Ethnic Diversity, Inter-group Attitudes and Countervailing Pathways of Positive and Negative Inter-group Contact: An Analysis Across Workplaces and Neighbourhoods

Abstract

This study advances the current literature investigating the relationship between contextual out-group exposure, inter-group attitudes and the role of inter-group contact. Firstly, it introduces the concept of contact-valence into this relationship; that is, whether contact is experienced positively or negatively. Secondly, it presents a comparative analysis of how processes of out-group exposure and frequency of (valenced) contact affect prejudice across both neighbourhoods and workplaces. Applying path analysis modelling to a nationally-representative sample of white British individuals in England, we demonstrate, across both contexts, that increasing out-group exposure is associated with higher rates of both positively- and negatively-valenced contact. This results in exposure exhibiting both positive and negative indirect associations with prejudice via more frequent inter-group mixing. These countervailing contact-pathways help explain how out-group exposure is associated with inter-group attitudes. In neighbourhoods, increasing numbers of individuals experiencing positive-contact suppress an otherwise negative effect of neighbourhood diversity (driven partly by increasing numbers of individuals reporting negative contact). Across workplaces the effect differs such that increasing numbers of individuals experiencing negative-contact suppress an otherwise positive effect of workplace diversity (driven largely by increasing numbers of individuals experiencing positive contact).

Cohesion through participation? Youth engagement, interethnic attitudes, and pathways of positive and negative intergroup contact among adolescents: a quasi-experimental field study

“…For example, processes of homophily may inhibit positive contact, even under optimal conditions (Maoz 2002). Meanwhile, although mixing between different groups may bring opportunities for positive contact, it may also increase opportunities for negative contact, which can actually harm intergroup relations (Guffler and Wagner 2017;Laurence, Schmid, and Hewstone 2017).…”

Seeking and avoiding intergroup contact: Future frontiers of research on building social integration

“…Positive contact is far more prevalent than negative contact, in both peaceful and post-conflict societies (Barlow et al, 2012;Dhont & Van Hiel, 2009;Graf, Paolini, & Rubin, 2014;Hayward, Tropp, Hornsey, & Barlow, 2017;Pettigrew, 2008). Yet negative contact can still exacerbate intergroup bias and erode social cohesion-at the same time, but not necessarily by the same route-as positive and intimate contact reduces it (Hayward et al, 2017;Laurence, Schmid, & Hewstone, 2017). Old contact data showed these contrasting outcomes and led to early reviews with divergent conclusions (Cook, 1985;cf.…”

Negative Intergroup Contact and Radical Right‐Wing Voting: The Moderating Roles of Personal and Collective Self‐Efficacy

“…Negative interethnic contact experiences has emerged as an important explanation of ethnic prejudice in social psychology (Barlow et al, ; Dhont & Van Hiel, ; Graf et al, ; Laurence, Schmid, & Hewstone, ; Paolini, Harwood, & Rubin, ; Stephan et al, ; Wölfer et al, ). Some people may perceive such negative encounters as a direct consequence of increasing cultural diversity, and these encounters might therefore increase the attraction of radical right‐wing parties.…”