Interracial hostility and support for political ... - Wiley Online Library

167

The British Psychological Society

British Journal of Social Psychology (2012), 51, 167–177 C 2011 The British Psychological Society

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Brief report

Rejection as a call to arms: Inter-racial hostility and support for political action as outcomes of race-based rejection in majority and minority groups Fiona Kate Barlow1 *, Chris G. Sibley2 and Matthew J. Hornsey1 1 2

School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand Both majority and minority group members fear race-based rejection, and respond by disparaging the groups that they expect will reject them. It is not clear, however, how this process differs in minority and majority groups. Using large representative samples of White (N = 4,618) and M¯aori (N = 1,163) New Zealanders, we found that perceptions of race-based rejection predicted outgroup negativity in both groups, but in different ways and for different reasons. For White (but not M¯aori) New Zealanders, increased intergroup anxiety partially mediated the relationship between cognitions of rejection and outgroup negativity. M¯aori who expected to be rejected on the basis of their race reported increased ethnic identification and, in part through this, increased support for political action benefiting their own group. This finding supports collective-action models of social change in historically disadvantaged minority groups. ‘We can’t open our mouths without being denounced as racists, misogynists, supremacists, imperialists or fascists’. Saul Bellow, White American Author ‘We keep going back, stronger, not weaker, because we will not allow rejection to beat us down. It will only strengthen our resolve’. Earl G. Graves, Black American Author

The quotes above illustrate what we argue is the core difference between White and Black (or majority and minority group) experiences of race-based rejection. Saul Bellow’s comment conveys a sense of White anxiety – that is, a nervous anticipation associated with inescapable intergroup contexts. In contrast, Earl Graves’ statement *Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Fiona Kate Barlow, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia (e-mail: [email protected]).

DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02040.x

168

Fiona Kate Barlow et al.

portrays race-based rejection as a call to arms for minority groups; a force that at once bonds Black Americans together and moves them towards political action. In this study, we demonstrate that majority and minority groups mutually fear race-based rejection, and respond to it with outgroup negativity. We also test the popular (but as yet empirically unverified) assumption that for minority groups, race-based rejection is also tied to the collective struggle and political action (refer to Dixon, Tropp, Durheim, & Tredoux, 2010; Wright & Lubensky, 2008). Finally, we argue that race-based rejection has subjectively different meanings for majority and minority groups, and so leads to different outcomes through different processes.

Race-based rejection in majority and minority groups Race-based rejection can be experienced through concrete incidents of discrimination (e.g., Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Mendoza-Denton, Downey, Purdie, Davis, & Pietrzak, 2002) or it can be experienced through a pre-emptive expectation of rejection on the basis of one’s race in the absence of experience (e.g., Barlow, Louis, & Hewstone, 2009; Barlow, Louis, & Terry, 2010; Shelton & Richeson, 2005; Vorauer & Sakamoto, 2006). Minority group members who experience race-based rejection or discrimination report lower levels of well-being (e.g., Branscombe et al., 1999), decreased academic performance (e.g., Mendoza-Denton, Pietrzak, & Downey, 2008), increased violent behavior (e.g., Caldwell, Kohn-Wood, Schmeelk-Cone, Chavous, & Zimmerman, 2004), and poor physical and mental health (e.g., Williams, Neighbors, & Jackson, 2008). Little work has examined expectations of race-based rejection from the perspective of majority groups. The work that does exist demonstrates that, like minority groups, majority groups are sensitive to the possibility of race-based rejection. For example, both White and Asian Australians who expect to be rejected by Indigenous Australians respond with increased racism, and a desire to avoid the rejecting minority group (see Barlow et al., 2009, 2010). When faced with rejection by minority groups, members of majority groups are significantly less satisfied and more angry – emotions that flow on to predict decreased willingness to work towards intergroup reconciliation (Harth, Barlow, & Hornsey, in press). Although it is generally accepted that perceptions of race-based rejection can lead to inter-racial negativity, there are two conspicuous gaps in the literature. First, there has been relatively little work looking at the psychological mechanisms underpinning the relationship between perceptions of rejection and intergroup evaluations, and no work at all that does so among minority group members. Second, research looking at the consequences of perceptions of rejection typically focuses on either minority or majority group members. No research has examined minority and majority group members simultaneously in the same intergroup context. This is a problematic oversight, given that minority and majority group members might view race-based rejection through a different socio-historical lens, potentially leading to different downstream consequences. For members of minority groups, trans-generational experiences of racism and discrimination can breed a justified fear of negative judgment and treatment on the basis of their group membership. This is in direct contrast to majority group members, whose experience of race-based rejection will not be linked to a history of discrimination, but rather a history of perpetrating discrimination. In this study, we examine these questions for the first time, using large representative samples of an advantaged majority group (White New Zealanders) and a disadvantaged minority group (Indigenous New Zealanders – subsequently referred to as M¯aori).

Race-based rejection in majority and minority groups

169

Why race-based rejection might lead to intergroup hostility Anxiety In majority groups, intergroup anxiety is the most consistent mediator of the relationship between cognitions of race-based rejection and outgroup derogation (Barlow et al., 2009, 2010). Stephan and Stephan (1985) first theorized about the existence of intergroup anxiety, which they posited could arise on an intergroup level in response to fears about outgroup rejection and intergroup faux pas, as well as direct threat from the outgroup. Think back to Saul Bellow’s quote, in which he states ‘We can’t open our mouths without being denounced as racists’. Theoretically, this type of cognition would be a precursor to a subjective feeling of intergroup anxiety. Likewise, an expectation of being rejected on the basis of being White (and therefore privileged) predicts intergroup anxiety over a number of contexts (e.g., Avery, Richeson, Hebl, & Ambady, 2009; Barlow et al., 2009, 2010; Plant & Butz, 2006; Vorauer & Turpie, 2004). Increased intergroup anxiety, in turn, predicts increased racism and avoidance (e.g., Barlow et al., 2009, 2010). In contrast, researchers who have previously looked at race-based rejection in minority groups have largely neglected to include intergroup anxiety in their models (e.g., Armenta & Hunt, 2009; Caldwell et al., 2004; Johnson & Lecci, 2003; Latrofa, Vaes, Pastore, & Cadinu, 2009). This is despite the fact that intergroup anxiety is a potent intergroup emotion for minority as well as majority group members (see Butz & Plant, 2006; Hyers & Swim, 1998; Mendes, Major, McCoy, & Blascovich, 2008; West, Shelton, & Trail, 2009; Tropp, 2003). Two competing predictions are possible with regard to the role of anxiety in mediating the link between rejection and inter-racial hostility. One prediction is that anxiety does play a mediating role for minority group members – it just hasn’t been tested yet. An alternative prediction is that anxiety will play a role for majority but not for minority group members. For majority group members, intergroup anxiety stems from concerns about being seen as racist and privileged (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). The anxiety that flows on from rejection by a minority group member can be a result of the fact that the rejection implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) makes salient a history of illegitimate advantage, thus calling into question the moral integrity of the majority. One response to intergroup anxiety is a distancing from – and derogation of – the minority group that inspires the anxiety. In this case, intergroup anxiety is not just a factor associated with prejudice for majority group members, it is a necessary ingredient in creating majority group prejudice. In contrast, for minority group members, anxiety may not be essential to create a feeling of intergroup negativity. Instead, that negativity might flow directly from the intergroup context – a context that has seen the majority group discriminate against the minority group for so long.

Group-based identification If intergroup anxiety is not a mediator of the relationship between cognitions of rejection and prejudice for minority groups, then what is? One potential factor is ethnic identification. This suggestion stems from the rejection-identification model proposed by Branscombe et al. (2009), in which they propose that race-based rejection increases minority group ethnic identification, which in turn buffers against the deleterious effects of discrimination and race-based rejection on well-being. In their study, perceived discrimination was also linked to increased intergroup hostility; but unlike with wellbeing they did not propose or report data on identification as a mediator of the

170


relationship. Given that group identification tends to be positively associated with intergroup bias, it would seem sensible to examine the role of identification as a potential mediator of the rejection-prejudice relationship in minority groups.

Rejection as a call to arms In addition to examining intergroup hostility as an outcome variable, we also examine support for political causes linked to the intergroup struggle. This is particularly important when doing research that takes the minority and well as majority group perspective. Much of the literature to date that examines race relations, and in particular aims to develop interventions to improve them, takes a ‘prejudice-reduction’ focus (see Dixon et al., 2010, for comment). The bulk of this work looks at improving majority group attitudes towards minority groups, while a lesser amount also focuses on improving minority group attitudes towards the majority group. A prejudice-reduction approach is valuable. We know that positive majority group attitudes can have beneficial flow on effects for minority group members, and minority group positivity towards the majority group can create a cycle of warmth and easing of discrimination (e.g., Barlow et al., 2009). However, the problem with focusing on prejudice reduction in disadvantaged minority groups is that increasing minority group warmth towards the majority group can de-motivate collective action and cause members of minority groups to overlook or underestimate real and pervasive discrimination (Dixon, Durrheim, Tredoux, Tropp, Clack, & Eaton, 2010). A counterpoint to the prejudice-reduction model of social change is the ‘collectiveaction’ model (see Dixon et al., 2010; Wright & Lubensky, 2008). This perspective sees collective perceptions of injustice, anger, and inequality as necessary to motivate groupbased minority action aimed at changing the status quo (refer to Dixon et al., 2010, for an overview). The collective-action perspective would propose that discord and disharmony between groups may in fact increase minority group members’ perceptions of systemic inequality and support for political action favouring the ingroup (think back to Earl Graves’ quote). To date, however, this association has never been tested. In line with a collective-action perspective (see Dixon et al., 2010; Wright & Lubensky, 2008), we propose that cognitions of race-based rejection should predict increased support for political action favouring the ingroup for minority group members. In addition, this association should be in part mediated by increased identification with the minority group. Past research has shown that ethnic identification predicts political action among Black Americans (Berman & Wittig, 2004). It seems plausible that the tendency for race-based rejection to bond minority group members together around a shared ethnic identity would then translate to increased support for ingroup-favouring political causes.

The political context New Zealand was officially colonized by Britain in 1840 through the ‘Treaty of Waitangi’. The treaty officially made M¯aori British subjects in return for the guarantee of M¯aori tribal autonomy and land rights. Land-rights issues remain prominent, however, especially with the debate about ownership of New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed, with M¯aori claiming that M¯aori have a right to guardianship of this area under common law. In this study, we use support for M¯aori ownership of the foreshore and seabed as a measure of political support for M¯aori rights.


171

The current study We used a large representative sample of White and M¯aori New Zealanders to test our hypotheses. The nature of our sample allowed us to test our proposed model stringently in a sample of both advantaged majority (White New Zealanders) and disadvantaged minority group members (M¯aori New Zealanders). We measured both White and M¯aori cognitions of rejection, ethnic identification, intergroup anxiety, negativity towards the outgroup, and political support for M¯aori. In line with previous literature, we predicted that cognitions of rejection would predict negativity towards the outgroup for both White and M¯aori participants. Among majority group members, we expected that this relationship would be partly mediated by anxiety. For minority group members, three competing predictions were made about the mechanism through which perceptions of rejection might lead to intergroup negativity: (1) through increased anxiety, (2) through increased identification, and (3) as a direct (and unmediated) response to perceived discrimination. Extrapolating from the rejection-identification model and taking a collective-action perspective on social change, we also predicted that cognitions of rejection would predict increased political support among minority group members, and that this relationship would be mediated by ethnic identification.

Method Sampling procedure This study analysed data from the 2009 New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (NZAVS2009). The NZAVS-2009 questionnaire was posted to 40,500 participants from the 2009 NZ electoral roll. Roughly 1.36% of all people registered to vote in New Zealand were contacted and invited to participate. The overall estimated response rate (adjusting for address accuracy of the electoral roll and including anonymous responses) was 16.6%.

Participant details The NZAVS-2009 sampled a total of 6,507 participants. Seventy one per cent of the sample were White New Zealanders (n = 4,618) and 17.9% were M¯aori (n = 1,163). We analysed data from White and M¯aori participants only (n = 5,781). The subsample of White New Zealanders and M¯aori comprised 2,317 men (40.1%) and 3,464 (59.9%) women. The mean age of people in the subsample was 48.38 years (SD = 15.85). M¯aori (M = 43.90, SD = 13.81) were significantly younger than White New Zealanders (M = 49.48, SD = 16.13; t(5581) = 10.57, p < .001). This age difference may reflect the difference in average life expectancy of these two groups.

Questionnaire measures The questions reported below represent a small portion of the overall questionnaire. In order to maximize survey response, we made the questionnaire as short as possible, which explains the use of single item measures of a selection of the factors reported below. Items were interspersed among a battery of Likert-type items. General cognitions of race-based rejection were assessed using the item ‘People from other races would be likely to reject me on the basis of my race’. Intergroup anxiety was assessed using an item adapted from Stephan and Stephan (1985): ‘I feel anxious about

172


Table 1. Correlations and descriptive statistics for all variables 1 1. Gender (0 male, 1 female) 2. Age 3. Cognitions of race-based rejection 4. Intergroup anxiety 5. Ethnic identification 6. Negativity toward other ethnic group 7. Political support for M¯aori White NZers Mean Std. Dev M¯aori Mean Std. Dev

−.09∗ −.11∗ −.10∗ .02 −.01 .04

2

3

4

−.09∗

−.10∗ .02

−.06∗ .08∗ .24∗

.08∗ .13∗ .06 −.13∗ −.06

.21∗ .15∗ .13∗ .17∗

5 .05∗ .14∗ .18∗ .16∗

.04 .06 .04

−.09∗ .46∗

6

7

−.08∗ −.15∗ .15∗ .22∗ −.04

.13∗ −.15∗ −.03 −.04∗ .07∗ −.25∗

−.03

49.48 16.13

2.60 1.57

2.58 1.50

3.35 1.51

3.27 1.38

2.35 1.44

43.90 13.81

3.18 1.85

2.64 1.64

4.97 1.60

2.48 1.23

4.40 1.99

Note. Ns = 4,618 New Zealand (NZ) Europeans (upper diagonal) and 1,163 M¯aori (lower diagonal) from the NZAVS-2009. All scale scores ranged from 1 (low) to 7 (high); ∗ p ⬍ .01.

interacting with people from other races’. Items were rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Ethnic identity was assessed using the three-item identity centrality scale developed by Leach et al. (2008): ‘I often think about the fact that I am a member of my ethnic group’, ‘The fact that I am a member of my ethnic group is an important part of my identity’, and ‘Being a member of my ethnic group is an important part of how I see myself’ (M¯aori ␣ = .83; White New Zealanders ␣ = .79). Negativity toward M¯aori and White New Zealanders was assessed using Affect Thermometer Ratings modeled on the US National Election Study surveys. Participants rated their feelings of warmth toward the social groups ‘M¯aori’ and ‘New Zealander Europeans’ on a scale from 1 (least warm) to 7 (most warm). Responses were then reverse coded to give an index of outgroup negativity. Political support for the minority group (M¯aori) was measured using agreement with two social policy items: ‘M¯aori ownership of the seabed and foreshore’ and ‘Crown (government) ownership of the seabed and foreshore’. The items were rated on scale from 1 (strongly oppose) to 7 (strongly support) and were strongly negatively correlated in both the M¯aori (r = −.55, p < .01) and White New Zealander samples (r = −.65, p < .01). The crown ownership item was reverse coded and the two items averaged.

Results Means and standard deviations for all measures are reported in Table 1. We used path analysis to test the proposed mediation models in separate samples of White New Zealanders (N = 4,618) and M¯aori (N = 1,163) using a 5,000 bootstrapped resampling procedure. The path model testing the direct and indirect (mediated) effects of cognitions of race-based rejection on negative attitudes and support for M¯aori ownership of the foreshore for the White sample is presented in Figure 1. The path model for M¯aori is presented in Figure 2. The models also controlled for the residual

Race-based rejection in majority and minority groups Intergroup Anxiety

.95* .21*

.23* 1.00

.12*

Cognitions of RaceBased Rejection

173

Negativity toward Maori

.93*

-.05* .12*

-.24*

-.04

-.08*

Ethnic Identification

.08*

.17*

Political Support for Maori

.99*

.97*

Figure 1. Path model with standardized coefficients testing the direct and indirect effects of White New Zealander’s cognitions of race-based rejection on negativity toward M¯aori and political support for M¯aori mediated by intergroup anxiety and ethnic identification. ∗ p < .001.

association between the two mediators (intergroup anxiety and ethnic identity) and the two dependent measures (outgroup negativity ratings and political support for M¯aori). For White New Zealanders, intergroup anxiety partially mediated the association between cognitions of rejection and negativity toward M¯aori (␤ = .05, Sobel’s z = 8.87, p < .001). Ethnic identity also partially (and very weakly) mediated the association between cognitions of rejection and feelings of negativity toward M¯aori in the opposing direction (␤ = −.02, Sobel’s z = 4.84, p < .001). Cognitions of rejection also directly predicted feelings of negativity toward M¯aori independent of intergroup anxiety and ethnic identity (␤ = .12, t = 7.02, p < .001), but did not directly predict support for the foreshore at our criteria of p < .001 (␤ = −.04, t = −3.15, p = .002). The association between cognitions of race-based rejection and increased opposition toward M¯aori claims to the foreshore was mediated jointly by ethnic identity (␤ = .02, Sobel’s z = 4.63, p < .001) and marginally by intergroup anxiety (␤ = −.01, Sobel’s z = −3.07, p = .002). Overall, for White New Zealanders, the model accounted for approximately 7% of the variance in negativity towards the outgroup, and 1% of the variance in political support for the outgroup. We observed a markedly different pattern for M¯aori. For M¯aori, cognitions of racebased rejection were directly associated with higher levels of intergroup anxiety (␤ = .21, t = 6.26, p < .001), negativity toward White New Zealanders (␤ = .14, t = 3.85, p < .001), and increased support for M¯aori ownership of the foreshore (␤ = .10, t = 3.46, p = .001). These direct effects were moderate in magnitude, and were unmediated by intergroup anxiety (␤ = .00, Sobel’s z = .11, p = .910; and ␤ = .01, Sobel’s z = 1.26, p = .210). The association between cognitions of race-based rejection and increased support for M¯aori ownership of the foreshore was instead partially mediated by ethnic identification (␤ = .07, Sobel’s z = 4.60, p < .001). Overall, for M¯aori, the model

Intergroup Anxiety

.96* .04

.21* 1.00

.14*

Cognitions of RaceBased Rejection

.97*

.00 .00

.10* .14* Ethnic Identification

Negativity toward White New Zealanders

.00 -.10* .45*

Political support for Maori

.77*

.98*

Figure 2. Path model with standardized coefficients testing the direct and indirect effects of M¯aoris’ cognitions of race-based rejection on negativity toward White New Zealanders and political support for M¯aori mediated by intergroup anxiety and ethnic identification. ∗ p < .001.

174


accounted for approximately 3% of the variance in negativity towards the outgroup, and 23% of the variance in political support favouring the ingroup.

Discussion Both majority and minority group members fear outgroup rejection and respond with outgroup derogation (e.g., Barlow et al., 2009, 2010; Johnson & Lecci, 2003), but we have a limited understanding of why. The present study represents the first direct comparison of how and why majority and minority groups respond to perceptions of intergroup rejection. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Barlow et al., 2009, 2010; Branscombe et al., 1999), White participants who reported that they expected to be rejected on the basis of their race reported more negativity towards M¯aori, and M¯aori who expected to be rejected on the basis of their race reported more negativity towards White New Zealanders. White New Zealanders who expected to be rejected on the basis of their race reported increased intergroup anxiety, which partially mediated the link between cognitions of race-based rejection and negativity towards M¯aori. This pattern was not evident for M¯aori, however. M¯aori who reported increased cognitions of race-based rejection were also more likely to report high levels of intergroup anxiety, but this increased anxiety did not translate into negative intergroup attitudes. In terms of the unique pattern for White New Zealanders, it is likely that their response to race-based rejection is not only a function of the specific New Zealand group dynamic, but also a wider shift in how issues of race and racism are currently constructed in the West. For example, White fears of minority group rejection, and/or of being perceived as racist, may not have prompted intergroup anxiety or prejudice 100 or 200 years ago. Instead, race-based rejection may be a temporally bounded issue, one that is currently important given the discourse about the role that majority groups have played in creating unequal societies. We also examined the effects of rejection on support for ingroup-favouring political causes. Taking a collective-action perspective (see Dixon et al., 2010; Wright & Lubensky, 2008), we proposed that for minority groups, race-based rejection would be associated with group-based action and political movements aimed towards improving the social standing and status of minority groups. Consistent with this hypothesis, M¯aori participants who expected to be rejected on the basis of their race were also more supportive of M¯aori ownership of the foreshore and seabed. Furthermore, and in line with the rejection-identification model, this effect was partially mediated by ethnic identification. In other words, perceptions of rejection promoted ethnic identification, which then flowed on to support for the political cause. The collective-action approach proposes that for disadvantaged minority groups, collective action is in part motivated by a sense of anger towards, or even dislike of, the advantaged majority group (see Dixon et al., 2010; Wright & Lubensky, 2008). Interestingly, this was not the case in the current study. Negativity towards White New Zealanders was uncorrelated with political support for M¯aori in M¯aori participants. Instead, it was the sense of race-based rejection that both directly and indirectly (through increased identification) predicted support for ingroup-favouring political causes. Thus, it may not be intergroup negativity per se that spurs minority group members to collective action, but rather specific types of negativity associated with perceived rejection. In line with collective-action models of social change, future research should test whether a


175

sense of injustice and collective anger serve as further mediators of the relationship between race-based rejection and collective action in minority groups (refer to Dixon et al., 2010; Wright & Lubensky, 2008). Our findings have applied as well as theoretical importance. For minority group members, we know that perceiving race-based rejection can have extremely negative effects including decreased well-being (e.g., Branscombe et al., 1999), increased violence (e.g., Caldwell et al., 2004), and poor physical and mental health (e.g., Williams et al., 2008). What we demonstrate, however, shows another aspect of race-based rejection, one consistent with Earl G. Graves’ when he says: ‘We keep going back, stronger, not weaker, because we will not allow rejection to beat us down. It will only strengthen our resolve’. Minority group, or M¯aori participants, did seem to steel their resolve in response to cognitions of rejection – those who expected to be rejected on the basis of their race were also more likely to show political support for their own group. Interestingly, there was no evidence that ethnic identification mediated the effect of perceived rejection on intergroup hostility among the M¯aori minority group. High levels of ethnic identification for M¯aori were associated with increased positivity towards White New Zealanders. For White New Zealanders, cognitions of race-based rejection were also associated with increased ethnic identification. Again, however, Whites’ identification with their ethnic group did not flow through into inter-racial negativity in the same manner as anxiety did. Instead, it had the opposite effect: increased identification very weakly predicted decreased negativity towards M¯aori and increased support for M¯aori land rights, and both mediational paths were significant (although small). Although these findings were unexpected, it is clear that ethnic identification in this context was not flowing on to intergroup hostility, and is not the mechanism that can explain the link between rejection and hostility. For M¯aori, then, neither intergroup anxiety not ethnic identification were implicated in creating intergroup negativity; it seems instead that negativity flows directly from the perception of rejection. It is noted, however, that the data are cross-sectional and thus claims about causality must be issued cautiously. In sum, our study demonstrates that rejection at the intergroup level has tremendous capacity to thwart intergroup relations. But at present, for minority groups at least, it seems an important motivator in continuing the good (political) fight.

Acknowledgements Collection of the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study 2009 (NZAVS-09) data analysed in this paper was funded by University of Auckland FRDF (No. 3624435/9853) and ECREA (No. 3626075) grants awarded to the second author. This research was also supported by an Australian Research Council grant awarded to the third author.

References Armenta, B. E., & Hunt, J. S. (2009). Responding to societal devaluation: Effects of perceived personal and group discrimination on the ethnic group identification and personal selfesteem of Latino/Latina adolescents. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(1), 23–39. doi:10.1177/1368430208098775 Avery, D. R., Richeson, J. A., Hebl, M. R., & Ambady, N. (2009). It does not have to be uncomfortable: The role of behavioral scripts in Black & White interracial interactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1382–1393. doi:10.1037/a0016208

176


Barlow, F. K., Louis, W. R., & Hewstone, M. (2009). Rejected! Cognitions of rejection and intergroup anxiety as mediators of the impact of cross-group friendships on prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(3), 389–405. doi:10.1348/014466608X387089 Barlow, F. K., Louis, W. R., & Terry, D. J. (2010). Minority report: Social identity, cognitions of rejection and intergroup anxiety predicting prejudice from one racially marginalized group towards another. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 805–818. doi:10.1002/ejsp.651 Berman, S. L., & Wittig, M. A. (2004). An intergroup theories approach to direct political action among African Americans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(1), 19–34. doi:10.1177/1368430204039971 Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 135–149. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.135 Butz, D. A., & Plant, E. A. (2006). Perceiving outgroup members as unresponsive: Implications for approach-related emotions, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1066–1079. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1066 Caldwell, C. H., Kohn-Wood, L. P., Schmeelk-Cone, K. H., Chavous, T. M., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2004). Racial discrimination and racial identity as risk or protective factors for violent behaviors in African American young adults. American Journal of Community Psychology, 33(1), 91–105. doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000014321.02367.dd Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., Tredoux, C., Tropp, L., Clack, B., & Eaton, L. (2010). A paradox of integration? Interracial contact, prejudice reduction, and perceptions of racial discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 66(2), 401–416. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01652.x Dixon, J., Tropp, L.R., Durrhein, K., & Tredoux, C. (2010). “Let them eat harmony”: Prejudicereductions strategies and attitudes of historically disadvantaged groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(76), 76–80. doi:10.1177/0963721410363366 Harth, N. S., Hornsey, M. J., & Barlow, F. K. (2011). Emotional responses to rejection of gestures of intergroup reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 815–829. doi:10.1177/0146167211402215 Hyers, L. L., & Swim, J. K. (1998). A comparison of the experiences of dominant and minority group members during an intergroup encounter. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1(2), 143–163. doi:10.1177/1368430298012003 Johnson, J. D., & Lecci, L. (2003). Assessing anti-white attitudes and predicting perceived racism: The Johnson-Lecci scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 299–312. doi:10.1177/0146167202250041 Latrofa, M., Vaes, J., Pastore, M., & Cadinu, M. (2009). “United we stand, divided we fall’! The protective function of self-stereotyping for stigmatised members’ psychological wellbeing. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58(1), 84–104. doi:10.1111/j.14640597.2008.00383.x Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., . . . Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144– 165. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144 Mendes, W. B., Major, B., McCoy, S., & Blascovich, J. (2008). How attributional ambiguity shapes physiological and emotional responses to social rejection and acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 278–291. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.278 Mendoza-Denton, R., Downey, G., Purdie, V. J., Davis, A., & Pietrzak, J. (2002). Sensitivity to statusbased rejection: Implications for African American students’ college experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 896–918. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.896 Mendoza-Denton, R., Pietrzak, J., & Downey, G. (2008). Distinguishing institutional identification from academic goal pursuit: Interactive effects of ethnic identification and race-based rejection sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 338–351. doi:10.1037/00223514.95.2.338


177

Plant, E. A., & Butz, D. A. (2006). The causes and consequences of an avoidance-focus for interracial interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(6), 833–846. doi:10.1177/0146167206287182 Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2005). Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 91–107. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.91 Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41(3), 157–175. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01134.x Tropp, L. R. (2003). The psychological impact of prejudice: Implications for intergroup contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(2), 131–149. doi:10.1177/1368430203006002001 Vorauer, J. D., & Sakamoto, Y. (2006). I thought we could be friends, but . . . . systematic miscommunication and defensive distancing as obstacles to cross-group friendship formation. Psychological Science, 17(4), 326–331. Vorauer, J. D., & Turpie, C. A. (2004). Disruptive effects of vigilance on dominant group members’ treatment of outgroup members: Choking versus shining under pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 384–399. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.384 West, T. V., Shelton, J. N., & Trail, T. E. (2009). Relational anxiety in interracial interactions. Psychological Science, 20(3), 289–292. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02289.x Williams, D. R., Neighbors, H. W., & Jackson, J. S. (2008). Racial/ethnic discrimination and health: Findings from community studies. American Journal of Public Health, 98(Suppl 9), S29–S37. Wright, S.C., & Lubensky, M. (2008). The struggle for social equality: Collective-action vs. prejudice reduction. In S. Demoulin, J. P. Leyens, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). New York: Psychology Press. Received 9 November 2010; revised version received 29 April 2011