Humans adapt to social diversity over time

Abstract

Humans have evolved cognitive processes favoring homogeneity, stability, and structure. These processes are, however, incompatible with a socially diverse world, raising wide academic and political concern about the future of modern societies. With data comprising 22 y of religious diversity worldwide, we show across multiple surveys that humans are inclined to react negatively to threats to homogeneity (i.e., changes in diversity are associated with lower self-reported quality of life, explained by a decrease in trust in others) in the short term. However, these negative outcomes are compensated in the long term by the beneficial influence of intergroup contact, which alleviates initial negative influences. This research advances knowledge that can foster peaceful coexistence in a new era defined by globalization and a socially diverse future. social diversity | trust | intergroup contact | well-being | health G lobal modernization has dramatically changed the demographic composition of most countries (1-3). Societies are in constant flux and current levels of intercultural exchange are transforming social ecosystems (4). Pessimistic appraisals about the potential effects of these changes have dominated recent and critical geopolitical events (e.g., the election of Donald Trump as president in the United States, Brexit in the United Kingdom, and the refugee crisis globally), but it is not yet known how living in a socially diverse world affects the quality of people's lives.Models of human evolution applied to social diversity (1) support the notion that adaptation to a socially diverse context may be problematic and lead to negative outcomes. According to these models, the human brain evolved to sustain motivated cognition and behavior relevant to ingroup survival and cooperation, and to defend against potential threats from unknown outgroups (5). Humans are predisposed to distinguish ingroups from outgroups and this dichotomy is adaptive given that survival is contingent upon cooperation and reciprocity from other ingroup members (6, 7). Perhaps to facilitate this dichotomization, humans have evolved a preference for homogeneity and stability (8), as well as being with similar others (9). Moreover, outgroups are approached with a degree of uncertainty (10), as unknown others could be friends or foes, and caution in new encounters could dictate one's survival. This reasoning is substantiated by influential work in the social sciences showing that interpersonal trust and social cohesion are lower in ethnically heterogeneous communities (11-13). Subsequent work across multiple disciplines expanded on these findings by revealing that social diversity is associated with conflict (14) and may have negative implications for economic growth (15) and public goods provision (16). The mechanism hypothesized to underlie these outcomes is that diversity erodes social cohesion and trust in others (17). Meta-analyses in the field of psychology substantiate this reasoning by demonstrating that, at least initially, intergroup ...

Proportion of Foreigners Negatively Predicts the Prevalence of Xenophobic Hate Crimes within German Districts

“…With time, contact opportunities with foreigners likely lead to intergroup contact (Wagner et al 2003, 2006), contributing to the creation of a norm of acceptance of immigrant groups in general (Christ et al 2014; Pettigrew 2009), thereby mitigating the prevalence of xenophobic hate crimes. In contrast, the short presence of refugees may not have been long enough for positive intergroup contact to occur and to influence district norms to shape intergroup behavior (see also Ramos et al 2019). Quite the opposite, intergroup contact opportunities of the majority population with refugees were largely reduced, given the often highly segregated accommodation in large reception centers of 1,000 or more inhabitants.…”

“…One implication would be to support a policy that promotes the distribution of newly arriving immigrants all over the country and equally between districts, as they may find a long-term home in these areas. In the long run, a balanced distribution would provide equal opportunities to establish intergroup contact between native and increasingly established immigrant communities, possibly helping to reduce the number of hate crimes against newly arriving immigrants (see also Ramos et al 2019) and improving the climate of acceptance in general.…”

Toleration and prejudice‐reduction: Two ways of improving intergroup relations

“…In contrast, forms of positive intergroup contact might make people distinguish less between group‐based antipathy and disapproval‐based tolerance. Contact might not only lead to less prejudice (Al Ramiah & Hewstone, ) but also change the basis and strength of the disapproval (Chong, ; Ramos, Bennett, Massey, & Hewstone, ). People can get used to living around others with different cultural beliefs, customs, and practices, and can become more inured to things that once bothered them (e.g., abortion, gay marriage).…”

Adaptation to diversity: Individual and societal processes

“…Nonetheless, there are valuable lessons that can be gained from the work of Ramos et al (1) and the work cited above regarding how the greater diversity of modern societies can more efficiently translate into positive relations among heterogeneous groups within those societies. First, as diverse groups increasingly occupy shared geographical spaces, we can be more deliberate in structuring opportunities for meaningful cross-group interactions (26) (for instance, collaborative projects that would enhance their communities and be of mutual benefit), rather than simply waiting passively for this process to occur gradually over time.…”

“…With the historic rise in global migration in recent decades and the dispersion of diverse groups into new communities worldwide, greater levels of contact are occurring between social groups than ever before. It is in this context that Ramos et al (1) rightfully note the potential for humans to adapt to-and thrive in-diverse environments, and usefully suggest that our natural inclination toward homophily may be "less compatible with the social diversity typical of modern societies." In a compelling manner, the authors employ different time scales in their analysis to illustrate how people and societies adapt to social diversity over time.…”