Questions: Prejudice: Intergroup Anxiety and Threat Perception

Question 1

A company places employees from different ethnic groups in the same department, expecting contact to reduce prejudice. Despite months of daily interaction, prejudice shows no decrease and some measures increase. Which explanation from intergroup contact research best fits this outcome?

• A. Contact always reduces prejudice given enough time — the company simply has not waited long enough
• B. Contact reduces prejudice only under specific conditions (equal status, common goals, cooperation, institutional support) — without them, contact can confirm negative expectations and increase prejudice
• C. Symbolic threat cannot be reduced by any form of contact, so the outcome was predictable from the start
• D. Prejudice reduction requires eliminating in-group/out-group categorization entirely before contact is attempted

Answer: (B)

Allport's contact hypothesis has strong empirical support — but only when contact occurs under specific conditions. Equal status removes status-threat, common goals shift focus from competition to collaboration, and cooperation gives both parties successful interaction experiences that disconfirm anxiety-based expectations. When workplace contact is hierarchical, competitive, or lacks institutional support for equality, it can confirm prejudiced expectations rather than challenge them. The conditions are not optional enhancements; they are the mechanism through which contact works.

Question 2

A community member describes intergroup interactions as follows: 'I worry I'll say something offensive. I don't know what they expect of me. I feel awkward the whole time.' This is best described as which concept?

• A. Realistic threat — competition over jobs, resources, or political power
• B. Symbolic threat — fear that out-group values will displace in-group cultural identity
• C. Intergroup anxiety — self-focused apprehension about the interaction itself rather than hostility toward the out-group
• D. Stereotype threat — fear of confirming negative stereotypes about one's own group during the interaction

Answer: (C)

Intergroup anxiety is characterized by self-focused worry about the interaction itself ('will I say the right thing?', 'how will they perceive me?') rather than active hostility toward the out-group. This distinction matters because intergroup anxiety can coexist with genuine goodwill — a person may want to interact positively but still avoid contact due to anticipated awkwardness. This anxiety produces avoidance and stilted interactions that then confirm negative expectations, reinforcing prejudice without requiring any hostile intent.

Question 3

Intergroup anxiety is primarily a hostile emotional response — it reflects active dislike or contempt for out-group members.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

Intergroup anxiety is self-focused, not primarily hostile. It reflects apprehension about the interaction itself — worrying about saying the wrong thing, being evaluated negatively, or not knowing how to behave. A person experiencing intergroup anxiety may have no conscious hostility toward the out-group. This is why it can operate even among people with egalitarian values, and why it is not sufficient to simply tell people to 'be less prejudiced.' The anxiety creates behavioral effects (avoidance, awkwardness) that reinforce the cycle regardless of conscious attitudes.

Question 4

Symbolic threat — the perception that an out-group threatens in-group values, moral standards, or worldview — is often a stronger predictor of prejudice than realistic competition over material resources.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

Stephan and Stephan's Integrated Threat Theory identifies symbolic threat as frequently the most powerful predictor of prejudice in contemporary diverse societies. Material conditions may improve (reducing realistic threat) while value-based differences remain or intensify. This explains why prejudice often persists or increases even as economic competition decreases — exposure to different values can feel more threatening than competition for jobs. Symbolic threat also helps explain why highly educated, economically secure individuals can hold strong prejudices.

Question 5

Why does intergroup contact sometimes fail to reduce prejudice — or even increase it — despite giving people direct exposure to out-group members?

Model answer: Contact without the right structural conditions fails because it does not address the underlying mechanisms driving prejudice: intergroup anxiety and threat perception. If contact occurs between groups of unequal status, in a competitive rather than cooperative context, or without institutional support, it can confirm negative expectations. Anxious or awkward interactions are attributed to out-group members' characteristics rather than to the situational factors producing the anxiety, reinforcing stereotypes. Contact is only the opportunity for change — the conditions that accompany it determine whether anxiety is reduced or amplified.

The contact hypothesis is often misread as the claim that exposure to out-group members reduces prejudice. The research-supported version is more precise: contact under specific conditions reduces prejudice because those conditions address the anxiety and threat mechanisms. Equal status, common goals, cooperation, and institutional support each target a different mechanism. Without them, contact may provide evidence that confirms prejudiced expectations, particularly when anxiety makes interactions go badly and that failure is attributed to the out-group rather than the situation.