Salient Intergroup Ideology and Intergroup Interaction Author Jacquie Vorauer, Annette Gagnon, Stacey Sasaki Publication Year 2009 Type Journal Article Abstract Two experiments examined how rendering different intergroup ideologies salient affects dominant-and minority-group members 9 behavior during, and experience of intergroup interactions. We hypothesized that ideologies that encourage an outward focus on appreciating out-group members 9 distinctive qualities (multiculturalism) would have more positive implications than ideologies that encourage a self-control focus on ignoring social categories and avoiding inappropriate behavior (color blindness and antiracism). As predicted, in both ostensible (Study 1) and actual face-to-face (Study 2) intergroup interactions, the multicultural ideological prompt led dominant-and minority-group members to adopt a more outward focus and hence to direct more positive other-directed comments to an interaction partner who was a member of an out-group. In contrast, the colorblind prompt fostered a prevention orientation in dominant-group members that led them to express negative affect toward their out-group interaction partner. The antiracist prompt had no consistent effects. Implications for efforts to improve intergroup relations are discussed. Keywords intergroup ideology, intergroup relations, group attitudes, self-control, multiculturalism Journal Psychological Science Volume 20 Pages 838–845 Type of Article Journal Article DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02369.x Full text The following is an excerpt of the intervention methodology. For more information, please see the full text of the article on the publisher's website or through your institution's library. STUDY 1 Study 1 tested our hypotheses in the context of controlled, but ostensibly real, intergroup exchanges. Participants. Sixty-four White and 55 Aboriginal Canadian1 university students who were matched in sex and age (75.6% female, 24.4% male) completed Study 1 in exchange for partial course credit. Participants were randomly assigned to the multicultural, antiracist, color-blind, and no-message (control) conditions. Procedure. [...] Ostensibly, each participant had a partner in another room and would exchange written personal information with that partner; the two would have the option of meeting face-to-face at the end of the session if they both were interested in doing so. The experimenter left the participant alone to fill out a brief personal-information sheet that included demographic questions and also asked about personal qualities. After 5 min, she returned with the “partner's” completed sheet for the participant to read and ostensibly took the participant's sheet to the partner. The partner's sheet indicated that he or she was the same sex as the participant and was either White (in the case of an Aboriginal Canadian participant) or Aboriginal Canadian (in the case of a White participant); thus, an ostensible intergroup exchange was created. The experimenter left the participant alone for several minutes to read the partner's answers, which were typical of the answers that most students provide to such questions. Next, if the participant was in one of the message conditions, the experimenter said: [Verbal Stimulus A]. The experimenter then orally summarized the message appropriate to the condition and provided a more detailed written version of the message, with accompanying questions that reinforced it. The participant was asked to write responses to these questions. [...] Participants in the control condition received no message. Next, in an open-ended thought-listing task, the experimenter timed the participant for 2 min as he or she wrote down whatever thoughts were currently on his or her mind. The participant then completed a second, more extensive personal-information sheet, ostensibly to be exchanged with the partner in the same way as the first. This sheet asked the participant to describe any questions he or she would like to ask the partner and also included four questions [...]. Next, the participant completed a final questionnaire, assured of the confidentiality of responses. [...] Dependent Measures. Behavior. Three independent coders who were blind to participants' ethnicity and experimental condition rated the behaviors exhibited in the second personal-information sheet. Positive attention to the out-group member was assessed via coders' counts of the number of positive other-directed remarks participants made in response to the item asking participants what questions they would like to ask their partner [...]. Negative affect expressed was assessed via coders' ratings of how hostile, uncomfortable, nervous, self-critical, and uncertain participants appeared to be in their responses across the remaining items. [...] Experience of the Exchange. The final questionnaire included questions regarding participants' experience of the exchange. Prevention orientation was assessed directly by a single item [...]. Identity security was measured in two ways. First, anxiety was assessed by coders' counts of the number of references to being nervous or anxious in the thought listings [...]. Second, participants answered a “meta-evaluation thermometer” question [...]. STUDY 2 Study 2 examined whether the effects obtained in Study 1 are evident in real face-to-face intergroup exchanges and tested our hypothesis that enhanced other-focus mediates the beneficial behavioral effects of the multicultural message. Participants. Fifty-four pairs of unacquainted students (63% female and 37% male), each including 1 White and 1 Aboriginal Canadian matched in sex and age, completed Study 2 for partial course credit. [...] Participants had previously completed a survey including measures of modern racism, public self-consciousness, and racial in-group identification. Pairs were randomly assigned to condition. Procedure. The procedure was the same as in Study 1 except that participants really did exchange their answers on the brief personal-information sheet with their partner and engaged in real face-to-face intergroup interaction instead of completing the second personal-information sheet. [...] The discussion topics for the interaction included the same items from Aron et al. (1997) as in Study 1 and questions about social issues (e.g., immigration). [...] Dependent Measures. All measures and coding were the same as in Study 1, with the following modifications. Coders judged behavior across all of the discussion questions, and only two coders were used [...]. Type of Prejudice/Bias Race/Ethnicity Country Canada Method Lab Setting College/University Google ScholarDOIBibTeX