Understanding intergroup relations through the lens of implicit theories (mindsets) of malleability

Abstract

This review argues that implicit theories of malleability are essential constructs for the study of intergroup dynamics. As one of people's core meaning-making tools, mindsets about malleability shed light on the mechanisms behind perceivers' tendency to stereotype and feel prejudiced towards targets, as well as on the mechanisms underlying targets' ability to shield against, and potentially confront, perceivers' social bias. In addition to illuminating crossgroup interaction dynamics between individuals, mindsets contribute to explaining the harmful processes at play in real-world protracted conflicts, and suggest interventions that may help lay the ground for peace processes. This review also aims to highlight areas of research that remain open for further investigation, or that have been overlooked to date. We argue that research integrating mindsets and intergroup relations will advance to our understanding of intergroup dynamics, as well as possibly offering insights on how to improving them, and that this approach will also further the study of lay theories of malleability.3

Lay theories and ageist attitudes at work: Essentialist beliefs about cognitive aging, fixed mindsets, and cyclical perception of time are linked to ageist attitudes toward older workers

“…Alternative models, such as AATOW predicting lay theories through stereotypes, are possible, but they cannot be ruled out using the present data (testing for alternative models using the same correlational data does not permit to differentiate between alternative interpretations, Thoemmes, 2015). However, given that lay theories can be experimentally manipulated (e.g., Haslam & Ernst, 2002; Rattan & Georgeac, 2017), future studies would be able to test if the three lay theories discussed here are causally related to age‐related stereotype endorsement and ageist attitudes.…”

“…However, given that lay theories can be experimentally manipulated (e.g., Haslam & Ernst, 2002;Rattan & Georgeac, 2017), future studies would be able to test if the three lay theories discussed here are causally related to age-related stereotype endorsement and ageist attitudes.…”

“…Mindsets can be classified along a continuum ranging from fixed to growth. As a lay theory, these beliefs are formed through personal experience and interactions with people in one’s social environment (Rattan & Georgeac, 2017). Fixed/growth mindsets are relatively stable individual differences in the short‐term (Dweck et al., 1995) but over extended periods of time, mindsets have been shown to change (Poon & Koehler, 2008).…”

Crossing to safety: Attachment processes in intergroup contact

“…In these cases, uncertainty about intergroup contact or lack of familiarity with outgroup members may be viewed as a source of excitement, as people actively seek out new intergroup experiences (Dys‐Steenbergen et al., 2016; Paolini et al., 2016; Wright et al., 2002). The tendency to seek out new contact experiences is likely bolstered by a history of prior positive contact experiences and greater confidence in one's ability to navigate cross‐group interactions successfully (e.g., Kauff et al., 2021; Turner & Cameron, 2016), as well as a greater orientation toward learning and growth as one prepares for contact with other groups (e.g., Migacheva & Tropp, 2013; Rattan & Georgeac, 2017). Yet for such enthusiasm and interest in intergroup contact to emerge, key concerns associated with intergroup threat and anxiety would first need to be abated, in order to set the stage for people to become more open to intergroup contact, and to reap contact's potential benefits (see Paolini et al., 2016; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008; Tropp & Molina, 2019).…”

Categorical versus dimensional thinking: improving anti-stigma campaigns by matching health message frames and implicit worldviews

“…Implicit theories are central to a person's way of understanding the world (Rattan and Georgeac 2017), such that they prompt people to view individual traits as either categorical or dimensional (Chiu et al 1997). People who see traits as categorical display black-and-white thinking; for example, they believe intelligence is a fixed trait, determined at birth.…”