Beliefs about group malleability and out-group attitudes: The mediating role of perceived threat in interactions with out-group members

Recent research suggests that inducing fixed (rather than malleable) beliefs about groups leads to more negative attitudes toward out-groups. The present paper identifies the underlying mechanism of this effect. We show that individuals with a fixed belief about groups tend to construe intergroup settings as threatening situations that might reveal shortcomings of their in-group (perceived threat). In the present research, we measured (Study 1) and manipulated (Study 2) participants’ lay theories about group malleability. We found that the extent to which individuals had an entity (versus an incremental) group theory influenced the level of threat they felt when interacting with out-group members, and that perceived threat in turn affected their level of ethnocentrism and prejudice. These findings shed new light on the role of lay theories in intergroup attitudes and suggest new ways to reduce prejudice. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Halperin, Russell, Trzesniewski, Gross, and Dweck (2011) recently published an influential paper showing that inducing malleable beliefs about groups led to more positive attitudes toward out-groups. The more Israeli Jews and Palestinians believed that social groups in general had a fixed inherent nature, the more negatively they were disposed toward each other. Although the scientific evidence for the observed effect is unambiguous—for example, beliefs about group malleability were measured in some studies and manipulated in other studies, the authors used a nationwide sample (N=500)—it remains unclear why the effect occurs. Building upon earlier work on lay theories about personality (Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997), we hypothesized that the effect of beliefs about group malleability on attitudes toward out-groups is mediated by perceived threat. The purpose of the present paper is to replicate the Halperin et al. findings and to provide evidence for the idea that perceived threat is the generating mechanism for the effect. Although the Halperin et al. (2011) findings are impressive, they also are surprising. It is not theoretically obvious why Israeli Jews, who agree with statements such as “Groups can do things differently, but the important parts of who they are can’t really be changed,” would also agree with statements such as “All that Palestinians really want is to annihilate Israel.” Note that the researchers measured participants’ beliefs about the malleability of social groups in general and mentioned Palestinians only later when they assessed participants’ out-group attitudes. At this point, there is no theoretical account for why the belief that groups in general can change their basic characteristics goes hand in hand with positive—or *Correspondence to: Dr Markus Brauer, Department of psychology, University of E-mail: [email protected] Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. less negative—attitudes toward a disliked out-group. The two studies presented in this article attempt to address this important question. In a more recent paper, Halperin and colleagues provided evidence for the idea that the effect of group malleability on attitudes toward out-groups is mediated by intergroup anxiety (Halperin et al., 2012). The authors manipulated participants’ beliefs about group malleability and then measured two dependent variables: (i) the extent to which they would feel suspicious and anxious if they were to meet a member of the outgroup; and (ii) their preference for an out-group member as a debate/conversation partner. The data were consistent with the hypothesized meditational model. It appears, however, that the mediator and the outcome measure are two indicators of the same latent construct. The two measures were highly correlated with each other (r= .61). The authors also did not test for the three-path mediation demonstrating that the effect of the experimental manipulation on the outcome measures was indeed mediated by changes in beliefs about group malleability. Researchers are thus still left to wonder which mechanism generates the effect in the original Halperin et al. (2011) paper. Threat and Challenge Useful insight about the possible generating mechanism for the effect of group malleability on out-group attitudes comes from the literature on beliefs about the malleability of individuals, which are sometimes referred to as “lay theories of personality” (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995). Dweck and her colleagues have shown that “entity personality theorists”—people who hold Wisconsin Madison 1202 West Johnson St. Madison,WI 53706-1611, USA. Received 21 July 2014, Accepted 26 October 2014 Lay theories and threat 11 that personal characteristics of individuals are fixed entities that cannot be changed even if the individuals are motivated to do so—feel threatened in numerous interpersonal situations. They “tend to focus on self-judgment” (Chiu et al., 1997, p. 20) and have a tendency “to focus on judging their level of intelligence” (Chiu et al., 1997, p. 20). They also tend to perceive academic settings as competitive, potentially threatening situations that might reveal their shortcomings. If lay theories of groups have a similar effect on intergroup situations as lay theories of personality have on interpersonal situations, then one might expect that that “entity group theorists” tend to focus on judgments about their in-group and generally perceive intergroup settings as competitive, potentially threatening situations that might reveal shortcomings of their in-group or of themselves as members of their in-group. Dweck and colleagues also showed that an incremental lay theory of personality—the belief that personal characteristics are malleable and can be developed with time and effort—causes people to construe interpersonal situations as a challenge. They “place the emphasis on developing versus judging their ability. In the face of obstacles, they tend to focus on the factors that mediate improved performance and increased ability” (Chiu et al., 1997, p. 20). Applied to lay theories of groups, one might therefore predict that individuals, who believe that groups are malleable, will also focus on developing versus judging their in-group. Likewise, they will see cultural differences as an opportunity for self-growth, both for themselves as group members and their in-group as a whole. The different construals of intergroup situations by individuals with fixed versus malleable beliefs about groups map onto Drach-Zahavy and Erez’s (2002) analysis of perceptions of threat and challenge in a variety of situations. On the basis of earlier work by Tomaka, Blascovich, Kibler, and Ernst (1997), these authors suggested that individuals will feel threatened when they perceive a situation as a source of failure and when they have the impression that they do not have the appropriate coping strategies to overcome the obstacles. Individuals will construe a situation in terms of challenge if they evaluate “the situation as an opportunity for self-growth and identify the coping strategies available to manage the demands” (Drach-Zahavy & Erez, 2002, p.670). We therefore predict that “entity group theorists” will perceive intergroup situations as threatening, in the sense that they do not have sufficient resources to overcome the obstacles. Intergroup contact situations are often appraised as threatening (e.g., Trawalter, Richeson, & Shelton, 2009) and particularly stressful when individuals are chronically concerned about appearing prejudiced in diverse settings (Trawalter, Adam, Chase-Lansdale, & Richeson, 2012). The negative appraisal of intergroup contact increases perceived threat, as well as the need for coping strategies. Socially negative behaviors, such as antagonizing, avoidant, and/or freezing behaviors, are suggested to be coping strategies that people use to deal with threatening situations (Trawalter et al., 2009). Thus, prejudice toward disliked out-group members can be a way to cope with one’s chronic appraisal of intergroup situations as threatening, for two reasons: It allows the perceiver to reduce contact with out-group members, therefore reducing threat; and it allows Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. the perceiver to attribute their inability to overcome the obstacles to someone else rather than themselves, therefore avoiding a negative self-attribution. Taken together, we predicted (i) that individual differences in beliefs about group malleability predict out-group attitudes (ethnocentrism and prejudice toward a disliked out-group); and (ii) that this effect would be mediated by participants’ perceptions of threat when interacting with out-group members. We examined these hypotheses in two studies.