Societal 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

Awareness raising about structural inequalities

_________________________________________________________________

Description These interventions emphasize the structural causes of status differences between majority and minority groups and aim to increase engagement in efforts for social change. Importantly, they do not aim to reach harmony between groups, but rather discuss issues such as privilege, social hierarchies and injustice. For example, thematic discussions about inequality and conflict between groups with the participation of both minority and supportive majority participants can serve this goal. Workshops about possible ways to take responsibility and initiate change belong to this type of intervention. Most importantly, these interventions work with the assumption that a more just society can be reached not only by efforts for social cohesion (e.g. interventions focusing on prejudice reduction and harmony), but by engagement in more confrontative political activism as well in which members of the majority can also engage.

Why it works for members of majority and advantaged groups This method is based on increasing awareness among members of the majority about intergroup status hierarchies and injustices. By the process of social comparison, they need to learn about the disadvantages of lower status groups and recognize their own group’s privilege. This intergroup comparison between their own group and other groups can lead to the recognition of their own responsibilities in changing the status quo and their potential to contribute to social change as allies of disadvantaged groups. Intergroup emotions such as outrage, empathy, sympathy and even guilt can occur as a response to the recognition of injustice, and these emotions can mobilize members of the majority to engage in supportive behaviour (become volunteers, donate money, or engage in activism).
However, as this confrontation with intergroup injustices is highly unpleasant for members of the majority, they may have a preference for interventions that seek similarities between groups and create intergroup harmony without a focus on structural inequalities. They may even feel threatened by this approach because it questions their privilege and higher status. Therefore, it is more likely to be an effective intervention for relatively open-minded individuals who are not threatened by criticism of their own group. Although they may not be the target group for prejudice reduction with an already low level of prejudice, this method has the potential to mobilize them as allies for the minority group. Importantly, members of the majority group may have grievances as well (for example, in the form of perceived threat and lack of resources). Such grievances, especially if they are not acknowledged, can hamper the effectiveness of this type of intervention.

How members of minority and disadvantaged groups are affected Minority participants are more motivated to discuss intergroup differences and intergroup conflict, and this approach can empower them to stand up for their rights and get engaged in activism. When the awareness raising intervention entails contact with members of majority groups, these contact experiences can make majority allies more acceptable and supportive for minority participants. At the same time, such supportive contact (when majority participants acknowledge injustice) was demonstrated to counter the demobilization effect of positive contact on minority members and motivate them for collective action on behalf of their group.

Applicability for Roma—non-Roma context Although this intervention could be a highly desirable method for social change in Roma—nonRoma relations, there may be obstacles to its widespread use in social-political contexts that are permissive with prejudice and among participants who are highly prejudiced. These interventions work with the assumption that people are motivated to change their attitudes and engage in social change when unjust relations are made visible, because such confrontations are emotionally distressful. However, members of the majority may resist or explain away this information in the presence of high prejudice and blame Roma people for their disadvantages. They may also be less motivated to acknowledge their own group’s privileges, if they have grievances themselves. These grievances need to be considered when designing an intervention and promote solidarity based on shared experiences of grievances, not only based on the distinction between privileged and disadvantaged groups. Nevertheless, the intervention has the potential to influence institutional policies for more equal treatment and to encourage Roma engagement. However, there is no evidence so far that tested the effectiveness of this intervention in connection with Roma people.

Related publications in social psychological journals
Powell, A. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Schmitt, M. T. (2005). Inequality as ingroup privilege or outgroup disadvantage: The impact of group focus on collective guilt and interracial attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(4), 508-521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271713
Reason, R. D., Roosa Millar, E. A., & Scales, T. C. (2005). Toward a model of racial justice ally development. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 530–546. doi: 10.1353/csd.2005.0054

Changing norms

_________________________________________________________________

Description These interventions target the majority by exposing them to specific norms and values. For example, groups of students were instructed to discuss the important issue of poverty in developing countries. Their task was to design a campaign that made people angry and outraged about the problem. The norm that people should be angry about was the focus of the discussion, and the interactions among participants contributed to their higher engagement in the cause. Similarly, discussion groups are often used in interventions and workshops to educate and persuade people to deal with a societal problem and actively contribute to solving the problem.

Interventions may address different values and norms, such as:
• Promoting values of diversity (multicultural approach);
• Promoting values of harmony, universalism, human rights and similarity between
groups (colourblind approach);
• Promoting values of being non-prejudiced.

Social norms can emerge in group discussions, but individuals have different potentials in creating and altering the norms within a group. The behaviour of well-connected and salient actors, so called social referents, can provide cues for other members of the group about norms more strongly than others.

Why it works for members of majority and advantaged groups This method builds on the idea that groups can develop new norms through a discussion that gives them guidance how to think, feel and behave about a specific issue. If the group discussion is designed in a way that it creates norms to reduce prejudice and increase engagement in social change, it can have an impact on individual attitudes and behaviour. Additionally, it can break pluralistic ignorance: the belief that people with non-prejudiced
attitudes are in a minority.

How members of minority and disadvantaged groups are affected These types of interventions may also encourage minority participants to speak up for their rights and empower them in their minority identities.

Applicability for Roma—non-Roma context As prejudice expression toward the Roma is prevalent and normative, this intervention is particularly important in the context of Roma—non-Roma relations. Influential members of particular social contexts, such as local or national political leaders or school teachers can become social referents and set norms to reduce antigypsyism. However, it is extremely difficult to establish new norms that go against the norms of the broader societal context, as the norms of different reference groups contradict each other in these contexts.

Related publications in social psychological journals
Thomas, E. F., & McGarty, C. A. (2009). The role of efficacy and moral outrage norms in creating the potential for international development activism through group‐based interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 115-134. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X313774
Váradi, L. (2014). Youths trapped in prejudice: Hungarian adolescents’ attitudes towards the Roma. Wiesbaden: Springer Science & Business.

Go to the next chapter The unique characteristics of antigypsyism

or return to Psychological interventions to reduce prejudice.