact(Richeson & Shelton, 2007, CDPS)

Intra-personal Outcomes

Self-regulatory impairment

Negative Affect

Inter-personal Outcomes

Partner LikingPartner Affect

Physiological Arousal & Anxiety

Contemporary Bias in Interactions

Subtle bias revealed in non-verbal & para-verbal aspects of interpersonal communication (e.g., McConnell & Leibold, 2001). e.g., blinking, closed body posture, avoidant eye-gaze

Whites’ nonverbal behavior more negative than verbal communications, often resulting in mixed messages (Dovidio et al., 2002).

Contending with Contemporary Bias

African American college students

10-min interaction with White confederate partner

Exchanged background “profile sheet” with “partner” prior to interaction

Exposed to subtle v. blatant bias manipulated by partner “profile” information & actor non-verbal behavior mpleted Stroop task

Contemporary Bias

Exposed to subtle v. blatant bias manipulated by partner “profile” information & actor non-verbal behavior

Subtle: positive attitudes about diversity/avoidant nv beh

Blatant: negative attitudes about diversity/avoidant nv beh

No prejudice: positive attitudes about diversity/approach nv beh

Completed Stroop task

Profiles

Subtle & No-bias: “I like being around so many different types of people at NU. I enjoy meeting and learning about people from all backgrounds. It’s great here.”

Blatant Bias: “I feel a bit uncomfortable being around so many different types of people at NU. Where I’m from, people are pretty much all White. I think that makes things easier sometimes.”

Nonverbal Behavior

Subtle & Blatant: confederate displays ambivalent behavior (e.g., avoiding eye-contact, short responses, puts pen down rather than passing to partner during task).

No Bias: confederate displays warm and friendly behavior (e.g., makes eye-contact, smiles, passes pen to partner during task).

African American college students

10-min interaction with White confederate partner

Exchanged background “profile sheet” with “partner” prior to interaction

Exposure to subtle v. blatant bias manipulated by partner “profile” information & actor non-verbal behavior

Completed Stroop task

Contending with Contemporary Bias

Contending with Contemporary Bias

omnibus F(2, 40) = 2.66, p = .08contrast F(1,41) = 4.33, p < .05, r = .31Note: Error bars are standard errors of the mean

No Bias Subtle Bias Blatant Bias0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Str

oop Inte

rfere

nce

(m

s unit

s)

Murphy, Richeson, Shelton, et al. (2013), GPIR

Interracial Contact

Often triggers social identity threat for both participants.

Managing possibility of one’s own prejudice or one’s partner’s yields negative outcomes, including cognitive failure.

What can be done?

Interracial Contact

Activated Interracial Contact

Concerns WhitesAppearing Prejudiced

Ethnic MinoritiesExperiencing PrejudiceConfirming Stereotypes

Working Model of Interracial Contact(adapted from Richeson & Shelton, 2007, CDPS)

Intra-personal Outcomes

Self-regulatory impairment

Negative Affect

Inter-personal Outcomes

Partner LikingPartner Affect

Physiological Arousal & Anxiety

Mindset Manipulatio

ns

Summary

Interracial interactions are one of the best routes to positive racial attitudes.

But, such contact often triggers social identity threat for both participants.

Mindset manipulations seem promising; reducing anxiety Perspective-taking (some forms) Learning goals Other vs. Self focus

Increasing US Racial/Ethnic Diversity

Likely to challenge both members of majority and minority groups.

No guarantee of increased egalitarianism in attitudes or social policies.

Interpersonal contact— the best hope for positive attitude change— remains difficult for most individuals.

J. Nicole SheltonMaureen CraigSophie TrawalterMary MurphyMichelle

RheinschmidtHillary BergsiekerMeghan BeanDawn EspyDorainne LevyAndy ToddGalen

BodenhausenAlissa MrazekDan MoldenAdam GalinskyEvan ApfelbaumKathy PhillipsKatie RotellaDaniel Effron

Acknowledgments

Todd HeathertonAbby BairdCarrie WylandSid Horton

http://groups.psych.northwestern.edu/spcl/

NIMH NSF MacArthur

Foundation Russell Sage

Foundation