Schools have a position in society that could provide tools for students to move toward more positive intergroup relations and to shape their nation as desired. In this dissertation, I present an analysis of how and whether schools in Nigeria, particularly unity schools (FUCs), achieve this. Schools are a concentrated site for interactions among young people, yet research in the field of education and conflict settings is limited in its exploration of how schools facilitate intergroup relations that deter hostility and increase intergroup tolerance while shaping positive and peaceful social relations. To address this gap, this project explores tolerance levels, national identities, and social interactions among students in Federal Unity Colleges (FUCs) in Nigeria. The FUCs are secondary boarding schools utilizing a nationwide quota system to ensure an ethnically and religiously representative student body in Nigeria—a place with a history of instability, conflicts, and complex politically prominent group categorizations that overlap across ethnic, religious, regional, and socioeconomic lines. This mixed methods longitudinal research was based on extensive fieldwork in 8 secondary schools (6 FUC and 2 State) over one academic year in Nigeria (2017-2018). The research includes a unique combination of methods: (a) pre- and post- student surveys including data on social (friendship) networks with 643 students, (b) pre- and post- interviews involving 47 students (group and individual), (c) 17 teacher and 8 administrator interviews, (d) 56 hours of classroom and school observations, and (e) an analysis of curriculum and policy documents. The findings indicate the following three points: (1) Maintaining an illusion of unity only serves to reproduce existing social relations, (2) Boarding schools have great potential for the reshaping of intergroup relations in areas of conflict and should be further utilized and explored, and (3) Simply removing students from the conflict in a boarding school bubble is not sufficient. Schools must use this unique position to have students view conflict, their identities, and one another from a different vantage point. The findings contribute to literature and theory related to education in conflict, peace and sustainable education, diversity, friendship networks, and school relationship to the nation.

Thesis advisor: Anderson J. Franklin / Previous research on intergroup relations between racial groups primarily focused on relations between Whites and various ethnic minority groups, studies on relations between ethnic minorities have been neglected and underexamined (Bikmen, 2011). Allport’s (1954) intergroup contact theory suggested that when the groups in contact are perceived to have similar status, contact could lead to reduced prejudice and improved intergroup relations. Asian Americans and African Americans occupy different status positions on the U.S. racial hierarchy. Although their relative status positions are important factors to consider in understanding their evaluations and interactions with each other, the influence of racial psychological factors are also important to consider because they may influence how status is perceived. Thus, the current study investigated how racial socialization, racial identity, and racial stereotypes influence contact between Asian Americans and African Americans. U.S.-born Asian American (N = 190) and African American (N = 304) adults completed an online survey containing a demographic information sheet, the Racial Socialization Influences Scale (Harrell, 1997), the People of Color Racial Identity Attitudes Scale (Helms, 1995), the Negative Attitude Toward Asians Scale (Ho & Jackson, 2001), the Anti-Black Scale (Katz & Hass, 1988), the Intergroup Contact Measure (Stathi & Crisp, 2010), and the Behavioral Intentions Scale (Esses & Dovidio, 2002). Results from multivariate multiple regression analyses suggested that racial socialization, particularly exposure to racially diverse environments, was positively related to the frequency and quality of contact, as well as willingness to engage in future contact for both Asian Americans and African Americans; whereas race-related discussions was associated with African Americans’ endorsement of Asian stereotypes. In addition, the study showed that racial identity schemas partially mediated the relationship between racial socialization and intergroup contact, and the relationship between racial socialization and racial stereotypes. Finally, findings revealed that African Americans reported more willingness to engage in future contact with Asian Americans than Asian Americans reported with African Americans. Discussions included methodological limitations, and implications for research and practice. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2016. / Submitted to: Boston College. Lynch School of Education. / Discipline: Counseling, Developmental and Educational Psychology.

Both practitioners and scholars have shown interest in initiatives that reduce bias and promote inclusion. Diversity ideologies—or beliefs and practices regarding how to approach group differences in diverse settings—have been studied as one set of strategies to promote racial equality, and argued to be effective for other intergroup relations, as well; however, little work has examined diversity ideologies in the context of gender, giving a limited understanding of their potential to improve gender relations. The present research compares the influence of two competing and commonly used ideologies—awareness and blindness—on race and gender relations. Awareness approaches recommend acknowledging and celebrating intergroup differences, whereas blindness approaches advocate for reducing and ignoring category membership. In contrast to research suggesting that race awareness is more effective at reducing racial bias than race blindness, I show that the opposite is true for gender. I theorize that awareness and blindness ideologies act upon unique types of race and gender differences in ways that preserve power for the dominant group, either exposing their opportunity-limiting nature (for race) or reifying their biological functionality (for gender). Using system justification theory, I show that diversity ideologies act upon distinct system-justifying rationales, where race awareness exposes differences in opportunities and experience, lessening denial of inequality, and thereby diminishing support for the status quo. In contrast, gender awareness highlights gender roles and their biological underpinnings, legitimizing gender differences in occupational segregation, and increasing support for the status quo (Studies 1–4). Additionally, I show that diversity ideologies have implications for unique forms of opportunity outcomes for women and racial minorities. For race, by increasing recognition of societal inequities, awareness leads Whites to show more support for policies that combat systemic inequality (i.e., affirmative action). For gender, by increasing biological attributions, awareness makes men more likely to stereotype in ways that limit women’s potential for success (Study 4). Finally, supporting my theory about the importance of the types of differences highlighted through awareness, I show that shifting the focus of differences toward external (opportunity, experience) ones leverages the benefits of awareness for both race and gender, providing a practical solution to improving race and gender equality (Studies 5–7). I conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for improving intergroup relations.

Empathy, the ability to feel and/or understand another’s emotional state, plays a significant role in interpersonal interactions, mitigating hostility and enhancing affiliation and helping. However, empathy also biases interpersonal reactions. For example, at the group level empathy can become amplified towards members of their ingroup and blunted towards individuals in outgroups, a term called parochial empathy. Currently, no validated measures of parochial empathy at the dispositional level exist, and development of such a scale would be important to understanding the role of group-based emotions in prejudice and discrimination against outgroups. I conducted five studies to develop and validate a self-report Trait Parochial Empathy Scale (TPES) that could measure tendencies to respond with parochial empathy across any set of group membership categories. Study 1 assessed the factor structure of the TPES through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses while Study 2 attempted to replicate the Study 1 factor structure and assess concurrent and divergent validity of the TPES using attitudinal measures. Study 3 assessed the temporal consistency of the TPES. Study 4 examined whether the TPES could be flexibly used across a variety of groups by assessing its relation to various outcomes across different ingroup and outgroup combinations. Finally, Study 5 assessed the ability of the TPES to predict in vivo behavior.

The purpose of the following research was to test the prediction that a sense of social connectedness to a stranger would result in the tendency to share psychological states with him/her. An overview of the literature on state sharing and the psychological merging between other and self is described in Chapter 1. The first test of my prediction is provided in Chapter 2 where I demonstrate that participants who are led to feel socially connected to a confederate--by sharing idiosyncratic preferences in common with her--resulted in the propensity to take on her goals. In Chapter 3, participants who felt connected to a confederate who was asked to complete a stressful speech task experienced more stress themselves. This effect occurred in part through a sense of felt “oneness” with the confederate. Chapter 4 extended these findings by showing that socially connected participants tended to experience secondary appraisal emotions in line with the confederate’s appraisal of the stressful speech task and this occurred through a sense of felt oneness with the confederate. In Chapter 5, participants who felt connected to an outgroup member tended to experience greater empathy for another outgroup member who experienced discrimination. The implications for social interaction in general and for intergroup relations in particular are discussed in Chapter 6.

Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Texas at Arlington, 2009.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Florida State University, 2004. / Advisor: Dr. Robert E. Deyle, Florida State University, College of Social Sciences, Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning. Title and description from dissertation home page (viewed June 16, 2004). Includes bibliographical references.

How does the status of a group influence the behavior of individuals within the group? This dissertation aims to answer this question by investigating the psychological and behavioral implications of membership in high- versus low-status groups, with a primary focus on the impact of membership in a high-status group. I propose that membership in high-status groups leads to self-oriented intragroup behavior, behavior that best suits members’ own interests regardless of the impact on group outcomes. In five studies, I test this idea and examine the psychological mechanism underlying this effect. The first three studies find that membership in a high-status group (a) decreases the resources allocated for the group as members attempt to ensure personal gain; (b) lowers the preference for a competent newcomer who may enhance group outcome but who may jeopardize personal gains; and (c) reduces the amount of voluntary information sharing during group negotiations, hindering group outcomes. The findings also reveal that reducing the conflict between group and personal interests via cooperative incentives encourages group-oriented behavior in high-status groups. The next two studies conceptually replicate these findings focusing on members’ information withholding – self-oriented behavior designed to prevent other in-group members from outperforming them. Specifically, results reveal that high-status group-membership increases intentional withholding of information, which in turn impairs group outcomes. However, this damaging pattern of intragroup behavior triggered by membership in a high-status group is alleviated when group members are led to believe that their group status is at stake. Taken together, this dissertation provides converging evidence that membership in high-status groups increases emphasis on personal interests within the group and that these concerns manifest in intragroup behavior that is distinct from that triggered by membership in low-status groups. The findings illuminate how the status of a group might shape the ways that members interact with other in-group members, as well as document the potential micro- and meso-level mechanisms through which status differences among social groups persist and change.

The changing demographics of the U.S. are increasingly drawing attention to the growing Hispanic and Asian populations. Historically, the majority of these two groups have resided in the same areas, which has created opportunities for interaction over shared resources. Intergroup relations between Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans have resulted in both cooperation and conflict. Realistic group conflict theory and social identity theory have not been evaluated in light of Hispanic-Asian interactions and therefore may not account for unique cultural psychological aspects of group members. It was hypothesized that while the two theories may accurately explain components of the intergroup relations between Asians and Hispanics, they would not fully explain them due to unconsidered cultural influences. Ultimately, it was found that while the theories can be applied well to explain Asian-Hispanic intergroup relations and make space for the central concepts concerning perception and identity to be influenced by culture, the issue of how culture influences intergroup conflict and cooperation is not directly addressed.

According to realistic conflict theory (RCT), people develop negative attitudes towards others as a result of competition with those others over limited resources. I hypothesized that participants would change their opinions of others in a greater negative direction if those others were competitive in resource use than if those others are cooperative. Additionally, I hypothesized that the participants' own resource use would influence how they changed their opinions of the others. Participants were asked to complete a ten-item trait-rating questionnaire before and after competing in a simulated fishing environment against a simulated group that fished either a little (cooperative opponent) or a lot (competitive opponent). As predicted, when fishing against competitive opponents, participants changed their ratings in a more negative direction than when fishing against cooperative opponents. In addition, participants' own fishing behaviour influenced some of their rating shifts. I discuss an alternative explanation of the results as based on group identity processes (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and suggest that the effects of such processes should be directly compared with competition over resources in the same study. Limitations of the study are discussed along with potential solutions.