What is it about?
New research shows that negative interactions between members of opposing social groups in society can have disproportionately detrimental effects on social cohesion. The research, led by Professor Stefania Paolini, from Durham University’s Department of Psychology, analyses 70 years of research into the psychological effects of ‘intergroup contact’ and finds that negative experiences with people who are different from us influence our perceptions significantly more than positive ones. Critically, this negativity bias is more pronounced under conditions in which people have freedom to opt-out of such interactions. Negative interactions with ‘the other’ are less influential when individual freedoms to choose who to associate with are curtailed. Hence, less individual freedom, rather than more, seems to be better and safer for tackling stigmatization in society and for achieving broader social cohesion and peace. This might feel very wrong in many Westernized societies that celebrate personal liberties, like the US or Britain. The article advances understanding of the amplified impacts of negativity bias in unstructured, unmonitored, and unsanctioned settings where individual freedom is the largest. It highlights the hidden benefits of measures (policy/interventions) that limit, rather than boost, individual liberties in diverse settings.New research shows that negative interactions between members of opposing social groups in society can have disproportionately detrimental effects on social cohesion. The research, led by Professor Stefania Paolini, from Durham University’s Department of Psychology, analyses 70 years of research into the psychological effects of ‘intergroup contact’ and finds that negative experiences with people who are different from us influence our perceptions significantly more than positive ones. Critically, this negativity bias is more pronounced under conditions in which people have freedom to opt-out of such interactions or are motivated to do so. Negative interactions with ‘the other’ are less influential when individual freedoms to choose who to associate with are curtailed. Hence, less individual freedom, not more, is better and safer for tackling stigmatization in society, for achieving broader social cohesion and build peace. This might feel very wrong in many Western societies that celebrate personal liberties, like the US or the UK. The article advances understanding of the amplified impacts of negativity bias in unstructured, unmonitored, and unsanctioned settings where individual freedom is largest. It highlights the hidden benefits of measures (policy/interventions) that limit, rather than boost, individual liberties in diverse settings.
Featured Image
Photo by pine watt on Unsplash
Why is it important?
Do you want or want your children to feel welcome and valued in society irrespective of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, health status, gender, or sexuality? This new research speaks to those interested in stigmatization, desegregation, mainstreaming, social integration, and peace building around the world. In a global context fraught by societal friction, polarization, and marginalization, it is existentially important to find ways to harness societal diversity for the greater good. These new findings help us understand how positive and negative experiences with people who are different from us shape broad societal cohesion unevenly, especially where individuals are free to opt-out of contact or are motivated to avoid it. The article advances understanding of the impacts of negativity bias and highlights the need for more coordinated and curated introductions and contacts between social groups, especially where the chances for the social contact to go badly are high. It calls for intergroup contact in formalized settings, like educational, organizational, and institutional where it is harder to opt-out of contact as it turns sub-optimal and respective roles encourage people to endure contact’s ups-and-downs towards greater mutual knowledge, non-polarized judgments and behavioral intentions. These new data can help shape more effective policies and interventions that limit the risk of negative outcomes and increase the chances of sustained social cohesion.
Perspectives
When my collaborators and I started investigating negativity biases in intergroup contact effects fifteen years or so ago, some colleagues (mis-)interpreted our efforts as pro- group segregation. At the time analyses of positive intergroup contact were the norm, our interest in the differential impacts of positive vs. negative social contacts was seen as an implicit refusal of more optimistic outlooks on the potential for positive change through intergroup contact—or interactions between members of opposing social groups in society. These inferences could not be more distant from the truth: Like most social psychologists investigating intergroup contact, we believed in the importance and benefits of promoting interactions across group divides. However, we are of the view that such benefits cannot be achieved and fully realized away from a fuller (and at times uncomfortable) understanding of both positive and negative contact, their differential impacts and prevalences in people’s ordinary experiences in diverse settings. We hope that this article will help our community of science and practitioners appreciate that investigations on negative contact and the negativity bias in intergroup contact do not need to be the enemy of contact-based interventions and policy for de-stigmatization, social cohesion, and peace building. Rather, these investigations are essential to inform more nuanced and effective social measures that bring us closer to the social reality we want to live in.
stefania paolini
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Negativity bias in intergroup contact: Meta-analytical evidence that bad is stronger than good, especially when people have the opportunity and motivation to opt out of contact., Psychological Bulletin, June 2024, American Psychological Association (APA),
DOI: 10.1037/bul0000439.
You can read the full text:
Resources
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
