Program of Research
From the boardroom to the classroom, examples of intergroup interactions gone awry are easy to find. Despite the ease with which negative intergroup interactions come to mind, that pattern of social interaction is not
inevitable. My research investigates pathways to positive intergroup relations by examining the factors that inhibit and promote positive intergroup contact. I use a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to examine three main questions: What factors facilitate positive intergroup contact? How do stigmatized and non-stigmatized individuals respond to stigma-related threats during intergroup contact? What factors promote social change in the form of personal behavior or collective action?
Expectations of Intergroup Contact
One aim of my research is to identify factors that create a solid foundation for intergroup friendship. A century of research on prejudice and intergroup relations demonstrates that people typically expect the worst from intergroup contact. People anticipate that they will feel anxious and have negative experiences when interacting with others who are from a different social group. This is true for people who belong to socially devalued or
“stigmatized” groups and for people who are not stigmatized. Negative expectations are often confirmed and intergroup contact is more unpleasant than contact with people from one’s own social group. However, intergroup contact is not always negative. Indeed, Allport (1954) argued that intergroup contact which creates “friendship potential” is one of our best hopes for reducing prejudice and discrimination.
In research supported by a grant from the Russell Sage Foundation, I investigated the Intergroup Forecasting Error, or the tendency to expect the worst from intergroup interactions even though, many times, they turn
out better than anticipated (Mallett, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2008). Even if an intergroup interaction goes better than expected it can still produce anxiety, which reduces willingness to engage in future contact. I found that a relatively simple intervention—watching a video of interracial friends discussing how they met and then writing about a time they had a similar experience—increased the positivity of White college students’ interactions with a Black student they had never met (Mallett & Wilson, 2010). It also dramatically increased the number of interracial friendships they formed in the ensuing weeks. As a result of this work, the American Psychological Association’s publishing division invited Linda Tropp and I to compile an edited volume about positive approaches to intergroup relations (Moving Beyond Prejudice Reduction: Pathways to Positive Intergroup Relations).
Responding to Prejudice
A second aim of my research is to understand how both stigmatized and non-stigmatized individuals respond to stigma-related threats that occur during interpersonal episodes of intergroup contact. One way I that I
have investigated responses to stigma-related threat is by identifying strategies that stigmatized group members use to proactively cope with discrimination. I have studied how African Americans and women who are heavy
proactively cope with discrimination using strategies that are focused on changing the self or changing the stressful situation (Mallett & Swim, 2005; 2009).
A second way that I have investigated responses to stigma-related threat is by testing factors that influence the way traditionally non-stigmatized group members respond to accusations that they are biased. In this case, being accused of bias is stigmatizing. Dana Wagner, and I found that men responded better than would typically be expected when a female confederate accused them of being sexist in a face-to-face interaction. More specifically,
when men were motivated to be liked by their partner, they used strategies similar to those used by stigmatized group members (e.g., smiling, seeking common ground)—even when she had just accused them of being sexist. In fact, men’s responses to being confronted for sexism can increase mutual liking with their partner and enable them to control future use of sexist language (Mallett & Wagner, 2011).
More recently, I have begun to examine how goals shape women’s responses to sexual harassment. According to the model, all social groups are subject to stereotypes that contain societal perceptions Although many women
assume they would assertively confront sexism, they rarely do so. For example, Woodzicka and LaFrance (2001) found that most women imagined they would refuse to answer sexually harassing questions. When actually asked sexually harassing questions during a job interview, however, all of the women answered the questions, and none rudely confronted or left the interview. Using Woodzicka and LaFrance’s (2001) interview paradigm, Kala Melchiori and I found that simply thinking about how one would respond to sexual harassment activates the goal to be respected, which prompts intentions to assertively confront the harasser. Yet when actually faced with sexual harassment, social pressures activate the goal to be liked, which inhibits confrontation (Mallett & Melchiori, in preparation).
Working for Social Change
A third aim of my research is to identify factors that promote social change in the form of changing personal behavior or engaging in collective action. Emotion can be a powerful motivating force, prompting non-stigmatized group members to act in coalition with stigmatized groups to reduce social inequality. I wanted to see whether a negative emotion like group-based guilt could motivate positive behavior in non-stigmatized group members. I tested whether group-based guilt increased the likelihood that non-stigmatized individuals would engage in collective action designed to benefit a different social group. I chose to examine this question in the context of actual hate crimes that targeted African American and lesbian, gay, and bisexual students on my college campus. I found that among heterosexual and White students, taking the perspective of the group that was targeted by the
hate crimes was positively related to participation in collective action on behalf of the other group. Moreover, White guilt mediated the relation between perspective taking and willingness to help the outgroup and participation in collective action (Mallett, Huntsinger, Sinclair, & Swim, 2008).
As a member of the campus community at the time of the hate crimes, I was struck by the variability in reactions to the events. Some people were outraged by the attacks while others did not see them as problematic. I
looked at individual differences in the tendency to justify the existing social system (i.e., system justification) to better understand these vastly different perceptions of and reactions to the same events (Mallett, Huntsinger, &
Swim, 2011). Building on the idea that hate crimes target stigmatized groups as a way to keep such groups “in their place” (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), I found that people who are motivated to maintain the current social system
perceived little harm from hate crimes that targeted stigmatized groups and, as a result, opposed policies designed to address hate crimes. Interestingly, people motivated to maintain the current social system
perceived more harm when hate crimes targeted non-stigmatized groups.
Finally, I was curious to see whether people are capable of experiencing group-based emotions for behavior that harms non-human entities like the environment (Mallett, Melchiori, & Harrison, in press). Highlighting instances when people fail to meet their standards for environmental-protection creates guilt which then motivates eco-friendly behavior. Moreover, eco-guilt mediates the relation between perceptions regarding personal standards about environmentally-harmful behavior and both public and private efforts to protect the environment (Mallett, under review). My graduate students and I found that self-confrontation via carbon footprint feedback about the impact of one’s behavior on the environment increases eco-guilt when people learn that they, or a group to which they belong, create more carbon emissions than their peers. Eco-guilt then partially mediates the association between carbon footprint feedback and support for a pro-environmental group (Mallett, Melchiori, & Strickroth, under review).
From the boardroom to the classroom, examples of intergroup interactions gone awry are easy to find. Despite the ease with which negative intergroup interactions come to mind, that pattern of social interaction is not
inevitable. My research investigates pathways to positive intergroup relations by examining the factors that inhibit and promote positive intergroup contact. I use a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to examine three main questions: What factors facilitate positive intergroup contact? How do stigmatized and non-stigmatized individuals respond to stigma-related threats during intergroup contact? What factors promote social change in the form of personal behavior or collective action?
Expectations of Intergroup Contact
One aim of my research is to identify factors that create a solid foundation for intergroup friendship. A century of research on prejudice and intergroup relations demonstrates that people typically expect the worst from intergroup contact. People anticipate that they will feel anxious and have negative experiences when interacting with others who are from a different social group. This is true for people who belong to socially devalued or
“stigmatized” groups and for people who are not stigmatized. Negative expectations are often confirmed and intergroup contact is more unpleasant than contact with people from one’s own social group. However, intergroup contact is not always negative. Indeed, Allport (1954) argued that intergroup contact which creates “friendship potential” is one of our best hopes for reducing prejudice and discrimination.
In research supported by a grant from the Russell Sage Foundation, I investigated the Intergroup Forecasting Error, or the tendency to expect the worst from intergroup interactions even though, many times, they turn
out better than anticipated (Mallett, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2008). Even if an intergroup interaction goes better than expected it can still produce anxiety, which reduces willingness to engage in future contact. I found that a relatively simple intervention—watching a video of interracial friends discussing how they met and then writing about a time they had a similar experience—increased the positivity of White college students’ interactions with a Black student they had never met (Mallett & Wilson, 2010). It also dramatically increased the number of interracial friendships they formed in the ensuing weeks. As a result of this work, the American Psychological Association’s publishing division invited Linda Tropp and I to compile an edited volume about positive approaches to intergroup relations (Moving Beyond Prejudice Reduction: Pathways to Positive Intergroup Relations).
Responding to Prejudice
A second aim of my research is to understand how both stigmatized and non-stigmatized individuals respond to stigma-related threats that occur during interpersonal episodes of intergroup contact. One way I that I
have investigated responses to stigma-related threat is by identifying strategies that stigmatized group members use to proactively cope with discrimination. I have studied how African Americans and women who are heavy
proactively cope with discrimination using strategies that are focused on changing the self or changing the stressful situation (Mallett & Swim, 2005; 2009).
A second way that I have investigated responses to stigma-related threat is by testing factors that influence the way traditionally non-stigmatized group members respond to accusations that they are biased. In this case, being accused of bias is stigmatizing. Dana Wagner, and I found that men responded better than would typically be expected when a female confederate accused them of being sexist in a face-to-face interaction. More specifically,
when men were motivated to be liked by their partner, they used strategies similar to those used by stigmatized group members (e.g., smiling, seeking common ground)—even when she had just accused them of being sexist. In fact, men’s responses to being confronted for sexism can increase mutual liking with their partner and enable them to control future use of sexist language (Mallett & Wagner, 2011).
More recently, I have begun to examine how goals shape women’s responses to sexual harassment. According to the model, all social groups are subject to stereotypes that contain societal perceptions Although many women
assume they would assertively confront sexism, they rarely do so. For example, Woodzicka and LaFrance (2001) found that most women imagined they would refuse to answer sexually harassing questions. When actually asked sexually harassing questions during a job interview, however, all of the women answered the questions, and none rudely confronted or left the interview. Using Woodzicka and LaFrance’s (2001) interview paradigm, Kala Melchiori and I found that simply thinking about how one would respond to sexual harassment activates the goal to be respected, which prompts intentions to assertively confront the harasser. Yet when actually faced with sexual harassment, social pressures activate the goal to be liked, which inhibits confrontation (Mallett & Melchiori, in preparation).
Working for Social Change
A third aim of my research is to identify factors that promote social change in the form of changing personal behavior or engaging in collective action. Emotion can be a powerful motivating force, prompting non-stigmatized group members to act in coalition with stigmatized groups to reduce social inequality. I wanted to see whether a negative emotion like group-based guilt could motivate positive behavior in non-stigmatized group members. I tested whether group-based guilt increased the likelihood that non-stigmatized individuals would engage in collective action designed to benefit a different social group. I chose to examine this question in the context of actual hate crimes that targeted African American and lesbian, gay, and bisexual students on my college campus. I found that among heterosexual and White students, taking the perspective of the group that was targeted by the
hate crimes was positively related to participation in collective action on behalf of the other group. Moreover, White guilt mediated the relation between perspective taking and willingness to help the outgroup and participation in collective action (Mallett, Huntsinger, Sinclair, & Swim, 2008).
As a member of the campus community at the time of the hate crimes, I was struck by the variability in reactions to the events. Some people were outraged by the attacks while others did not see them as problematic. I
looked at individual differences in the tendency to justify the existing social system (i.e., system justification) to better understand these vastly different perceptions of and reactions to the same events (Mallett, Huntsinger, &
Swim, 2011). Building on the idea that hate crimes target stigmatized groups as a way to keep such groups “in their place” (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), I found that people who are motivated to maintain the current social system
perceived little harm from hate crimes that targeted stigmatized groups and, as a result, opposed policies designed to address hate crimes. Interestingly, people motivated to maintain the current social system
perceived more harm when hate crimes targeted non-stigmatized groups.
Finally, I was curious to see whether people are capable of experiencing group-based emotions for behavior that harms non-human entities like the environment (Mallett, Melchiori, & Harrison, in press). Highlighting instances when people fail to meet their standards for environmental-protection creates guilt which then motivates eco-friendly behavior. Moreover, eco-guilt mediates the relation between perceptions regarding personal standards about environmentally-harmful behavior and both public and private efforts to protect the environment (Mallett, under review). My graduate students and I found that self-confrontation via carbon footprint feedback about the impact of one’s behavior on the environment increases eco-guilt when people learn that they, or a group to which they belong, create more carbon emissions than their peers. Eco-guilt then partially mediates the association between carbon footprint feedback and support for a pro-environmental group (Mallett, Melchiori, & Strickroth, under review).
