Group and intergroup level interventions

1. Why do we need social psychology to fight antigypsyism?
2. Psychological interventions to reduce prejudice
3. The unique characteristics of antigypsyism
4. Best practice examples
5. Recommendations

Contact hypothesis: direct and indirect (extended,
imagined) contact

_________________________________________________________________

Description When members of different groups meet, merely based on the quantity of the encounters, prejudice and hostility can decrease. It is especially true if contact is positive and it happens under optimal conditions (as described by Allport):
● Participants are of equal status
● They have a common goal
● They cooperate and interact with each other
● The society and institutions support their contact

The content of the contact experience can be:
● Cooperative learning, task interdependence (for a common goal)
● Fun activities (e.g. playing football together)
● Discussions about commonalities (e.g. self-disclosure), building intimacy, harmony
● Discussions about differences and conflict (e.g. mediated group discussion)

Contact interventions are most effective when they involve repeated positive contact experiences in a variety of social settings.
An example for contact-based interventions is the Living Library. Within this intervention, members of stigmatised or minority groups (mainly trained volunteers) share their personal stories and experiences of discrimination with others. Participants can ask questions without taboos. This method can effectively raise empathy toward the other person, which can be transferred to the entire group. Generalisation is more likely when the minority group membership is emphasized during the contact, so the encounter is not framed as an interpersonal contact, but as an intergroup one.
Besides direct personal contact, indirect forms of contact also proved to be efficient in decreasing prejudice. For example, extended contact, which means that someone learns about the positive contact experience (personal relationship or friendship) of another member of their group, can effectively reduce prejudice [11]. Imagined contact simply requires to imagine a positive contact experience with a member of another group, and it can also have prejudice-reduction effect [12]. Although imagined contact cannot replace real contact experiences, it is a good alternative in case actual contact is not feasible or too difficult to achieve and can prepare the participants for direct contact in future, by reducing anxiety.

Why it works for members of majority and advantaged groups Positive contact interventions with minority members can increase empathy, liking and perspective-taking and decrease anxiety and prejudice toward the minority group. Furthermore, contact even increases the awareness of unjust treatment of the minority group, so majority members become more motivated to engage in acts of solidarity and join social movements for change. However, in the absence of the optimal conditions of contact or when contact is a negative experience, the opposite effect can be even stronger, and prejudice may increase.

How members of minority and disadvantaged groups are affected Intergroup contact has a controversial influence on minority group members. Positive emotions toward the majority increase as a result of positive contact, but at the same time the awareness of unjust treatment of their own group decreases and consequently their willingness to stand up for their own group, which is a risk of such interventions (also called as the irony of harmony, or the sedative effect of contact). This effect can be overcome if a contact-based intervention includes awareness raising about injustice.

In the Living Library intervention, minority members appear as storytellers and educators who represent their groups and highly identify with their own group. This can be an empowering experience for minority group members.

Applicability for Roma—non-Roma context As many Roma people live in geographically segregated settings and experience institutional segregation (e.g. in schools), the ideal circumstances for positive contact between Roma and non-Roma people are not always easy to achieve. Therefore, when contact takes place within an intervention programme, the optimal conditions of contact can be difficult to ensure. Furthermore, in order to avoid the sedative effect of contact, it is also important that the focus is not only on seeking harmony and commonalities between groups, but discussing injustice between groups, and the Roma identity and empowerment. Nevertheless, there is some empirical evidence that contact based interventions (such as the Living Library and the socalled fast-friends method) can be used to reduce prejudice toward Roma people and increase liking to some degree [13,14]. However, there is also evidence that these interventions may have limited effect: for example, the Living Library method was found ineffective in decreasing antigypsyism in Poland [15].

Related publications in social psychological journals
[12] Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions? Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. American psychologist, 64(4), 231-240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014718
[15] Groyecka, A., Witkowska, M., Wróbel, M., Klamut, O., & Skrodzka, M. (2019). Challenge your stereotypes! Human Library and its impact on prejudice in Poland. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 29(4), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2402
[13] Kende, A., Tropp, L., & Lantos, N. A. (2017). Testing a contact intervention based on intergroup friendship between Roma and non‐Roma Hungarians: reducing bias through institutional support in a non‐supportive societal context. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(1), 47-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12422
[14] Orosz, G., Bánki, E., Bőthe, B., Tóth‐Király, I., & Tropp, L. R. (2016). Don’t judge a living book by its cover: effectiveness of the living library intervention in reducing prejudice toward Roma and LGBT people. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(9), 510-517. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12379
Vezzali, L., Stathi, S., Giovannini, D., Capozza, D., & Trifiletti, E. (2015). The greatest magic of Harry Potter: Reducing prejudice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(2), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12279
[11] Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 73(1), 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73

Common ingroup identity

_________________________________________________________________

Description This intervention aims to activate social categories that both the members of the majority and the minority group belong to and identify with. The experience with the psychological overlap between the groups can decrease bias and conflict between groups. These common ingroup categories can be so-called superordinate categories, such as the nation or even humanity as a whole, or it can be a category that both members of the majority and the minority belong to, for example parents in a school, that can be a common ingroup identity for both Roma and non-Roma parents.
There are different ways to make such a common ingroup salient: people can be instructed to work for a common goal, they can be reminded that they share a common fate with the other group, or they can be instructed to find similarities between their own group and the other group.
For example, in an experiment, participants read a newspaper article about potential victims of terrorist attacks [16]. When potential victims were referred to by the common group as “Americans”, White people indicated less prejudice and more solidarity toward Blacks, compared to the condition when the group categories “White versus Black” were mentioned. When the common ingroup category was mentioned, people felt more that they shared a common fate with the other group, so they were less biased toward them. There is compelling evidence that such methods efficiently decrease intergroup bias from the angle of the majority, however, there are controversial effects on behalf of minority groups.

Why it works for members of majority and advantaged groups This approach is built on the idea that identity boundaries are flexible, and people belong to social categories on different levels of abstraction (from small and personal groups, such as the family, to large social categories, such as the nation). An intervention can make those identities salient that are common for both groups.
Majority participants usually like this intervention, because focusing on similarities can reduce anxiety about meeting a person from a different group. Such interventions usually provoke positive emotions such as empathy. This method does not draw attention to unearned privileges and guilt that would put members of the advantaged group in a potentially uncomfortable position. This is also a limitation of this method that it does not necessarily motivate participants to take responsibility and initiate structural-level change. Another limitation could be that the method of merging different groups to one common ingroup may be threatening to group members who identify highly with their own subgroup, as people have a natural motivation to distinguish their own group from similar other groups. However, this can be overcome in variations of the intervention that acknowledge the multiple specific identities of groups members.

How members of minority and disadvantaged groups are affected Although the emphasis on a common ingroup identity can be an important element of antidiscrimination interventions and is an important aspect of social inclusion, this intervention can also run the risk of disregarding diversity, overlooking minority identification and experiences of discrimination. Therefore, this intervention can potentially support a colourblind approach and create an illusion of harmony and lack of cultural recognition, rather
than offer real solutions. Evidence shows that the most favourable outcome for minority participants is ensured by those common ingroup identity interventions that also emphasize dual identification.

Applicability for Roma—non-Roma context Roma people across Europe identify differently within the context of the states that they live in: in some countries, they have a dual identity as Roma people and as citizens of the nation, in other contexts, identification with the ethnic majority vs. the minority group tends to be more exclusive, and in other countries, Roma people are more recent immigrants and are therefore double minorities. The applicability of this intervention is dependent on making a common ingroup category salient that is psychologically important for the both majority and minority participants in the specific context of the intervention. Importantly, these interventions must respect the dual identification of Roma people, and ensure their cultural recognition.

Related publications in social psychological journals
Crisp, R. J., & Beck, S. R. (2005). Reducing intergroup bias: The moderating role of ingroup identification. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 173-185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430205051066
[16] Dovidio, J. F., Ten Vergert, M., Stewart, T. L., Gaertner, S. L., Johnson, J. D., Esses, V. M., … & Pearson, A. R. (2004). Perspective and prejudice: Antecedents and mediating mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(12), 1537-1549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271177

Changing the perception of the ingroup:
self-affirmation and inclusive identity

_________________________________________________________________

Description In these interventions, different methods are used to change the way participants see themselves as members of different groups. For example, in a study when participants were asked to recall memories that made them proud personally, they were more likely to take responsibility and support reparation policies in a conflict with another group. However, this was not the case when pride was attached to the group and not the individual, which in fact had a backfire effect and increased intolerance [17].
Interventions can also alter the perception of their nation to be more inclusive. This can be achieved using relatively simple techniques: by reminding participants about historical generosity toward other groups, by attaching value to diversity and tolerance, and by emphasizing the civic definition of the nation as opposed to the ethnic one. These changes can reduce prejudice and intergroup hostility because they no longer feel that they need to devalue the other group for their own positive self-image.

Why it works for members of majority and advantaged groups People maintain a positive self-esteem by downward comparison with other groups. Prejudice is therefore functional in the sense that it contributes to seeing the ingroup in a positive light.
People show these biased perceptions especially when their group identity and group image is threatened. Therefore, interventions that offer an identity reinforcement (by for example selfaffirmation) without the need for downward comparison, can reduce identity threat and consequently prejudice among members of majority groups.

How members of minority and disadvantaged groups are affected It does not target minority participants.

Applicability for Roma—non-Roma context This intervention may be applicable to Roma—non-Roma contexts for several reasons. In EastCentral Europe, national identities can be fragile due to the historically unstable position of these countries, and nationalist movements tend to be strong and anti-Roma. Therefore, in these contexts, people may be especially sensitive to threat reducing positive identity reinforcement which can subsequently reduce prejudice against Roma people, if national identity content is presented as inclusive of the Roma. However, it is also possible that such interventions work better in contexts in which national identity already contains elements of openness and tolerance that can be made salient during the intervention, and therefore, it may work more effectively in those contexts. One study has shown that the same group affirmation technique was more effective in increasing solidarity action toward Roma people in France than in Romania because people adjusted their behavioural intentions to the perceived norms of behaviours in their country due to the intervention, and these norms were seen as more hostile in Romania.

Related publications in social psychological journals
[17] Čehajić-Clancy, S., Effron, D. A., Halperin, E., Liberman, V., & Ross, L. D. (2011). Affirmation, acknowledgment of in-group responsibility, group-based guilt, and support for reparative measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 256-270. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023936
Kende, A. K., Lantos, N. A., & Krekó, P. (2018). Endorsing a civic (vs an ethnic) definition of citizenship predicts higher pro-minority and lower pro-majority collective action intentions. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1402-1419. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01402

Go to the next page Societal level interventions

or return to Psychological interventions to reduce prejudice.