Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2003. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 170-182). Also available on the Internet.

Most social groups exist not by reason of some universally acknowledged, biologically based, and inherent existence of living "kinds," but are instead constructed (Bem, 1983; Smedley & Smedley, 2005; Whitehouse, 2011); they are the product of evolved psychological biases and widely shared cultural beliefs and practices. The raison d'être for particular social groups is not, however, always readily apparent. This is likely to be especially true for children, in part because the instantiation of many social groups goes unexplained by adults. Thus social groups can be construed as lying along a spectrum from well defined and explained, referred to here as "transparent," to poorly defined and explained, referred to here as "opaque." The degree to which children view particular social groups as causally transparent versus opaque may have important consequences for the formation of intergroup attitudes. Specifically, I sought to test the hypothesis, generated from an integration of the developmental literatures on intergroup attitudes, essentialist thought, and causal reasoning, that children who are members of a social group whose existence (i.e., origin and purpose) is causally opaque show higher levels of ingroup biased attitudes and behavior than children who are members of a social group whose existence is causally transparent. Children (N = 72; 41 girls; 6 to 12 years; M = 8.75; from the Midwestern U.S.) were given a measure of spatial reasoning and randomly assigned to one of two novel groups (denoted by colored t-shirts). In three classrooms, children were told that assignments to color groups were based on styles of spatial problem solving (transparent condition); in three other classrooms, children were told nothing about the basis for grouping (opaque condition). After 6 weeks, children completed measures of intergroup attitudes. Results indicated that children's intergroup attitudes were unaffected by presence versus absence of a specific, narrow explanation for social categorization; overall, children developed ingroup biased attitudes. / text

Individuals defend and rationalize social systems in order to maintain the belief that the world in which they live is fair and good. This justification often involves seeing intergroup inequality as legitimate and holding negative attitudes toward lower status groups. Although research on system justification is plentiful, the effects of perceived threat to the system on intergroup interaction behavior and dynamics have remained unexamined. With ethnic diversity increasing in North America, it is imperative that we understand the factors that promote more positive (and negative) intergroup interactions. Across three studies I examined individuals’ reactions to system threatening information versus low threat in the context of an intragroup or intergroup interaction. In general, priming dominant group members with system threat (versus low threat) led to less negative intergroup interaction behavior. Specifically, being primed with system unfairness led dominant group members in Study 1 to express more positive other-directed remarks during a written exchange with an ostensible outgroup member. Study 2, conducted with a different minority group than Study 1, found that dominant group members feel more guilt when interacting with minority group members versus members of their own group in the face of system threat. Finally, a face-to-face intergroup interaction study replicated the positive behavioral effects of salient system threat found in Study 1, this time manifest in increased nonverbal friendliness and self-disclosure for both pair members. These findings suggest that system threat instantiated in an interaction setting leads dominant group members toward exhibiting more positive behavior to minority group members that benefits both parties involved, rather than toward derogation. Implications for social change initiatives are discussed.

Intergroup contact is often awkward, due to individuals’ concerns regarding outgroup members' evaluation of them, and these concerns are higher when the evaluation is perceived as uncertain and important (Vorauer, 2006). Although high evaluative concern has been identified as one of the key obstacles to smooth intergroup relations, many questions remain about the nature of evaluative concern and how it might be reduced. Three studies examined evaluative uncertainty- which has been theorized to be one of the main predictors of evaluative concerns during intergroup contact with an ostensible interaction paradigm. The key goals of this research were to: 1) develop and assess different potential measures of evaluative uncertainty, 2) investigate whether evaluative uncertainty is higher during intergroup contact than during intragroup contact and whether it fosters evaluative concerns, and 3) identify a strategy for reducing evaluative uncertainty. Study 1 followed a 2 (Participant Group Status: Majority vs. Minority) x 2 (Contact Type: Intergroup vs. Intragroup) factorial design and two promising measures of evaluative uncertainty were identified. In line with predictions, higher evaluative uncertainty was observed for both majority and minority group members during intergroup as compared to intragroup contact. Study 2 followed a 2 (Uncertainty Manipulation: Uncertainty vs. Certainty) x 2 (Contact Type: Intergroup vs. Intragroup) factorial design, using a modified version of a manipulation developed in previous research to manipulate general uncertainty. Unfortunately, however, the manipulation was not successful. Study 3 examined whether evaluative uncertainty can be reduced by prompting individuals to reflect on how their traits are usually perceived by others, and whether this reduced uncertainty can then lead to improved contact experiences. The study followed a 2 (General Meta-Evaluation Activation: Yes vs. No) x 2 (Participant Ethnicity: White vs. Chinese) x 2 (Contact Type: Intergroup vs. Intragroup) factorial design. As hypothesized, prompting individuals to reflect on how their traits are usually perceived by others led to reduced evaluative uncertainty and more positive interaction behavior (i.e., increased self-disclosure, more communication effort, and increased interaction enjoyment – the latter only in White participants).

Individuals defend and rationalize social systems in order to maintain the belief that the world in which they live is fair and good. This justification often involves seeing intergroup inequality as legitimate and holding negative attitudes toward lower status groups. Although research on system justification is plentiful, the effects of perceived threat to the system on intergroup interaction behavior and dynamics have remained unexamined. With ethnic diversity increasing in North America, it is imperative that we understand the factors that promote more positive (and negative) intergroup interactions. Across three studies I examined individuals’ reactions to system threatening information versus low threat in the context of an intragroup or intergroup interaction. In general, priming dominant group members with system threat (versus low threat) led to less negative intergroup interaction behavior. Specifically, being primed with system unfairness led dominant group members in Study 1 to express more positive other-directed remarks during a written exchange with an ostensible outgroup member. Study 2, conducted with a different minority group than Study 1, found that dominant group members feel more guilt when interacting with minority group members versus members of their own group in the face of system threat. Finally, a face-to-face intergroup interaction study replicated the positive behavioral effects of salient system threat found in Study 1, this time manifest in increased nonverbal friendliness and self-disclosure for both pair members. These findings suggest that system threat instantiated in an interaction setting leads dominant group members toward exhibiting more positive behavior to minority group members that benefits both parties involved, rather than toward derogation. Implications for social change initiatives are discussed.

Intergroup contact is often awkward, due to individuals’ concerns regarding outgroup members' evaluation of them, and these concerns are higher when the evaluation is perceived as uncertain and important (Vorauer, 2006). Although high evaluative concern has been identified as one of the key obstacles to smooth intergroup relations, many questions remain about the nature of evaluative concern and how it might be reduced. Three studies examined evaluative uncertainty- which has been theorized to be one of the main predictors of evaluative concerns during intergroup contact with an ostensible interaction paradigm. The key goals of this research were to: 1) develop and assess different potential measures of evaluative uncertainty, 2) investigate whether evaluative uncertainty is higher during intergroup contact than during intragroup contact and whether it fosters evaluative concerns, and 3) identify a strategy for reducing evaluative uncertainty. Study 1 followed a 2 (Participant Group Status: Majority vs. Minority) x 2 (Contact Type: Intergroup vs. Intragroup) factorial design and two promising measures of evaluative uncertainty were identified. In line with predictions, higher evaluative uncertainty was observed for both majority and minority group members during intergroup as compared to intragroup contact. Study 2 followed a 2 (Uncertainty Manipulation: Uncertainty vs. Certainty) x 2 (Contact Type: Intergroup vs. Intragroup) factorial design, using a modified version of a manipulation developed in previous research to manipulate general uncertainty. Unfortunately, however, the manipulation was not successful. Study 3 examined whether evaluative uncertainty can be reduced by prompting individuals to reflect on how their traits are usually perceived by others, and whether this reduced uncertainty can then lead to improved contact experiences. The study followed a 2 (General Meta-Evaluation Activation: Yes vs. No) x 2 (Participant Ethnicity: White vs. Chinese) x 2 (Contact Type: Intergroup vs. Intragroup) factorial design. As hypothesized, prompting individuals to reflect on how their traits are usually perceived by others led to reduced evaluative uncertainty and more positive interaction behavior (i.e., increased self-disclosure, more communication effort, and increased interaction enjoyment – the latter only in White participants).

The purpose of this research is to test the idea that creating a social connection with an outgroup member by thinking about how the self is similar to this outgroup member produces positive intergroup outcomes, whereas creating a sense of connection by thinking about how the outgroup member is similar to the self produces less positive intergroup outcomes. An overview of the literature on connections between the self and outgroup members, and the importance of the framing of such connection is reviewed in Chapter 1. In Chapter 2, I examine whether a sense of social connection can be created and whether the nature of this connection is influenced by the way the similarity between the self and the outgroup member is framed. I find non-significant effects, though in an interesting pattern suggesting that a better manipulation may produce stronger effects. In Chapter 3 I examine how framing of the connection to an outgroup member affects stereotyping of, and interest in, the outgroup. I find that participants tend to project their own personality onto an outgroup member when their connection with him or her is framed as how the outgroup member is similar to the self. They thus show decreased stereotyping but also less interest in the other’s culture. In contrast, when participants make a connection to an outgroup member and their connection with him or her is framed as the self is similar to the outgroup member, they display an interest in the outgroup culture and a decrease in stereotyping that is accompanied by more positive outgroup evaluation. In Chapter 4, I extend these findings by demonstrating that when participants make a social connection with an outgroup member and this connection is framed as how the self is similar to the outgroup, then they experience more distress when they learn about a real case of discrimination against a different outgroup member. In Chapter 5, I tried to create a social connection with a member of an outgroup by having them notice that they share a birthday with the outgroup member. Unfortunately, this manipulation did not appear to produce my expected effects, suggesting that sharing interests as opposed to a birthday may be important in creating the type of connection necessary for my effects. In Chapter 6 I examine how the social connection with an outgroup member can effect a social interaction with that outgroup member and openness to cultural activities of the outgroup. Creating a social connection in which similarity to an outgroup member is framed as the self being similar to the outgroup member leads to a more positive online interaction with increased friendliness toward the outgroup members and greater interest in the other’s culture. In Chapter 7, I discuss the theoretical implications for these findings, their weaknesses and directions for future research.

The purpose of this study was to examine how misperceptions of intergroup differences affect the working and professional relationships among Hispanic teachers, European American (White) teachers, and European American (White) administrators in urban schools. As this was an exploratory study to examine the professional exchanges among racio-ethnically diverse groups of teachers and administrators, a qualitative case study methodology was used to collect and report the data for the study. This case study approach was helpful in examining administrators' and teachers' perceptions of intergroup conflict and how these cultural differences affected their exchanges. The data were collected through interviews and through observations made while attending various school functions, such as faculty meetings. The study took place in two urban public schools in South Central Texas, each with a European American administrator, Hispanic teachers, and European American teachers. Included in this study were 14 teachers, 7 European American and 7 Hispanic, two principals, and four assistant principals who participated in two focus groups to validate the teachers' responses. The intergroup properties that were identified in this study were areas of conflict between majority and minority groups that affected the working relationships and active collaboration in instructional matters between school professionals. The properties of intergroup conflict were used to identify causes of conflict among different group members. The properties of intergroup conflict areas revealed in the study were incompatible goals, competitions for resources, cultural and power differences, group boundaries, and leadership behaviors. The quick increase in the diverse populations, primarily Hispanic, of urban schools in South Texas has not allowed sufficient time for Hispanic teachers to enter the workforce, much less Hispanic administrators. As identified in the study and through the properties of intergroup conflict, cultural differences among various demographically diverse groups, such as the principals and teachers studied here, lead to misperceptions that eventually lead to conflicts. Potential conflicts, due to leadership and followership diversity, and to opposing interests, occurred in the day-to-day exchanges between the principals and teachers. Responses made by the European American principals to the opposing interests provided opportunities to create an inclusive school organization.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Delaware, 2008. / Principal faculty advisor: Samuel L. Gaertner, Dept. of Psychology. Includes bibliographical references.

Senior Honor's Thesis (Psychology)--Ohio State University, 2004. / Title from first page of PDF file. Document formatted into pages; contains 29 p.; also includes graphics. Includes bibliographical references (p. 22-24). Available online via Ohio State University's Knowledge Bank.