Diversity, Contact, Trust,

and Civic Engagement:

Immigrant-Native Relations
in the United States
LINDA R. TROPP
Psychological and Brain Sciences,
University of Massachusetts Amherst
DINA G. OKAMOTO
Sociology, Indiana University
HELEN B. MARROW
Sociology, Tufts University
MICHAEL JONES-CORREA
Political Science, University of Pennsylvania

Discussant: Karen Phalet

IMISCOE - July 2016

Key Research Goals

How do varied indicators of diversity and contact shape
trust and civic engagement?
How might patterns of effects vary:
by group? (immigrant, US-born)
by social space? (work, neighborhood, public)
by other status markers? (language, citizenship,
legal status, religion, skin tone)

Extensions of Prior Research

Beyond measurement from any single discipline

Inclusion of multiple contact measures used across disciplines

(from diversity and group size to cross-group friendship)

Beyond focus on relations between only two groups

Inclusion of two US-born groups and two immigrant groups

Beyond traditional focus on only one setting

Inclusion of parallel contact measures in workplace,

neighborhood, and public space

Beyond traditional focus on status markers like

race/ethnicity and socio-economic status

Inclusion of measures to assess roles of language, citizenship,

legal status, religion, and skin tone

Overview of Research Study

Randomized telephone surveys of US-born and
immigrant groups in greater Philadelphia and Atlanta
Philadelphia and Atlanta historically seen in terms of
black-white relations, now rapidly diversifying with
new immigrant populations
Indians and Mexicans are the two largest immigrant
groups in the Philadelphia and Atlanta metro areas

Group Selection
US-born
Black Americans: US-born minority group
White Americans: US-born majority group
Immigrants
Mexicans: quintessential
low status immigrant laborers
South Asian Indians: quintessential
highly skilled immigrant professionals
Total N = 2000, 500 from each of four groups
(250 from each group at each site)

Preliminary Findings
How Positive and Negative Contact Experiences
Predict Integration Attitudes (Linda Tropp)

Effects of Ethnic Diversity and Contact on Trust and

Threat (Dina Okamoto)

How Relations Between Whites and Blacks Shape

Their Receptivity Toward Immigrants (Helen Marrow)

Immigrant Legal Status and Local Contexts of

Reception as Mediators to Contact and Trust
(Michael Jones-Correa)

How Positive and Negative Contact

Experiences Predict Integration Attitudes

Linda R. Tropp
Professor of Social Psychology
University of Massachusetts Amherst

IMISCOE Conference July 2016

Prague, Czech Republic

Psychological Perspectives on Intergroup Contact

Contact between groups can:
improve intergroup attitudes (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006)
foster intergroup trust (Tam, Hewstone, et al., 2008)
especially likely when the contact is friendly and
cooperative in nature (Allport, 1954; Cook, 1968)

Positive and Negative Contact

Increasingly, researchers acknowledge that contact
experiences between groups are not always positive.
More research attention must be granted to negative
contact experiences.
Compared to positive contact, negative contact:
may be a stronger predictor of intergroup attitudes
(Barlow et al., 2012)

may produce effects that are more likely to generalize

(Paolini et al., 2010)

Positive and Negative Contact

At the same time, other work shows that:

Positive contact tends to be more common than

negative contact (Graf et al., 2014)

Prior positive contact can serve to buffer against effects

of negative contact experiences (Paolini et al., 2014)

Present research examines both positive and negative

contact experiences as predictors of integration attitudes
We expect positive contact will predict more positive
attitudes toward integration, even when taking into
account effects of negative contact.

Positive and Negative Contact Effects Across Groups

Members of different racial and ethnic groups may report
varying degrees of positive and negative contact:

Black Americans tend to report more negative contact,

than White Americans (Stephan et al., 2002)
Black Americans perceive greater racial discrimination
than do White Americans (Pew, 2013; 2016), which can
undermine positive effects of contact (Tropp, 2007)

Positive and negative contact experiences

should be examined across different groups

should be expanded beyond black-white relations

Research Questions

To what extent are positive and negative forms of

contact reported by different groups?
To what extent do reports of positive and negative
contact vary across groups?

How do positive and negative forms of contact predict

integration attitudes among members of different
groups?
How do positive and negative forms of contact predict
integration attitudes in relation to different groups?

Samples and Measures

Samples:

500 U.S.-born White Americans

500 U.S.-born Black Americans
500 Mexican Immigrants
500 Indian Immigrants

Measures:
Respondents from each group reported on the frequency
and quality of their contact with each of the other groups
Respondents from each group also reported the extent to
which they have been discriminated against by each other
group, as well as their own integration attitudes in relation
to each other group

Contact Measures
Contact Frequency: How often do you interact with [outgroup]
when you are at work?
in the neighborhood?
when you are around town, such as in stores or
restaurants?
Scores range from 0 (never) to 3 (often)

Contact Quality: When you interact with [outgroup]

at work
in the neighborhood
when you are around town
to what extent does the contact feel unfriendly or friendly?
Scores range from -2 (very unfriendly) to +2 (very friendly)

Contact Measures
Reported Discrimination:
Thinking about your experiences, how often would you say you
have been treated unfairly or poorly by [outgroup]?
Scores range from 0 (never) to 3 (often)

Integration Attitudes
Desire to Know
Thinking about [outgroup], to what extent are you interested
in getting to know them better?
Scores from -2 (not interested at all) to +2 (very interested)

Welcoming Others
When you think about [outgroup], how often do you attempt
to welcome them into your community?
Scores range from -2 (hostile) to +2 (friendly)

Color Coding for Reported Contact and Discrimination

White Americans
with Blacks
with Mexicans
with Indians

Mexican Immigrants
with Whites
with Blacks
with Indians

Black Americans
with Whites
with Mexicans
with Indians

Indian Immigrants
with Whites
with Blacks
with Mexicans

Mean Levels of Contact

Contact
Contact
Frequency Quality
(0 to 3)

White Americans
with Blacks
with Mexicans
with Indians
Black Americans
with Whites
with Mexicans
with Indians

Reported
Discrim

(-2 to +2)

(0 to 3)

2.21
1.35
1.21

1.26
1.15
1.14

1.06
.55
.55

2.19
1.30
1.09

1.24
1.21
1.03

1.19
.50
.67

Mean Levels of Contact

Contact
Contact
Frequency Quality
(0 to 3)

White Americans
with Blacks
with Mexicans
with Indians
Black Americans
with Whites
with Mexicans
with Indians

Reported
Discrim

(-2 to +2)

(0 to 3)

2.21
1.35
1.21

1.26
1.15
1.14

1.06
.55
.55

2.19
1.30
1.09

1.24
1.21
1.03

1.19
.50
.67

Mean Levels of Contact

Contact
Contact
Frequency Quality
(0 to 3)

Mexican Immigrants
with Whites
with Blacks
with Indians
Indian Immigrants
with Whites
with Blacks
with Mexicans

(-2 to +2)

Reported
Discrim
(0 to 3)

1.51
1.27
1.09

.99
.97
.64

.74
.70
.35

2.25
1.84
1.30

1.14
1.09
1.01

.85
.70
.42

Mean Levels of Contact

Contact
Contact
Frequency Quality
(0 to 3)

Mexican Immigrants
with Whites
with Blacks
with Indians
Indian Immigrants
with Whites
with Blacks
with Mexicans

(-2 to +2)

Reported
Discrim
(0 to 3)

1.51
1.27
1.09

.99
.97
.64

.74
.70
.35

2.25
1.84
1.30

1.14
1.09
1.01

.85
.70
.42

Predicting Integration Attitudes

Desire To Know

Welcoming Others

Contact Frequency
Discrimination
Contact Quality
R2change

*All analyses controlling for these demographic variables: Respondent Gender, Age,
Level of Education, Political Ideology, Employment Status, Home Ownership

Predicting Integration Attitudes:

White Respondents
Desire To Know

Welcoming Others

BL

BL

Contact Frequency .21***

Discrimination
-.10*
Contact Quality
.24***
R2change

.12***

MX

IND

MX

IND

.37***
-.10*
.12**
.16***

*All analyses controlling for these demographic variables: Respondent Gender, Age,
Level of Education, Political Ideology, Employment Status, Home Ownership

Predicting Integration Attitudes:

White Respondents
Desire To Know

Welcoming Others

BL

BL

MX

IND

MX

IND

Contact Frequency .21*** .12* .05

.37*** .31*** .24***
Discrimination
-.10* -.02 -.08
-.10* .01
-.02
Contact Quality
.24*** .21*** .24*** .12** .22*** .27***
R2change

.12*** .07*** .08*** .16*** .17*** .15***

*All analyses controlling for these demographic variables: Respondent Gender, Age,
Level of Education, Political Ideology, Employment Status, Home Ownership

Predicting Integration Attitudes:

Black Respondents
Desire To Know

Welcoming Others

WH

WH

Contact Frequency .22***

Discrimination
-.14**
Contact Quality
.07
R2change

.08***

MX

IND

MX

IND

.24***
.03
.15**
.09***

*All analyses controlling for these demographic variables: Respondent Gender, Age,
Level of Education, Political Ideology, Employment Status, Home Ownership

Predicting Integration Attitudes:

Black Respondents
Desire To Know

Welcoming Others

WH

WH

MX

IND

MX

IND

Contact Frequency .22*** .18** .31*** .24*** .17** .26***

Discrimination
-.14** .00 -.15** .03 -.05
-.07
Contact Quality
.07
.11* .16** .15** .14*
.20***
R2change

.08*** .05** .16*** .09*** .06**

.13***

*All analyses controlling for these demographic variables: Respondent Gender, Age,
Level of Education, Political Ideology, Employment Status, Home Ownership

Predicting Integration Attitudes:

Mexican Respondents
Desire To Know

Welcoming Others

WH

WH

BL

IND

BL

IND

Contact Frequency .24*** .31*** .21*** .32*** .33*** .25***

Discrimination
-.05 -.09 -.08
-.06 .06
-.02
Contact Quality
.04
.03
.14
.20** .18** .32***
R2change

.05** .10*** .08**

.17*** .16*** .18***

*All analyses controlling for these demographic variables: Respondent Gender, Age,
Level of Education, Political Ideology, Employment Status, Home Ownership

Predicting Integration Attitudes:

Indian Respondents
Desire To Know

Welcoming Others

WH

WH

BL

MX

BL

MX

Contact Frequency .26*** .12* .11*

.18*** .22*** .15**
Discrimination
-.08
.06
.03
-.06 -.04
-.01
Contact Quality
.11* .21** .27*** .20*** .23*** .32***
R2change

.11*** .07*** .09*** .14*** .06** .14***

*All analyses controlling for these demographic variables: Respondent Gender, Age,
Level of Education, Political Ideology, Employment Status, Home Ownership

Summary and Conclusions

Beyond what could be predicted by demographic factors,
greater contact frequency generally predicted more
positive attitudes toward integration both across groups,
and in relation to each other group
in most cases, contact frequency uniquely predicted
integration attitudes, beyond effects of contact quality
while not all contact is positive, reported contact was
generally quite positive (on friendly side of scale)

Summary and Conclusions

Overall, positive contact was a more consistent predictor of
integration attitudes than reported discrimination
discrimination only predicted integration attitudes among
Whites (in relation to Blacks) and Blacks (in relation to
Whites and Indians)
Consistent with other recent work: greater intergroup contact
can foster positive attitudes toward integration, even in the
face of negative intergroup experiences

Thank you!