Diversity: Promise or Peril?
Brown University Diversity Summit
Jennifer A. Richeson ‘94
Department of Psychology & Institute for Policy Research
Northwestern University
Increases in Racial Diversity
(Potential) Benefits of Diversity


Diversity increases opportunity for intergroup
contact/dialogue, which is generally associated with lower
prejudice (Allport, 1954; Gurin et al., 2002; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).
Diversity increases group creativity and reduces the
potential for groupthink (Apfelbaum et al., 2013; Sommers, 2006;
van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007).
Challenges of Diversity

Increased tension (Allport, 1954; Blumer, 1958; Craig & Richeson,
2014; Enos, 2014)

Increased social isolation (Putnam, 2007)

Social Identity Threat (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Branscombe et al.,
1999)
The Diversity Paradox


Potential Peril: increased intergroup tension & exclusionary
attitudes
Potential Promise: increases opportunity for intergroup
contact/dialogue
Interracial Contact
Why are our close social networks so
homogenous?



Opportunity
 Segregation
Motivation
 Lack of interest
Fear/Apprehension
 Concerns about “looking bad;”
being rejected
Millennials Are Less Racially Tolerant
Than You & They Think
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/01/millennials-are-less-tolerant-than-you-think.html
by Sean McElwee
Interracial Contact is Stressful
Trawalter, Richeson, & Shelton (2009)


Uncertainty regarding appropriate behavior (Devine,
et al., 1996).
Leads to anxiety, discomfort, & self-consciousness
(e.g., Stephan & Stephan, 1985; Trawalter et al., 2009).

Invoke a state of cardiovascular reactivity consistent
with threat (Mendes et al., 2008, Page-Gould et al., 2010).
And, Cognitively Taxing
Participants came in to lab for “serial cognition” interaction
paradigm.

Cognitive task 1-- race-IAT (race bias measure)

“Delay Task” involved being videotaped by black or white
giving opinions on controversial topics:
1.
2.

race-related: racial profiling in light of 9/11, campus diversity
race-neutral: fraternity system; drinking
Cognitive task 2-- Stroop (1935) color-naming paradigm
(inhibitory performance measure)
And, Cognitively Taxing
Control RTs
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
DV = Stroop Interference
Incompatible RTs
<
RED
GREEN
YELLOW
BLUE
And, Cognitively Taxing
Mean Stroop Interference Score
Mean Stroop Interference Score
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Interracial
Richeson & Shelton (2003), Psych Science
Same-race
Note: Error bars represent standard error of the mean
Working Model of Interracial Contact
(adapted from Richeson & Shelton, 2007, CDPS)
Intra-personal
Outcomes
Activated Interracial
Contact Concerns
Interracial
Contact
Whites
Appearing Prejudiced
Ethnic Minorities
Experiencing Prejudice
Confirming Stereotypes
Physiological Arousal &
Anxiety
Self-regulatory
impairment
Negative Affect
Self-Control
Inter-personal
Outcomes
Partner Liking
Partner Affect
Increased Prejudice Concerns
200
Interracial
Mean Stroop Interference Score
180
Same-race
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Prejudice Feedback
Richeson & Trawalter (2005), JPSP
Performance Feedback
Note: Error bars represent standard error of the mean
Alleviated Prejudice Concerns
Mean Stroop Interference Score
200
180
Interracial
160
Same-race
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
No-script
Richeson & Trawalter (2005), JPSP
Script
Note: Error bars represent standard error of the mean
Working Model of Interracial Contact
(Richeson & Shelton, 2007, CDPS)
Intra-personal
Outcomes
Activated Interracial
Contact Concerns
Interracial
Contact
Whites
Appearing Prejudiced
Ethnic Minorities
Experiencing Prejudice
Confirming Stereotypes
Physiological Arousal &
Anxiety
Self-regulatory
impairment
Negative Affect
Self-Control
Inter-personal
Outcomes
Partner Liking
Partner Affect
Contemporary Bias in Interactions

Subtle bias revealed in non-verbal & para-verbal aspects of
interpersonal communication (e.g., McConnell & Leibold, 2001).


e.g., blinking, closed body posture, avoidant eye-gaze
Whites’ nonverbal behavior more negative than verbal
communications, often resulting in mixed messages (Dovidio et al.,
2002).
Contending with Contemporary Bias

African American college students

10-min interaction with White confederate partner


Exchanged background “profile sheet” with “partner” prior
to interaction
Exposed to subtle v. blatant bias manipulated by partner
“profile” information & actor non-verbal behavior mpleted
Stroop task
Contemporary Bias
Exposed to subtle v. blatant bias manipulated by partner “profile”
information & actor non-verbal behavior

Subtle: positive attitudes about diversity/avoidant nv beh

Blatant: negative attitudes about diversity/avoidant nv beh

No prejudice: positive attitudes about diversity/approach nv
beh
Completed Stroop task
Profiles


Subtle & No-bias: “I like being around so many different types of
people at NU. I enjoy meeting and learning about people from all
backgrounds. It’s great here.”
Blatant Bias: “I feel a bit uncomfortable being around so many
different types of people at NU. Where I’m from, people are pretty
much all White. I think that makes things easier sometimes.”
Nonverbal Behavior

Subtle & Blatant: confederate displays ambivalent behavior (e.g.,
avoiding eye-contact, short responses, puts pen down rather than passing to
partner during task).

No Bias: confederate displays warm and friendly behavior (e.g.,
makes eye-contact, smiles, passes pen to partner during task).
Contending with Contemporary Bias

African American college students

10-min interaction with White confederate partner



Exchanged background “profile sheet” with “partner” prior
to interaction
Exposure to subtle v. blatant bias manipulated by partner
“profile” information & actor non-verbal behavior
Completed Stroop task
Contending with Contemporary Bias
Stroop Interference (ms units)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
No Bias
Murphy, Richeson, Shelton, et al. (2013), GPIR
Subtle Bias
Blatant Bias
omnibus F(2, 40) = 2.66, p = .08
contrast F(1,41) = 4.33, p < .05, r = .31
Note: Error bars are standard errors of the mean
Interracial Contact



Often triggers social identity threat for both participants.
Managing possibility of one’s own prejudice or one’s partner’s
yields negative outcomes, including cognitive failure.
What can be done?
Working Model of Interracial Contact
(adapted from Richeson & Shelton, 2007, CDPS)
Mindset
Manipulations
Intra-personal
Outcomes
Activated Interracial Contact
Concerns
Interracial
Contact
Whites
Appearing Prejudiced
Ethnic Minorities
Experiencing Prejudice
Confirming Stereotypes
Physiological Arousal &
Anxiety
Self-regulatory
impairment
Negative Affect
Inter-personal
Outcomes
Partner Liking
Partner Affect
Summary



Interracial interactions are one of the best routes to positive
racial attitudes.
But, such contact often triggers social identity threat for both
participants.
Mindset manipulations seem promising; reducing anxiety



Perspective-taking (some forms)
Learning goals
Other vs. Self focus
Increasing US Racial/Ethnic Diversity



Likely to challenge both members
of majority and minority groups.
No guarantee of increased
egalitarianism in attitudes or
social policies.
Interpersonal contact— the best
hope for positive attitude
change— remains difficult for
most individuals.
Acknowledgments
J. Nicole Shelton
Maureen Craig
Sophie Trawalter
Mary Murphy
Michelle Rheinschmidt
Hillary Bergsieker
Meghan Bean
Dawn Espy
Dorainne Levy
Andy Todd
Galen Bodenhausen
Alissa Mrazek
Dan Molden
Adam Galinsky
Evan Apfelbaum
Kathy Phillips
Katie Rotella
Daniel Effron
http://groups.psych.northwestern.edu/spcl/
Todd Heatherton
Abby Baird
Carrie Wyland
Sid Horton
NIMH NSF
MacArthur Foundation
Russell Sage Foundation