John Carpenter

1
John Carpenter

• The Current and Potential Contribution of the
  Contact Hypothesis to IPE

2
The Contact hypothesis

• Equal status
• Common goals
• Support of authorities
• Cooperation
• Allport (1954)

3
Plus

• Positive expectation
• Joint work is successful
• Similarities as well as differences
• Typical
• Hewstone and Brown (1986)

4
Cognitive processes

• Social categorisation
• Stereotyping
• Positive as well as negative
• Confirming and disconfirming

5
Attitude change mediated by

• Opportunities to learn
• Cognitive dissonance (and adapting to new
  experiences)
• Role of emotions
• Reflection on in-group
• Pettigrew (1998)

6
Social Identity Theory

• The power of group identity ingroup bias
  promotes and protects high status (Tajfel and
  Turner, 1979).
• Positive group identity and positive self-esteem.

7
Optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer 1991)

• proposes that social identity involves a
  compromise between two opposing needs the need
  for assimilation and the need for
  differentiation. People are motivated to identify
  with groups that provide an optimal balance
  between these two needs.

8
Multiple identities

• Academic
• Social Worker
• Psychologist
• Southerner/Northerner
• Newcastle United/Falcons supporter
• Dad
• Etc.
• Whats salient?

9
Decategorisation (Brewer, 1999)

• differentiation (distinctions are made between
  out-group members) and
• personalisation (out-group members are seen in
  terms of their uniqueness and in relation to the
  self).
• i.e. a focus on the individuals in the outgroup
  above the task (e.g. self-disclosure)
• Contact with atypical members leads to the
  conclusion that they are Not all the same (may
  be restricted to majority groups).

10
Common ingroup identity(Dovidio et al.1998)

• Replace us and them with a superordinate we BUT
• CII may only be short-lived, or unrealistic e.g.
  in the face of powerful ethnic categorizations
• Groups with a history of antagonism, and
  minorities, are likely to resist assimilation
  into a superordinate category that is dominated
  by a majority out-group

11
But I am a!

• decategorization and recategorization models
  threaten to deprive individuals of valued social
  identities.

12
Group salience (distinctiveness)(Hewstone, 1996)

• Maintaining distinctiveness in intergroup
  contact
• Promotes generalisation
• Values difference

13
Mutual intergroup differentiation

• Aim each group will see itself positively and
  hold positive stereotypes of the out group.
• Each group is seen as it wishes to be seen and
  desired differences are highlighted.

14
But

• Increased risk of bias if contact reinforces
  perceptions of difference and increases
  intergroup anxiety and conflict.
• Salient intergroup boundaries may be associated
  with mutual mistrust which undermines potential
  for cooperation and liking.

15

• So,
• An intergroup model plus personalisation.
• Hewstone et al. 2002

16
The Dual Identity Model(Dovidio et al. 1998)

• Combining common identity and distinctiveness
• Different groups, but all playing on the same
  team.
• (But whos in charge of the team?)

17
A caution

• Real-world intergroup relations owe at least as
  much of their character to intergroup history,
  economics, politics, and ideology as they do to
  social psychological variables such as
  self-esteem, in-group identification, group size,
  and group threat (Tajfel Turner 1979).

18
So what?

• What to do creating the conditions for reducing
  bias and promoting positive change (learning
  outcome)
• What are your learning outcomes?
• What not to do avoiding a negative learning
  environment.

19
Some Evidence from IPE

• Moray House
• Bristol (coming to end strong identity)
• St. Georges Kingston (foundation)
• Birmingham (postqualifying in practice)

20
Developing the evidence

• Choosing the theoretical model
• E.g. IAT Safeguarding (different, but shared
  responsibility)
• Manipulating the learning conditions
• E.g. including self-disclosure, stressing
  typicality vs. differentiation.
• Quasi-experimental
• Variations in social identification and
  knowledge.

21

• Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL, Validzic A. (1998)
  Intergroup bias status, differentiation, and a
  common in-group identity. J. Personality and
  Social Psychology, 7510920
• Hewstone, M, Rubin, M. and Willis, H. (2002)
  Annual Review of Psychology, 53575604.
• Tajfel H. and Turner J.C. (1979) An integrative
  theory of intergroup conflict. In The Social
  Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. WG
  Austin, SWorchel, pp. 3347. Monterey, CA
  Brooks/Cole