1
Running Head: INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
Intergroup Anxiety From the Self and Other: Evidence From Self-Report,
Physiological Effects, and Real Interactions
Katy Greenland, Dimitrios Xenias, and Greg Maio
Cardiff University
Studies 1 through 3 were funded by the Economic and Social Research
Council of the United Kingdom. We would like to thank Nicolas Souchon and
Gabrielle Rand who assisted with the data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Katy
Greenland, Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff,
Wales, CF10 3WT. Email: [email protected].
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
2
Abstract
Intergroup anxiety has become important in understanding the success or
failure of intergroup contact. In this paper, we suggest that intergroup anxiety
is made up from two constructs: self-anxiety (anxiety over thinking or doing
something that is prejudiced) and other-anxiety (anxiety that the other might
do something to you). Over four studies, we show how these two dimensions
have different correlates and independently predict psychophysiological
reactivity to an intergroup interaction. Other-anxiety was associated with
negative intergroup attitudes and negative affect. In contrast, self-anxiety,
had no simple relationship with conventional measures of intergroup attitudes,
but was associated with a flattening of responses that were indicative of
freezing (Study 3), and simultaneous approach and avoidance (Study 4). We
suggest that while other- anxiety is associated with negative affect and
avoidance, self- anxiety is associated with “freezing” responses to intergroup
interaction. Thus, the distinction between these two constructs has important
repercussions.
Keywords: intergroup anxiety, intergroup emotions, prejudice /
stereotyping, psychophysiology.
Key message: we present evidence that intergroup anxiety is made up
from two constructs: self-anxiety (anxiety over thinking or doing something
that is prejudiced) and other-anxiety (anxiety that the other might do
something to you) and introduce a new measure tapping these two
components.
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
3
Intergroup Anxiety From the Self and Other: Evidence From Self-Report,
Physiological Effects, and Real Interactions
“Fear of making a mistake, of interfering, or about the
repercussions, can paralyse” (Independent newspaper,
October 2, 2001)
“Safety fear over schizo” (Sun newspaper, June 6, 2009)
Intergroup anxiety (Stephan & Stephan, 1985) has become an essential
variable for understanding the success or failure of intergroup contact in
attenuating problematic intergroup relations. The relationship between
intergroup anxiety and intergroup contact is well documented. Less or poorer
quality intergroup contact appears strongly linked with intergroup anxiety (see
Brown & Hewstone, 2005, for a review), and intergroup contact is associated
with psychophysiological changes that are indicative of anxiety (Amodio,
2009; Blascovich, Mendes, & Seery, 2003; Guglielmi, 1999; Littleford, Wright,
& Sayoc-Parial, 2005; Nail, Harton, & Decker, 2003). Further, intergroup
anxiety predicts bias against the outgroup (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Paolini,
Hewstone, Voci, Harwood & Cairns, 2006; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008; Stephan
& Stephan, 2000). Thus, intergroup anxiety appears to be a powerful
mediator between intergroup contact and outcomes.
Previous research has frequently considered intergroup anxiety as a
single construct. In this paper, we distinguish between two independent but
related dimensions: self-anxiety (anxiety over thinking or doing something that
is prejudiced) and other-anxiety (anxiety that the other might do something to
you). We demonstrate that self- and other-anxiety have different correlates in
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
4
terms of intergroup indicators, and independently predict psychophysiological
reactivity to real and imagined future interactions.
More than One Type of Intergroup Anxiety?
Stephan and Stephan's (1985) seminal paper described a number of
outcome expectancies that might be associated with intergroup anxiety.
These ranged from expectancies about being assaulted to worries about
making an embarrassing mistake. More recently, evidence has increasingly
shown that the experience of intergroup contact is different for different
groups, and that the threats, stresses, or anxieties that individuals experience
are complex (e.g., Dijker, Koomen, van den Heuvel, & Frijda, 1996).
Participants’ concerns are affected by the topic of conversation (Trawalter &
Richeson, 2008) and the intimacy of the encounter (Blair, Park, & Bachelor,
2003; Bromgard & Stephan, 2006). Shelton and Richeson (2006) have
suggested that the experiences of interracial contact are different for ethnicmajority and ethnic-minority groups, such that majorities are concerned about
appearing to be prejudiced, but minorities are concerned about being
discriminated against (see also Doerr, Plant, Kunstman, & Buck, 2011). In
fact, some of these concerns can be associated with positive outcomes:
Shelton (2003) found that White participants who reported more anxiety while
trying to act nonprejudiced were also liked more by their Black partner.
Integrated threat theory (ITT; Stephan & Stephan, 2000) has
broadened the construct of intergroup anxiety to consider the wide range of
threats that people may experience in response to an outgroup. ITT suggests
that intergroup anxiety is just one of the threats that people experience, and
research using ITT has shown that the importance of particular threats in
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
5
predicting attitudes is different in different intergroup contexts (e.g., Stephan,
Boniecki, Ybarra, Bettencourt, Ervin, Jackson, McNatt, & Renfro, 2002;
Tausch, Hewstone, & Roy, 2009). These threats include realistic threats
(threats to resources such as time, money, and power) and symbolic threats
(threats to cherished values or beliefs). Nonetheless, intergroup anxiety
remains the most consistent and powerful predictor of intergroup attitudes
(see Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006 for a metaanalysis).
Whereas ITT takes a group level approach to threat, two
complementary models are needed to explain the experience of anxiety
during contact at an individual level: Plant and Devine’s (2003) outcome
expectancies model and Trawalter, Richeson, and Shelton’s (2009) stress and
coping model. Plant and Devine (2003) suggest that the relationship between
intergroup contact and intergroup anxiety can be understood through outcome
expectancies. Plant and colleagues have explored the effects of two specific
outcome expectancies: expectancies that one is able to interact without being
prejudiced, and expectancies that the other person is open to meeting with
you.1 Across a series of studies, Plant and colleagues have shown how
manipulating expectancies can change the experiences of intergroup contact.
For example, Plant and Butz (2006) manipulated whether non-Black
participants expected that they were able to interact with a Black partner
without being prejudiced. A negative expectation had a negative effect on the
interaction (relative to those who had been given a more positive expectation):
the interactions were shorter, rated as less pleasant, and participants
expressed a desire to avoid future interactions. In addition, Butz and Plant
(2006; see also Plant, Butz, & Tartakovsky, 2008; Tropp, 2003) manipulated
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
6
whether or not Black and White participants expected that their interracial
interaction partner was open to meeting with them. Results indicated that
participants who expected unwillingness formed more negative intentions for
the interaction (Study 1) and were in fact more hostile (Study 2). Together,
these studies indicate that intergroup anxiety is associated with at least two
different expectancies: those relating to the self (i.e., that you are able to avoid
being prejudiced) and those relating to the other (i.e., that the other is not
open to meeting with you).
Trawalter, Richeson, and Shelton’s (2009) stress and coping model
places more emphasis on the diverse outcomes of intergroup contact,
suggesting that these are determined by participants’ primary and secondary
appraisals of an interaction (i.e., extent and the direction of any threat and the
resources available to cope with that threat). Importantly, and consistent with
Plant and Devine (2003), a key dimension in primary appraisals is the extent
to which threat is perceived as relevant to the self or to others. For example,
are ethnic-majority individuals motivated to avoid prejudice (a self-relevant
threat), and are ethnic-minority individuals afraid that they might be the targets
of prejudiced behaviour (an other-relevant threat)?
There is therefore an emerging consensus about the distinction
between anxiety about being prejudiced and anxiety about being the target of
prejudice. However, the principal tool for measuring intergroup anxiety is the
unidimensional Stephan and Stephan measure (1985). Participants are asked
to imagine interacting with someone from a target group and to rate how this
would make them feel on a number of anxiety related adjectives. Although this
measure has yielded interesting and important evidence, it may miss
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
7
potentially diverging effects that are associated with different kinds of
intergroup anxiety. To our knowledge, the only attempt to develop an
alternative measure of intergroup anxiety has been that of Britt, Boniecki,
Vescio, Biernat, and Brown (1996), who distinguished intergroup anxiety
associated with self-presentational concerns and intergroup anxiety
associated with negative outgroup stereotypes. Unfortunately, however, their
measure yielded a one factor solution and the measure was compiled into a
single intensity score.
Our model of Self- Other Intergroup Anxiety bridges research on
expectancies and Integrated Threat Theory. We retained Plant and
colleagues’ emphasis on specific expectancies, but we also drew on ITT,
which has demonstrated a range of fears across a broad range of social
groups (Berrenberg, Finlay, Stephan, & Stephan, 2002; Stephan, Stephan,
Demitrakis, Yamada, & Clason, 2000; Tausch, Hewstone, & Roy, 2009;
Velasco González, Verkuyten, Weesie, & Poppe, 2008). Plant and colleagues,
in contrast, have focused on expectancies associated with prejudice (i.e.,
being an agent or a victim of prejudice). Our consideration of a wider range of
threats that participants might experience ultimately led to our distinction
between self- and other-anxiety. We tested whether these two dimensions
have different correlates and independent effects, which are currently
confounded within approaches that treat intergroup anxiety as a single
construct.
Overview
Study 1 outlines the development of the Self Other Intergroup Anxiety Scale
(SOIAS). Study 2 confirmed the distinction between self- and other- anxiety
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
8
using confirmatory factor analysis, while providing evidence of discriminant
and convergent validity with relevant intergroup and individual difference
measures. Study 3 used the SOIAS to predict physiological reactivity in an
interaction with a person whom participants believed had a history of
schizophrenia. Finally, Study 4 explored the relation between self-anxiety and
the notion of “freezing” responses to intergroup interactions, using approach
and avoidance self report measures.
Study 1
This study describes how the many different potential dimensions of
intergroup anxiety were operationalised into the Self Other Intergroup Anxiety
Scale (SOIAS). We developed a battery of questionnaire items to assess
participants’ anxieties during intergroup encounters. The items combined an
assessment of the intensity of intergroup anxiety with expectancies regarding
an imagined interaction. This enabled us to generate items relevant to the
different kinds of intergroup anxiety already outlined: anxiety about being
prejudiced or being seen as prejudiced; anxiety about being stereotyped,
being discriminated against, or being a victim of hostile behaviour; and more
general anxieties about making an embarrassing mistake. The items therefore
drew on existing research by Plant, Shelton, Vorauer and others, which make
reference to prejudice and assumptions about prejudice during intergroup
encounters (Britt, Boniecki, Vescio, Biernat, & Brown, 1996; Butz & Plant,
2006; Plant & Butz, 2006; Plant, Butz, & Tartakovsky, 2008; Shelton and
Richeson, 2006; Vorauer, Hunter, Main, & Roy, 2000; Vorauer & Kumhyr,
2001; Vorauer, Main, & O'Connell, 1998; Vorauer, Martens, & Sasaki, 2009).
However, we also drew on Stephan and Stephan (1985) to consider the more
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
9
general difficulties and embarrassments of meeting someone from a different
group.
The questionnaire items were designed to be applicable to a variety of
target groups (e.g., ethnic or national groups), but the target group in this
research was people who have a history of schizophrenia. People with
mental illness are particularly vulnerable to discrimination (Cullen, Edwards,
Marks, Phelps, & Sandbach, 2004; Mental Health Foundation, 2000), and
attitudes to this group are associated with strong emotional responses that
include anxiety and fear (e.g., Corrigan et al., 2002; Crisp, Gelder, Rix,
Meltzer, & Rowlands, 2000; Knight & Brent, 1998; Phelan & Basow, 2007).
Method
Participants and procedure. 495 undergraduate students (176 males
and 319 females; Mage = 19.65 years, SD = 2.54) completed a diverse pool of
85 questions. Participants were given the following instructions:
“Imagine that you are doing a tutorial programme as part of your
degree. This programme involves working collaboratively with a male student
whom you know has a history of schizophrenia. You will be working closely
with this student for several hours each week over a number of weeks. At the
end of the programme, you will submit a piece of coursework together. This
coursework will be jointly assessed: in other words, you will both get the same
grade. How would you feel about working with this student?”
The pool of questions covered several dimensions. “Self” items
examined participants’ concerns about their own thoughts and behaviours.
Because we were mindful of the distinction between internal and external
motivation to control prejudice (MTCP) (Plant & Devine, 1998), 12 items
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
10
examined thinking in ways that appeared to be prejudiced (“Self- internal” and
analogous to internal MTCP; e.g., “I would not be worried about my
stereotypes influencing what I thought about him”) and 12 items examined
behaving in ways that appeared to be prejudiced to others (“Self- external”
and analogous to external MTCP; e.g., “I would be anxious about doing
something that made me look prejudiced). We also included 12 items relating
to the more general risk of an embarrassing mistake or misunderstanding
(“Self- general”; e.g., “I would be worried about saying something that I didn’t
mean to say”).
“Other” items related to participants’ concerns about the other person.
Twelve items examined concerns that the other was prejudiced towards the
participant (“Other- self”; e.g., “I would be anxious about him disliking me”). A
further 12 items measured participants’ concerns that the other assumed them
to be prejudiced (“Other- meta”; e.g., “I would be nervous about him expecting
me to be prejudiced before he had even met me”). Twelve items examined
concerns that the other would be generally hostile or difficult (“Other- general”;
e.g., “I would be nervous about him being unreasonable”). We also included
13 filler items to increase the face-validity of the measure (e.g., “I would be
anxious about getting the project completed”). Participants responded to these
items using a 7-point scale anchored at -3 (‘Strongly disagree’) and +3
(‘Strongly agree’).
Results and Discussion
Items were selected for exploratory factor analysis if they fulfilled the
following criteria: an item-total correlation greater than .40, an average inter-
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
11
item correlation of greater than .30, a mean greater than -2 but less than + 2,
and a standard deviation of at least one. 45 items met these criteria.
Items were entered into exploratory factor analysis (principle
components extraction followed by an Oblimin rotation with Kaiser
normalisation). Inspection of the scree plot suggested a two-factor solution,
and the first two factors accounted for 36% of the variance. Items were
selected for further exploratory use if they had a factor loading of greater than
.55 on the critical factor and less than .15 on the other factor. We then
reduced this number to a final set of 17 items that most reliably yielded the
two dimensions across studies (see Table 1). Three filler items were retained
to lend face validity to the measure. Internal reliabilities of the self-anxiety and
other-anxiety scales were good (α= .88 and α= .74 respectively). The two
factors were not significantly correlated with each other r(479)= .01, ns. This
null correlation is not interpretable on its own, and the correlation between the
factors is revisited in later studies.
The results indicated that participants did not make a significant
distinction between the many different dimensions of intergroup anxiety that
have been outlined in the extant literature. Participants made no distinction
between thinking in ways that were prejudiced (self- internal items) and
behaving in ways that appeared to be prejudiced to others (self- external
items). We are not suggesting that these dimensions do not exist, because
experimental evidence clearly demonstrates that different expectations can be
manipulated with distinct outcomes (Butz & Plant, 2006; Plant, Butz &
Tartakovsky, 2008). Rather, we suggest that our participants were unable to
articulate these dimensions in a meta-cognitive self-report measure (Bassili,
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
12
1996). The two factors indicated a broad distinction between thoughts and
behaviours by the self (which we term “self-anxiety”) and thoughts and
behaviours by the other (which we term “other-anxiety”). Self-anxiety is
therefore anxiety about thoughts and behaviours by the self, whether these
are understood to be prejudiced by other people or not. Other-anxiety, in
contrast, is anxiety about what the other person might do to be difficult,
awkward, or actively hostile.
Study 2
Study 2 sought to replicate the two-factor structure of the SOIAS using
confirmatory factor analysis. We also explored the convergent and
discriminant validity of the measure using well-known intergroup, affective,
and individual difference measures. These included some of the measures
outlined in the introduction: a version of the unidimensional Stephan and
Stephan measure of intergroup anxiety (1985), Plant and Devine’s
expectancies of self-efficacy and the other (2003), and the motivation to
control prejudice scale (Plant & Devine, 1998).
We predicted that higher levels of self- and other-anxiety would be
associated with higher anxiety on the unidimensional Stephan and Stephan
measure, but would exhibit divergent associations with other variables. Selfanxiety (which is based on concerns about thinking or doing something
prejudiced) should have little relation, or even a negative relation with
outgroup attitudes. We would expect that participants who score higher in selfanxiety should have more negative expectancies of self-efficacy, and may be
more anxious about getting along with people in general. Thus, we expected
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
13
that higher self-anxiety would predict lower self-efficacy and higher social
anxiety.
In contrast, participants who score high in other-anxiety have negative
expectancies about the other. We assumed that these expectancies are
based on hostile or negative outgroup stereotypes. These stereotypes should
also help to shape more negative outgroup attitudes. Thus, we predicted that
other-anxiety would be associated with negative outgroup stereotypes and
negative outgroup attitudes.
Possible relations between self-anxiety and motivation to control
prejudice were complex. As outlined in Study 1, the self-anxiety scale did not
distinguish between thinking and acting in ways that were prejudiced. We
might therefore expect self-anxiety to be positively correlated with both
internal and external motivation to control prejudice (IMTCP and EMTCP,
respectively). Alternatively, however, previous research has shown that the
unidimensional measure of intergroup anxiety can be associated with greater
EMTCP, but lower IMTCP (Klonis, Plant, & Devine, 2005; Plant, 2004). On
this basis we would still expect a positive correlation between self-anxiety and
EMTCP, but a null or even a negative relationship between self-anxiety and
IMTCP.
Possible relations between other-anxiety and motivation to control
prejudice were more straightforward: participants who score high in otheranxiety have negative outgroup expectations, which they are not afraid to
express in a questionnaire. We therefore predicted that other-anxiety would
have a negative relation with both internal and external motivation to control
prejudice.
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
14
We made no initial predictions about the extent to which the self- and
other-anxiety subscales might be correlated with each other. On the one
hand, it was conceivable that self- and other-anxiety would be moderately
positively correlated, because they are both ultimately measures of intergroup
anxiety. On the other hand, there could be a negative relation between selfand other-anxiety: self-anxiety is based on concerns about acting or thinking
in a way which is prejudiced, but other-anxiety is based on representations of
the other, which may draw on negative stereotypes or representations of the
outgroup. We might expect that participants who are high in self-anxiety
would be more alert to measures that pre-suppose outgroup stereotypes and
less likely to agree with them, leading to an inverse relation between self- and
other-anxiety. These competing possibilities made it important to collect data
testing their viability. Finally, we expected that both self- and other-anxiety
would be independent of transitory mood, generalised trait anxiety, and
socially desirable responding.
Method
Participants and procedure. The 20 SOIAS items (12 self-anxiety, 5 otheranxiety, and 3 fillers; α= .92, .84) were administered to 198 participants in
mass testing sessions (155 women, 43 men; Mage = 22.0, SD = 3.66). Of
these participants, 99 also completed a battery of intergroup measures2
including unidimensional intergroup anxiety (Plant & Devine, 2003; α= .89),
expectancies of self-efficacy and negative expectancies of the other (both
Plant & Devine, 2003; α= .70, .84), motivation to control prejudice (Plant &
Devine, 1998; external α= .86, internal α= .77), negative affect toward people
with schizophrenia (adapted from Plant & Devine, 2003; α= .90), quantity of
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
15
contact (Greenland and Brown, 1999; α= .70), knowledge about schizophrenia
(multiple-choice response scale, Ascher-Svanum, 1999; α= .70,), a feeling
thermometer regarding people with schizophrenia (response scale from 0100°, adapted from Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993), and attitudinal
ambivalence toward people with schizophrenia (using open-ended data that
was subsequently coded onto a seven point scale, adapted from Jonas,
Broemer, & Diehl, 1997). We also included a novel 12-item measure of
modern prejudice towards people with schizophrenia that consisted of two
subscales. The first subscale measured attitudes that people with
schizophrenia were unfairly discriminated against (e.g., ‘People with
schizophrenia have more to offer than they have been allowed to show’, α=
.80), while the second measured attitudes that people with schizophrenia
were not trying hard enough to contribute (e.g., ‘People with schizophrenia
don’t make enough of the opportunities that are available for them’, α= .77).
The two subscales were combined into a single index (negative attitudes –
positive attitudes).
The remaining 99 participants completed a battery of measures relating
to individual differences in affect and socially desirable responding. These
included self-consciousness and social anxiety (Scheier & Carver, 1985: α=
.76, .87), self-efficacy (Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs,
& Rogers, 1982; α= .88), self-monitoring (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986; α= .74),
positive and negative mood (using a five point response scale, Watson, Clark,
& Tellegen, 1988; α= .87, .82), affect intensity (Larsen & Diener, 1987; α=
.87), trait anxiety (Marteau & Bekker, 1992; α= .91), and socially desirable
responding (coded true/ false, Paulhus, 1991; α= .82).
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
16
Results and Discussion
Confirmatory factor analyses. We used confirmatory factor analysis
to test the distinction between self-anxiety and other-anxiety in three different
models. Model 1 represented the null hypothesis, where all 17 items loaded
on one latent factor. This model provided a poor fit to the data; CFI= .74, TLI=
.70, RMSEA= .14. Model 2 represented a two-factor solution, with the
predicted distinction between self-anxiety and other-anxiety. This two factor
model yielded good fit, CFI= .93, TLI= .92, RMSEA= .07 (see Figure 1), and fit
the data significantly better than Model 1; χ2 (2)= 416.90, p < .001. Model 3
tested the extent to which common method variance (i.e., correlated
measurement error) might account for fit in Model 2 (see Figure 2). Model 3
had an additional latent factor that represented method error: this factor had
causal paths leading to each of the scale items, and all of these paths were
constrained to be the same weight. The three-factor model did yield a
significantly better fit to the data than Model 2, but the χ2 was proportionally
small compared to the difference between Model 1 and Model 2; χ2 (1)= 18.3,
p < .001. Inspection of the model fit statistics also suggested that the addition
of common method variance as a latent factor did not enhance the fit of Model
3, CFI= .94, TLI= .93, RMSEA= .07. Thus, Models 1, 2, and 3 together
supported the distinction between self-anxiety and other-anxiety on the
SOIAS.
Figure 1 shows that the covariation between self-anxiety and otheranxiety was -.44. This negative relationship is an artefact of the positive
loadings given to negatively worded items in the self-anxiety factor (and the
negative loadings for the positively worded items). When the items were
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
17
recoded and computed into self-anxiety and other-anxiety, the two subscales
were significantly and positively correlated, r(197)= .54, p <.001.
Convergent and discriminant validity. We explored the convergent
and discriminant validity of the SOIAS by simultaneously regressing each
criterion variable onto the self-anxiety and other-anxiety subscales scores. As
shown in Table 2, both self-anxiety and other-anxiety independently predicted
intergroup anxiety as measured with a conventional unidimensional measure
(Plant & Devine’s adaptation of the Stephan & Stephan measure). This finding
is consistent with our expectation that both self- and other-anxiety are sources
of net intergroup anxiety and that the unidimensional measure aggregates
across these two constructs.
As expected, self-anxiety was not associated with any of the intergroup
variables apart from intergroup anxiety and external motivation to control
prejudice. Instead, self-anxiety was associated with higher social anxiety,
lower self-efficacy, and more negative expectancies of self-efficacy. Only one
of these variables (negative expectancies of self-efficacy) was associated with
other-anxiety. Participants who scored high in self-anxiety did not endorse
negative representations or attitudes to the target group; instead, they felt
anxious about meeting someone from the group, and this anxiety seemed to
be partly attributable to fears of appearing prejudiced, shyness, and low selfefficacy. This pattern was consistent with our assumption that self-anxiety
relates to a desire to avoid thinking or acting in a way that is prejudiced and
uncertainty about being able to achieve this goal.
As expected, other-anxiety predicted all of the other intergroup
variables (with the exception of attitudinal ambivalence and external
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
18
motivation to control prejudice). Each of the β weights were in the direction
that we would expect from the intergroup literature: other-anxiety was
associated with more negative affect, more negative attitudes, more prejudice,
less contact, and less knowledge about schizophrenia. Other-anxiety was
also associated with increased negative expectancies of the other. These
correlations are consistent with our assumption that other-anxiety is
associated with negative or hostile outgroup expectancies.
There were no significant relations between self- and other-anxiety and
measures of transitory mood, trait anxiety, and socially desirable responding.
This pattern of findings suggests that we were successful in developing the
SOIAS as a measure of intergroup emotion, rather than as an artefact of more
transitory or chronic affective processes.
How does self- and other-anxiety compare to the models of Plant and
Devine (2003) and Trawalter, Richeson, and Shelton (2009)? Our data is
consistent with Plant and Devine’s expectancies model. Self-anxiety was
associated with lower expectancies of self-efficacy, while other-anxiety was
associated with more negative expectancies about the other. Unexpectedly,
other-anxiety was negatively associated with expectancies of self-efficacy, but
we would note that these items (adapted from Plant & Devine, 2003) have a
strong intergroup component in that they contain self-efficacies relating to
stereotypes and prejudice.3
A number of researchers (Klonis, Plant, & Devine, 2005; Plant, 2004;
Trawalter, Richeson, & Shelton, 2009) have indicated that intergroup anxiety
is frequently associated with lower internal motivation to control prejudice but
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
19
higher external motivation to control prejudice (IMTCP and EMTCP,
respectively). In contrast, we had expected that self-anxiety would be
positively associated with both IMTCP and EMTCP, and that other-anxiety
would show little relation to either IMTCP or EMTCP. Our initial analyses did
not support our predictions: self-anxiety was associated with higher external
motivation to control prejudice (EMTCP), but had no relation to internal
motivation to control prejudice (IMTCP), while other-anxiety was not related to
EMTCP, but was associated with lower IMTCP. Given the strong positive
correlations between self- and other-anxiety and the unidimensional measure,
it was possible that shared variance might be an explanation for these
unexpected relations. We therefore repeated the analysis while controlling for
generic intergroup anxiety (by adding the unidimensional measure in the first
step of the regression). As shown in Table 3, this re-analysis indicated that (as
we had expected) self-anxiety was positively associated with EMTCP and had
a marginal positive association with IMTCP. Other-anxiety was not associated
with either IMTCP or EMTCP. Again, these findings showed a clear
dissociation between self- and other-anxiety. Participants who scored high on
self-anxiety were both internally and externally motivated to avoid prejudice.
Participants who scored high in other-anxiety, in contrast, were unconcerned.
In sum, the data revealed that self- and other-anxiety are distinct
correlates of net intergroup anxiety. At the same time, each type of anxiety
predicted different variables in a systematic fashion: self-anxiety was
associated with social anxiety, self-efficacy and motivation to control prejudice
in a way that other-anxiety was not, and other-anxiety was strongly associated
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
20
with measures of intergroup attitudes and affect in a way that self-anxiety was
not.
Study 3
Studies 1 and 2 relied on participants’ own descriptions of feelings and
expectancies. Study 3 measured intergroup anxiety using physiological
reactivity.
Many studies have shown that interactions with an outgroup can
generate distinct physiological responses (Amodio, 2009; Blascovich,
Mendes, Hunter, Lickel, & Kowai-Bell, 2001; Littleford, Wright, and SayocParial, 2005; Mendes, Blascovich, Lickel, & Hunter, 2002; Page-Gould,
Mendes, & Major, 2010; see reviews by Blascovich, Mendes, & Seery, 2003;
Guglielmi, 1999). As a measure of intergroup anxiety, the SOIAS should
predict physiological reactivity when participants anticipate meeting an
outgroup member. To test this hypothesis, Study 3 tested whether the SOIAS
(and a unidimensional measure of intergroup anxiety) predicted physiological
reactivity to an interaction with an individual labelled as having a history of
schizophrenia (relative to someone who was not labelled as schizophrenic).
Physiological responses were recorded immediately before and after the
manipulation. Responses were assessed using multi-channel measures of
physiological reactivity: electrodermal activity and facial electromyogram
(EMG).4
We expected that all three measures of intergroup anxiety (self-anxiety,
other-anxiety, and a unidimensional measure of anxiety) would predict
physiological reactivity. Specifically, we predicted that increased self-reported
intergroup anxiety would be associated with increased skin conductance and
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
21
negative affect (indicated by increased activity on Corrugator Supercilii and
reduced activity on Zygomaticus Major). Given the novel nature of the
measure, we made no specific predictions about different physiological
correlates of self- and other- anxiety. However, we did speculate that otheranxiety might have stronger physiological correlates than self-anxiety: otheranxiety represents a perceived threat to well-being and social harmony during
an interaction, whereas self-anxiety represents a relatively symbolic threat to
self-image and personal values.
Method
Participants. Sixty-one female undergraduate students took part for
course credit (Mage = 18.5, SD = 1.01). The participants were women
because (a) they were far more prevalent in our undergraduate population
and (b) focussing on them enabled a reduction in variability due to sex of
participant within the sensitive and complex psychophysiological
measurement. During debriefing, one participant indicated that she
recognised the confederate and was removed from the analysis. Inspection of
the corrugator scores revealed an irregularity in the first 34 participants that
was suggestive of equipment failure: scores were smaller than they should
have been by an order of 100. We were therefore forced to exclude
corrugator data for the first 34 participants. Zygomaticus and skin
conductance data for these participants remained unaffected, however.
Procedure and design. Participants completed a pretest including the
SOIAS. Between 6 weeks to 6 months later, participants arrived to take part
in two apparently separate studies: the “music reactions study” (in which they
would listen to some music while their bodily and psychological responses
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
22
were measured) and the “NASA space task” (in which they would work on a
task with another person). The “music reactions study” was designed to settle
participants and generate a neutral mood, while the experimental
manipulation was administered as part of the “NASA space task.” Separate
information sheets and consent forms were used to reinforce this distinction.
Participants were asked to wash their hands, and sensors were
attached to the face, fingers, and wrist of the left hand. The experimenter
started a Medialab presentation which contained more detailed instructions,
and left the room. The presentation repeated the cover story about reactions
to music and then played the second movement of Brahms’ first Symphony.
This music has been used elsewhere as a neutral mood induction (Moore &
Oaksford, 2002). Participants were encouraged to close their eyes and to “let
the music fill your mind.” The music was played through headphones at
sound levels of approximately 62-67 dB (±10 dB) and lasted for approximately
5 minutes and 50 seconds. Afterwards, participants completed a measure of
mood consistent with the musical reactions cover story.
On-screen instructions then indicated that the music reactions study
was finished: the formatting, design, and colour scheme changed, with a new
slide saying “Welcome to the NASA experiment”. Physiological recording
continued without mention.
The experimental manipulation was contained in the instructions to the
NASA task. A screen reminded participants that the study would involve
meeting another person and that they would be meeting this person shortly.
These instructions were followed by a pause of 20 seconds, during which the
computer apparently accessed and downloaded relevant files for the
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
23
experiment. This period constituted Time 1: the pause in the presentation
was designed to allow clean physiological recordings in response to the slide.
The next screen contained the manipulation. Participants in the high
anxiety condition were told that the person they would meet had “a history of
schizophrenia.” Participants in the control condition were told that the person
they would meet had a “personality type that we have pretested.” A second
pause of 20 seconds followed, again while the computer apparently accessed
files. This period constituted Time 2.
Two more data points followed. Participants were instructed to
summon the experimenter, who told the participant that “the other person”
might pop in and say hello. After a short pause, there was a knock on the
door and the confederate entered the room. This moment constituted Time 3.
Finally, the confederate (who was blind to condition) was introduced to the
participant by the experimenter. This interaction lasted 4-5 seconds: the
confederate made brief eye contact with the participant, said hello, and then
left the room. This constituted Time 4.
Physiological equipment and measurement. Skin conductance and
facial EMG (Zygomaticus Major and Corrugator Supercilii) were recorded
continuously through sensors attached to the face and fingers of the left hand.
This meant that we were able to compare physiological responses
immediately before and after participants received the manipulation (i.e., Time
1 and Time 2). All measures were acquired non-invasively using a BIOPAC
systems MP150ACE ensemble, following Society for Psychophysiological
Research guidelines (Sherwood, Allen, Fahrenberg, Kelsey, Lovallo & van
Doornen, 1990) and manufacturer’s instructions (Biopac inc., 2006).
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
24
Bipolar skin conductance was measured in uSiemens and obtained
using Biopac TSD203 Ag-AgCl finger electrodes on the distal phalanges of
the index and middle fingers of the left hand. Med Associates NaCl skin
conductance electrode paste (TD246) was used.
Facial electromyography (EMG) was recorded on the left hemiface
sites of Zygomaticus Major and Corrugator Supercilii, following Fridlund and
Cacioppo’s (1986) guidelines for facial EMG recording. One pair of Med
Associates Inc. standard 2.5mm Ag-AgCl surface electrodes was used for
each recording site with UFI electrolyte gel (Biogel 1090). Facial EMG was
measured in microVolts. A concealed DV camera recorded participants’ faces
to assist with the data evaluation and analysis (see below).
A Biopac MP150ACE psychophysiology system with 50 Hz notch filter
was used to amplify the raw facial EMG and skin conductance signals, all of
which were sampled at 1 kHz, and then recorded via an Ethernet connection
to an Apple miniMac in the control room, using AcqKnowledge 3.9 software
for Macintosh.
Data Reduction. Psychophysiological data recordings were
individually inspected in conjunction with the session video recordings to
check for consistency and to exclude electrical or movement artefacts and
irrelevant events (e.g., electrical surges, blinks, yawning etc.). Facial EMG
were calculated as mean scores. Skin conductance was calculated as the
amplitude of skin conductance response at each time (i.e., change in
conductance from the pre-stimulus level to the peak of the response within
each block), consistent with Dindo and Fowles (2008) and Dawson, Schell,
and Filion (2000).
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
25
Materials. Intergroup anxiety towards people with schizophrenia was
measured with the 20-item SOIAS. Internal reliability of the self-anxiety and
other-anxiety subscales was good (α= .91 and .90, respectively).5
Results and Discussion
Preliminary analysis. As in Study 2, self- and other-anxiety were
significantly correlated with each other, r(53)= .38, p< .01. We tested whether
there were differences between participants in the schizophrenia and control
conditions on the pretested measures and at Time 1. As expected, no
significant differences were revealed. We therefore used Time 1 as a point of
comparison and calculated change between Time 1 and Times 2, 3, 4.
Main analysis. We wanted to explore how self-reported intergroup
anxiety might interact with condition to predict the psychophysiological
measures. We also wanted to compare the effects of self- and other- anxiety.
We conducted regression analyses in which the experimental manipulation
(dummy coded) was entered in the first step, enabling the tests of its effect to
be the same as t-tests of the main effect of condition. The centred self- and
other- anxiety scores were entered in the second step, enabling us to detect
their ability to predict physiological reactivity independently of the effect of
experimental condition. As recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986) and
Aiken and West (1991), the interaction terms (condition x self- and otheranxiety) were entered in the third step.
Time 2. Self-anxiety interacted with condition to predict change in
zygomaticus activity in the moments after the manipulation slide, R2 change =
.167, F change (5, 36) = 4.40, p< .05. Inspection of the standardized betas
revealed no relation between self-anxiety and zygomaticus in the control
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
26
condition (β = .04, ns), but a significant negative relation in the schizophrenia
condition (β = -.70, p< .005). Activity on zygomaticus major is generally
understood as an indicator of positive affect (Guglielmi, 1999). We can
therefore interpret these interactions as indicating that self-anxiety was
associated with less positive affect in the schizophrenia condition in the
moments after the manipulation. Other-anxiety did not interact with condition
at Time 2.
Time 3. Both self- and other- anxiety independently interacted with condition
to predict physiological reactivity in the moments after the confederate
knocked on the door. Self-anxiety interacted with condition to predict skin
conductance response in the moments after the knock on the door, R2 change
= .18, F change (5, 28)= 3.54, p< .05. There was no relation between selfanxiety and skin conductance in the control condition (β = .27, ns), but a
significant and negative relation in the schizophrenia condition, (β = -.57, p<
.05). This relation was not expected: in the schizophrenia condition, selfanxiety was associated with a less change in skin conductance when the
confederate knocked on the door, when we might have expected that it would
be associated with more change. As described below, this is not the only
unusual effect that we observed for self-anxiety.
Other-anxiety interacted with condition to predict corrugator activity, R2
change = .27, F change (5, 14)= 5.16, p< .05: there was no relation between
other-anxiety and corrugator activity in the control condition, (β = -.47, ns), but
a significant positive relation in the schizophrenia condition (β = .55, p< .05).
This follows the pattern that we would expect, given that corrugator activity is
understood as indicating negative affect: other-anxiety was associated with
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
27
more negative affect in the schizophrenia condition (relative to the control
condition).
Time 4. The last data point was when participants actually met and
interacted with the confederate. Self-anxiety was the only measure that
interacted with condition to predict physiological reactivity during this phase of
the experiment. This interaction predicted change in skin conductance R2
change = .25, F change (5, 37) = 6.32, p< .005. There was a positive relation
between self-anxiety and skin conductance in the control condition (β = .61,
p< .05), but a significant and negative relation in the schizophrenia condition
(β = -.49, p< .05). The interaction involving self- anxiety and skin conductance
therefore replicated the unexpected effect that we observed at Time 3.
Summary. The results of Study 3 provided evidence of a relationship
between self- and other-anxiety and physiological reactivity. These effects
occurred despite a delay of several weeks between the pre-tested SOIAS and
the measurement of the physiological reactions. Other-anxiety interacted with
condition to predict corrugator activity that was indicative of an increase in
negative affect. This relation was only observed in the experimental condition,
when participants expected to meet someone from the relevant target group
(i.e., someone who had a history of schizophrenia).
In contrast, self-anxiety measure was associated with a flattening of
affect across the three measurement periods: self-anxiety was associated with
lower zygomaticus activity at Time 2, and less change skin conductance at
both Time 3 and Time 4. While the negative relation between self-anxiety and
zygomaticus activity in the moments after the manipulation were consistent
with our expectations from past research, the relations with skin conductance
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
28
were not. In retrospect, this pattern may be evidence of what Trawalter,
Richeson, and Shelton have labelled a ‘freeze’ response. We suggest that
participants in the schizophrenia condition who were also high in self-anxiety
were freezing: they were caught between wanting to think and behave in a
manner that was unprejudiced and a desire to avoid the situation altogether.
Unable to avoid the interaction, they became relatively immobile and inactive.
While freezing is a post hoc explanation of the results of Study 3, the pattern
of effects of self-anxiety were too consistent across the different time periods
to be explained by error. We examined this issue in Study 4 by directly
examining the freezing hypothetically associated with self-anxiety.
Study 4
All of the previous studies used people with a history of schizophrenia
as a target group. This final study extended our analysis to a new target group
(members of a street gang) to examine the hypothesised relationship between
self- anxiety and freezing. It also provided an opportunity to run confirmatory
factor analysis with new data.
Plant, Devine, and Peruche (2010) have developed a number of selfreport measures to measure participants’ desire to approach interracial
interactions and/ or to avoid being prejudiced. In this final study, participants
were asked to complete the Self- Other- Intergroup Anxiety Scale, and Plant,
Devine, and Peruche’s behavioural intentions and behavioural strategies for
both approach and avoidance. We also included three of the intergroup
variables used in Study 2 (quantity of contact, negative affect, and the feeling
thermometer).
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
29
We expected that we would replicate the relations between otheranxiety and intergroup affect that we had observed in Study 2. We also
expected that other-anxiety would be unambiguously associated with reduced
approach and increased avoidance. Based on the freezing hypothesis,
however, we expected that self- anxiety would be positively associated with
both approach and avoidance. Participants who were high in self- anxiety
would seek approach because they believed that it was the right thing to do.
At the same time, however, they would seek avoidance because of anxiety
about making a mistake or appearing to be prejudiced. This was our
explanation for the flattening of physiological responses that we observed in
Study 3.
Method
Participants and Design. Forty-nine undergraduate students (26
female, 23 male, Mage = 19.9, SD = 1.55) were recruited through a number of
undergraduate lectures. There were no differences between men and women
on any of the variables. All of the materials were completed in the lecture
theatre at the end of the class.
Materials. As in Study 2, participants were asked to complete the 20
item SOIAS (12 self-anxiety, 5 other-anxiety, and 3 fillers; α= .90, .91), and a
number of other measures. Participants were asked to imagine that they
would be working collaboratively with a male student who was a member of a
street gang and to describe how this would make them feel. The approach
and avoid measures distinguished behavioural intentions and behavioural
strategies for the imagined interaction (based on Plant, Devine, & Peruche,
2010). Five items measured participants’ approach intentions (e.g., ‘I would be
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
30
interested in getting to know my interaction partner’; α= .90) and three items
measured avoidance intentions (e.g., ‘I would be focused on not being viewed
as prejudiced’; α= .91). Similarly, six items measured participants’ approach
strategies (‘I would ask him questions about himself’; α= .88) and four items
measured avoidance strategies (‘I would avoid talking about any sensitive
topics’; α= .82). We also included three of the intergroup measures that we
used in Study 2: quantity of contact (Greenland and Brown, 1999; α= .90);
negative affect (adapted from Plant & Devine, 2003; α= .92); and a feeling
thermometer (adapted from Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993). All measures
were on seven point likert scales (strongly disagree- strongly agree) with the
exception of the feeling thermometer (response scale from 0- 100°).
Results
As in Study 2, we regressed a number of key intergroup variables onto both
self- and other-anxiety (see Table 4). The results replicated those described in
Study 2: only other- anxiety predicted the intergroup affect measures. Selfand other-anxiety were also positive correlated with each other, r(46)= .50,
p<.001. We also used confirmatory factor analysis to replicate the distinction
between self-anxiety and other-anxiety: although the fit statistics for the two
factor solution were not good (CFI= .83, TLI= .79, RMSEA= .12), the two
factor solution provided a significantly better fit to the data compared to the
one factor solution (χ2 (1)= 112.15, p < .001).
For our purposes, however, it is the approach and avoidance measures
that are most interesting. While other-anxiety was associated with less
approach (βapproachintentions= -.49; βapproachstrategies=-.53) and more avoidance
strategies (βavoidstrategies= .37), self-anxiety was positively associated with both
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
31
approach (βapproachintentions = .34) and avoidance (βavoidintentions= .57; β avoidstrategies
= .37). Participants who were high in self-anxiety held simultaneous and
contradictory intentions to both approach and avoid the interaction. This was
consistent with the freezing hypothesis that we described in Study 3: selfanxiety was associated with both a desire to ‘do the right thing’ but also to
avoid making a mistake: a very difficult circle to square.
General Discussion
Across four studies, we have shown that intergroup anxiety can be
understood in terms of two related constructs: self-anxiety (anxiety over
thinking or doing something that is prejudiced) and other-anxiety (anxiety that
the other might do something to you). Studies 1 and 2 refined a measure to
assess these types of anxiety and indicated that they are statistically distinct.
Study 3 showed that self- and other-anxiety differentially predicted
participants’ physiological reactivity in anticipation of meeting an individual
who was labelled as schizophrenic and during the actual interaction with him.
Study 4 provided additional support for the freezing hypothesis.
Across the studies, there was a consistent positive correlation between
self- and other-anxiety. This finding fits the view that these constructs tap
different facets of global tendencies to experience anxiety in an intergroup
context. Crucially, however, there was sharp divergence in how these types
of anxiety predicted the dependent variables. Study 2 indicated that selfanxiety was associated with higher levels of motivation to control prejudice,
social anxiety, and lower self-efficacy. Other-anxiety was associated with
negative intergroup variables (more prejudice, more negative attitudes, more
negative affect, and less contact) in a way that self-anxiety was not. Data
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
32
from Study 3 indicated that self-anxiety was associated with a flattening of
physiological reactivity, with reduced zygomaticus and reduced skin
conductance at different points in the design. In contrast, when other-anxiety
predicted physiological reactivity, it was on those measures associated with
negative affect (increased corrugator supercilii).
Other-anxiety therefore seems to have the correlates and effects that
we would expect from the intergroup anxiety literature: negative affect and
negative intergroup attitudes. Self-anxiety, in contrast, seems to be
something different. How can we understand the different correlates and
effects of self- and other-anxiety? Trawalter, Richeson, and Shelton’s (2009)
model of stress and coping provides a useful template through its distinction
between primary and secondary appraisals associated with intergroup
contact, and between five behavioural adaptations in response to intergroup
stress (freeze, avoid, antagonise, overcompensate, and engage). Results
from Study 2 and 4 indicated that self- and other-anxiety were associated with
different primary appraisals. Self-anxiety was not associated with any of the
intergroup variables apart from motivation to control prejudice; primary
appraisals of self-anxiety related to the self and not the group (i.e.,
expectancies of the self and social anxiety). In contrast, other-anxiety was
associated with negative representations of the outgroup, including negative
expectancies of the other, modern prejudice, and negative affect. It was also
associated with less contact and less knowledge about the outgroup.
An important aspect of Trawalter et al’s model is that secondary
appraisals should feedback to primary appraisals, yielding different
behavioural adaptations (freeze, avoid, antagonise, overcompensate, and
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
33
engage). In our studies, other-anxiety was associated with physiological
responses consistent with negative affect, and on this basis we suggest that it
would most likely be associated with negative behaviour such as avoidance or
antagonism. Self-anxiety, however, interacted with condition to predict a
flattening of physiological responses (Study 3), which we interpreted as
freezing. We found further support for the freezing hypothesis in Study 4, in
which self- anxiety was associated with both increased approach and
avoidance goals. Thus, we find contrasting effects for self- and otherintergroup anxiety, such that other-anxiety has more obvious negative effects
while self- anxiety is associated with paralysis.
Of course, these insights have only been made possible through the
attempt to differentiate two distinct dimensions of intergroup anxiety. The
prevalent focus on intergroup anxiety as a single variable was a useful starting
point for understanding important phenomena, but the awkwardness felt in
intergroup interactions is more complex than a single “anxiety” variable allows.
The present findings show that this single variable aggregates across two
constructs that have different correlates and different effects in an actual
intergroup interaction. Our distinction between self- and other-anxiety mirrors
the distinction between realistic and symbolic threat that has been made in
Integrated Threat Theory (ITT; Stephan & Stephan, 2000). In ITT, realistic and
symbolic threats are experienced at a group level and frequently in the
absence of actual contact (group members may believe that an outgroup is
using up scarce resources or threatening cherished values without actually
meeting any members of the outgroup). Self- and other-anxiety, in contrast,
are experienced at an individual level during actual or anticipated intergroup
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
34
contact. We would suggest that ITT moves from a three factor model (realistic
threat, symbolic threat, and intergroup anxiety) to a four factor model (realistic
threat, symbolic threat, self-anxiety, and other-anxiety).
The distinction between self- and other-anxiety now needs to be
replicated across a range of diverse target groups and contexts. We
developed the items of the SOIAS to be flexible for different target groups, but
the data presented is limited to people with a history of schizophrenia or
members of a street gang. The balance of self-anxiety and other-anxiety may
be different between groups. For example, groups may differ in the extent to
which (a) prejudice against them threatens the self-concept and (b) they are
seen as threatening. These differences should affect the extent to which
anxiety becomes more focused on the self versus the other. For instance,
prejudice tends to be more strongly proscribed against ethnic groups than
against obese people or homosexuals (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003; see also
West & Hewstone, in press). In addition, some groups possess distinctly
threatening stereotypes (e.g., people with mental illness), whereas others may
be relatively nonthreatening (e.g., Buddhists). The balance and effects of selfanxiety and other-anxiety might also vary in different social contexts (e.g.,
feeling physically vulnerable, or feeling self-conscious; Babbitt & Sommers,
2011), and might be associated with different emotions (Leach, Snider, & Iyer,
2002). We suggest that self-anxiety is likely to be associated with guilt,
shame, and pity whereas other-anxiety might be associated with anger,
contempt, and disgust. All of these factors help to make the case that
intergroup anxiety is not a single construct and that the effects of intergroup
anxiety are not likely to proceed in a simple, unitary manner.
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
35
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. London: Sage.
Amodio, D. M. (2009). Intergroup anxiety effects on the control of racial
stereotypes: A psychoneuroendocrine analysis. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 60-67.
Ascher-Svanum, H. (1999). Development and validation of a measure of
patients' knowledge about Schizophrenia. Psychiatric Services, 50,
561-563.
Babbitt, L. G., & Sommers, S. R. (2011). Framing Matters: Contextual
Influences on Interracial Interaction Outcomes. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 37(9), 1233-1244.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173-1182.
Bassili, J. N. (1996). Meta-Judgmental versus Operative Indices of
Psychological Attributes: The Case of Measures of Attitude Strength.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 637 - 653.
Berrenberg, J. L., Finlay, K. A., Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2002).
Prejudice toward people with cancer or AIDS: Applying the integrated
threat model. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 7(2), 75- 86.
Biopac inc. (2010, 25 September 2008). Application note 196: Cardiac output
measurement-using EBI100C and LEAD110S. Retrieved 20 July, 2010
from http://biopac.com/Manuals/app_pdf/app196.pdf.
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
36
Blair, I. V., Park, B., & Bachelor, J. (2003). Understanding intergroup anxiety:
Are some people more anxious than others? Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, 6, 151-169.
Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., & Kowai-Bell, N.
(2001). Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 253-267.
Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., & Seery, M. (2003). Intergroup encounters and
threat: a Multimethod approach. In D. M. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.),
From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to
social groups. New York: Psychology Press.
Britt, T.W., Boniecki, K.A., Vescio, T.K., Biernat, M., & Brown, L.M. (1996).
Intergroup anxiety: a person x situation approach. Personality and
social psychology bulletin, 22, 1177–1188.
Bromgard, G., & Stephan, W. G. (2006). Responses to the stigmatized:
Disjunctions in affect, cognitions, and behavior. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 36, 2436-2448.
Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255-343.
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, 10661079.
Corrigan, P. W., Rowan, D., Green, A., Lundin, R., River, P., UphoffWasowski, K., White, K., & Kubiak, M. A. (2002). Challenging two
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
37
mental illness stigmas: Personal responsibility and dangerousness.
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 28, 293-309.
Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of
the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin,
129, 414-446.
Crisp, A. H., Gelder, M. G., Rix, S., Meltzer, H. I., & Rowlands, O. J. (2000).
Stigmatisation of people with mental illnesses. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 177, 4-7.
Cullen, L., Edwards, S., Marks, S., Phelps, L., & Sandbach, J. (2004). Out of
the picture: CAB evidence on mental health and social exclusion.
London: Citizen's Advice Bureau.
Dawson, M. E., Schell, A., E., & Filion, D. L. (2000). The electrodermal
system. In J. T. Caciopppo, G. G. Berntson & L. G. Tassinary (Eds.),
Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. 200-223). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Dijker, A. J., Koomen, W., van den Heuvel, H., & Frijda, N. H. (1996).
Perceived antecedents of emotional reactions in inter-ethnic relations.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 313–329.
Dindo, L., & Fowles, D. C. (2008). The skin conductance orienting response to
semantic stimuli: Significance can be independent of arousal.
Psychophysiology, 45, 111-118.
Doerr, C., Plant, A. E., Kunstman, J. W., & Buck, D. (2011). Interactions in
Black and White: Racial differences and similarities in response to
interracial interactions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14,
31-43.
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
38
Esses, V. M., Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Values, stereotypes and
emotions as determinants of intergroup attitudes. In D. M. Mackie & D.
L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition and stereotyping: Interactive
processes in group perception (pp. 137-166). New York: Academic
Press.
Fear of making a mistake, of interfering, or about the repercussions, can
paralyse” (2001, October 2) Independent newspaper, p. 11. Retrieved
22 July, 2010, from Nexis UK.
Fridlund, A. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Guidelines for human
electromyographic research. Psychophysiology, 23, 567-589.
Greenland, K., & Brown, R. (1999). Categorization and intergroup anxiety in
contact between British and Japanese nationals. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 29, 503-521.
Guglielmi, R. S. (1999). Psychophysiological assessment of prejudice: Past
research, current status and future directions. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 3, 123-157.
Jonas, K., Diehl, M., & Bromer, P. (1997). Effects of attitudinal ambivalence
on information processing and attitude-intention consistency. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 190 -210.
Klonis, S. C., Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (2005). Internal and external
motivation to respond without sexism. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1237-1249.
Knight, J., & Brent, M. (1998). Access denied: Disabled people's experience
of social exclusion. London: Leonard Cheshire.
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
39
Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1987). Affect intensity as an individual difference
characteristic: A review. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 1-39.
Leach, C. W., Snider, S., & Iyer, A. (2002). "Poisoning the consciences of the
fortunate”: The experience of relative advantage and support for social
equality. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation:
specification, development, and integration (pp. 136-163). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Littleford, L. N., Wright, M. O. D., & Sayoc-Parial, M. (2005). White students'
intergroup anxiety during same-race and interracial interactions: A
multimethod approach. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 8594.
Marteau, T. M., & Bekker, H. (1992). The development of a six-item short-form
of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 301-306.
Mendes, W. B., Blascovich, J., Lickel, B., & Hunter, S. (2002). Challenge and
threat during social interactions with White and Black men. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 939-952.
Mental Health Foundation (2000). Pull yourself together! A survey of the
stigma and discrimination faced by people who experience mental
distress. London: Mental Health Foundation.
Moore, S. C., & Oaksford, M. (2002). An informational value for mood. In S. C.
Moore & M. Oaksford (Eds.), Emotional cognition: From brain to
behaviour (pp. 221-243). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nail, P. R., Harton, H. C., & Decker, B. P. (2003). Political orientation and
modern versus aversive racism: Tests of Dovidio and Gaertner's (1998)
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
40
Integrated Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
754-770.
Page-Gould, E., Mendes, W. B., & Major, B. (2010). Intergroup contact
facilitates physiological recovery following stressful intergroup
interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5), 854858.
Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., Harwood, J., & Cairns, E. (2006).
Intergroup contact and the promotion of intergroup harmony: The
influence of intergroup emotions. In R. J. Brown & D. Capozza (Eds.),
Social identities: Motivational, emotional, cultural influences. Hove,
United Kingdom: Psychology Press.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P.
Robinson, P. R. Shaver & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of
personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). London:
Academic press.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce
prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 38, 922-934.
Phelan, J. E., & Basow, S. A. (2007). College students' attitudes toward
mental illness: An examination of the stigma process. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 37(12), 2877-2902.
Plant, E. A. (2004). Responses to interracial interactions over time.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1458-1471.
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
41
Plant, E. A., & Butz, D. A. (2006). The causes and consequences of an
avoidance-focus for interracial interactions. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 833-846.
Plant, A. E., Butz, D. A., & Tartakovsky, M. (2008). Interethnic interactions:
Expectancies, emotions, and behavioral intentions. Group Processes
and Intergroup Relations, 11, 555-574.
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to
respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 811 -832.
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (2003). The antecedents and implications of
interracial anxiety. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 790801.
Plant, E. A., Devine, P. G., & Peruche, M. B. (2010). Routes to Positive
Interracial Interactions: Approaching Egalitarianism or Avoiding
Prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(9), 11351147.
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and
outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 10, 336-353.
Safety fear over schizo. (2009, June 6). The Sun, p. 19. Retrieved 22 July,
2010, from Nexis UK.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). The self consciousness scale: A
revised version for use in general populations. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 15, 687-699.
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
42
Shelton, J. N. (2003). Interpersonal concerns in social encounters between
majority and minority group members. Group Processes and Intergroup
Relations, 6, 171-185.
Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2006). Interracial interactions: A relational
approach. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 121-181.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercadante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., &
Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self efficacy scale: Construction and
validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663-671.
Sherwood, A., Allen, M. T., Fahrenberg, J., Kelsey, R. M., Lovallo, W. R., &
van Doornen, L. J. P. (1990). Methodological guidelines for impedance
cardiography. Psychophysiology, 27, 1-23.
Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters
of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 125-139.
Stephan, W. G., Boniecki, K. A., Ybarra, O., Bettencourt, A., Ervin, K. S.,
Jackson, L. A., McNatt, P. S., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role of
threats in the racial attitudes of blacks and whites. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1242-1254.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of
Social Issues, 41, 157–175.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An Integrated Threat Theory of
prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination:
Claremont symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 23-45).
Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
43
Stephan, C. W., Stephan, W. G., Demitrakis, K. M., Yamada, A. M., & Clason,
D. L. (2000). Women's attitudes toward men - An integrated threat
theory approach. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24(1), 63- 73.
Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., & Roy, R. (2009). The relationships between
contact, status and prejudice: An integrated threat theory analysis of
Hindu-Muslim relations in India. Journal of Community and Applied
Social Psychology, 19, 83-94.
Trawalter, S., & Richeson, J. A. (2008). Let's talk about race, Baby! When
Whites' and Blacks' interracial contact experiences diverge. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1214-1217.
Trawalter, S., Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2009). Predicting behavior
during interracial interactions: A stress and coping approach.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 243-268.
Tropp, L. R. (2003). The psychological impact of prejudice: Implications for
intergroup contact. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 131149.
Velasco González, K., Verkuyten, M., Weesie, J., & Poppe, E. (2008).
Prejudice towards Muslims in The Netherlands: Testing integrated
threat theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 667-685.
Vorauer, J. D., Hunter, A. J., Main, K. J., & Roy, S. A. (2000). Meta-stereotype
activation: evidence from indirect measures for specific evaluative
concerns experienced by members of dominant groups in intergroup
interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 690707.
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
44
Vorauer, J. D., & Kumhyr, S. M. (2001). Is This About You or Me? SelfVersus Other-Directed Judgments and Feelings in Response to
Intergroup Interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
27(6), 706-719.
Vorauer, J. D., Main, K. J., & O'Connell, G. B. (1998). How Do Individuals
Expect to Be Viewed by Members of Lower Status Groups? Content
and Implications of Meta-Stereotypes. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 75(4), 917-937.
Vorauer, J. D., Martens, V., & Sasaki, S. J. (2009). When Trying to
Understand Detracts From Trying to Behave: Effects of Perspective
Taking in Intergroup Interaction. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 96(4), 811-827.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of
brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
West, K., & Hewstone, M. (in press). Relatively Socially Acceptable Prejudice
Within and Between Societies. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology.
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
45
Footnotes
1
See also Vorauer and colleagues’ work on metastereotyping
(Vorauer, Hunter, Main, & Roy, 2000; Vorauer & Kumhyr, 2001; Vorauer,
Main, & O'Connell, 1998; Vorauer, Martens, & Sasaki, 2009).
2
Unless otherwise indicated, all measures were based on a seven
point likert scale (strongly disagree- strongly agree).
3
Plant and colleagues' later measures of expectancies of self-efficacy
(e.g., Butz & Plant, 2006) do not have such a strong intergroup component.
4
Pilot work also included measures of cardiac reactivity associated
with challenge and threat (ventricular contractility, total peripheral resistance,
and cardiac output). These measures raised ethical and pragmatic concerns
because participants had to partially undress to allow the placement of
sensors. Although we had a number of measures in place to protect the
privacy and dignity of our participants, one participant withdrew in objection to
this part of the procedure. We were also concerned that the cardiac measures
added to the awkwardness of interaction with the confederate and heightened
anxiety to a ceiling where some effects were difficult to detect.
5
Study 3 included a number of ancillary measures designed to test
hypotheses irrelevant to the current manuscript’s focus (e.g., how participants
felt about the music that they had listened to). For the sake of brevity, these
are not described in text.
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis of the SOIAS items (Model 2)
Figure 2. Confirmatory factor analysis of the SOIAS items (Model 3).
46
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
Figure 1.
I would not be worried about him thinking that I was prejudiced.
.61
-.60
I would be nervous about him thinking I was trying too hard to act normal.
I would not be worried about doing something that I didn’t mean to do.
.60
.66
SelfAnxiety
I would not be nervous about having stereotypes about him.
-.64
I would be anxious about saying something that I would regret later.
.63
I would not be nervous about doing something that might make me feel guilty.
-.75
I would be worried about appearing to stereotype him.
.74
I would not be anxious about saying something inappropriate.
.73
I would not be worried about my stereotypes influencing what I thought about him.
.83
-.44
df= 118
TLI= .916
CFI= .927
RMSEA= .073
.75
-.81
I would not be nervous about stereotypes affecting how I interacted with him.
I would be anxious about doing something that made me look prejudiced.
.72
OtherAnxiety
I would not be anxious about making a mistake that made me look prejudiced.
I would be nervous about him being unreasonable.
.69
I would be nervous about him doing something to me.
.83
I would be anxious about him being rude or unpleasant.
.75
.76
I would be nervous about him being different to other people.
I would be anxious about him being difficult.
47
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
48
Figure 2.
I would not be worried about him thinking that I was prejudiced.
.60
I would be nervous about him thinking I was trying too hard to act normal.
-.62
I would not be worried about doing something that I didn’t mean to do.
.59
I would not be nervous about having stereotypes about him.
.15
I would be anxious about saying something that I would regret later.
.15
.65
-.65
SelfAnxiety
.15
I would not be nervous about doing something that might make me feel guilty.
-.77
I would be worried about appearing to stereotype him.
.74
I would not be anxious about saying something inappropriate.
.14
I would not be worried about my stereotypes influencing what I thought about him.
.14
.75
I would not be anxious about making a mistake that made me look prejudiced.
.14
-.83
I would not be nervous about stereotypes affecting how I interacted with him.
.82
OtherAnxiety
.15
.62
.14
.15
.72
df= 117
TLI= .928
CFI= .938
RMSEA= .068
.13
.15
.14
I would be anxious about doing something that made me look prejudiced.
.14
.71
I would be nervous about him being unreasonable.
.13
.68
I would be nervous about him doing something to me.
.14
.82
I would be anxious about him being rude or unpleasant.
.14
I would be nervous about him being different to other people.
.15
.74
.75
I would be anxious about him being difficult.
Common
method
variance
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
49
Table 1
Factor Loadings for the Self Other Intergroup Anxiety Scale (Study 1)
I would not be worried about him thinking that I
was prejudiced.
I would be nervous about him thinking I was
trying too hard to act normal.
I would not be worried about doing something
that I didn’t mean to do.
I would not be nervous about having stereotypes
about him.
I would be anxious about saying something that I
would regret later.
I would not be nervous about doing something
that might make me feel guilty.
I would be worried about appearing to stereotype
him.
I would not be anxious about saying something
inappropriate.
I would not be worried about my stereotypes
influencing what I thought about him.
I would not be anxious about making a mistake
that made me look prejudiced.
I would not be nervous about stereotypes
affecting how I interacted with him.
I would not be anxious about doing something
that made me look prejudiced (unreversed
in subsequent measures)
I would be nervous about him being
unreasonable.
I would be nervous about him doing something to
me.
I would be anxious about him being rude or
unpleasant.
I would be nervous about him being different to
other people.
I would be anxious about him being difficult.
I would be worried about not doing a good job on
the project
I would be worried that we wouldn’t get on and
about this affecting the success of the
project.
I would be anxious that any difficulties in our
relationship would affect the success of
the project.
Selfanxiety
Otheranxiety
.74
.07
-.68
-.03
.73
-.04
.69
.08
-.63
.08
.68
-.07
-.63
.05
.64
.11
.64
-.01
.63
-.03
.63
.05
-.06
.60
-.04
.76
-.03
.73
-.09
.69
.08
.65
.06
.67
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
50
Table 2
Regression of Self-anxiety and Other-anxiety onto Criterion Variables (Study
2)
Measure
Self-anxiety β
Other-anxiety β
Measures associated with intergroup anxiety
Unidimensional measure of
.38*
.48*
intergroup anxiety
Negative expectancies of the other
.12
.30*
Expectancies of self-efficacy
-.48*
-.30*
Internal MTCP
.18
-.24*
External MTCP
.35*
.16
Measures of intergroup attitudes and intergroup relations
Negative affect
-.05
.53*
Modern prejudice
-.11
.26*
Quantity of contact
-.15
-.25*
Knowledge about schizophrenia
.04
-.29*
Feeling thermometer
.02
-.27*
Attitude ambivalence
-.01
.00
Measures of individual differences in affect and socially desirable responding
Social anxiety
.26*
.06
Self efficacy
-.34*
.10
Self monitoring
.08
-.06
Private self consciousness
-.11
-.04
Public self consciousness
.10
.10
Positive mood (PANAS)
-.05
-.04
Negative mood (PANAS)
.24
-.05
Affect intensity
.05
-.09
Trait anxiety
.16
.04
Socially desirable responding
-.11
.12
* p < .05
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
51
Table 3
Regression of Self-anxiety and Other-anxiety onto Motivation to Control
Prejudice when Controlling for Unidimensional anxiety (Study 2)
Measure
Internal MTCP
External MTCP
* p < .05
†
p = .06
Self-anxiety β
.25†
.25*
Other-anxiety β
-.05
.08
INTERGROUP ANXIETY FROM THE SELF AND OTHER
52
Table 4
Regression of Self-anxiety and Other-anxiety Subscales onto Criterion
Variables (Study 4)
Measure
Self-anxiety β
Other-anxiety β
Measures associated with intergroup anxiety and intergroup affect
Quantity of contact
-.13
-.18
Negative affect
.15
-.58*
Feeling thermometer
-.14
-.43*
Measures associated with approach and avoidance
Goals to approach
.34*
-.49*
Goals to avoid
.57*
-.11
Strategies approach
.25
-.53*
Strategies to avoid
.37*
.37*
* p < .05