A couple of weeks ago, while talking with our social psychology students, I was reminded of a recent research trip to Ethiopia. We were talking in class about the influence of culture on social behaviour, and I was reminded of the warmth and kindness of the people I met in Ethiopia. When I arrived in Ethiopia, although conscious of being from another country, I felt an immediate sense of connection and inclusion. There were a variety of salient behaviours that prompted these feelings. For example, as people passed by, they would place their hand on their heart, smile, and say “salaam”, which, of course, means “peace”, but it’s also used as a general greeting in Ethiopia. As I got talking with people, I also learned more about an interesting social norm: people in Ethiopia commonly refer to one another as “brother” and “sister,” and this relates to a historically deep sense of connection and a strong cultural ethos of caring and sharing, which manifests, for example, in the way in which food is served and shared at mealtimes.
It’s interesting, the trip to Ethiopia came to mind a second time, last week, after talking with social psychology students about the dynamics of inclusion, exclusion, prejudice, and discrimination. For decades, social psychologists have focused considerable research attention on understanding negative aspects of inter-group relations, including prejudice and discrimination. However, a recent paper by Marcus Brauer highlights a problem: while it is often assumed that intergroup discrimination can be explained by negative attitudes and that the best way to reduce discrimination is to change negative attitudes, research does not support this view.
Part of the problem is that, since the “cognitive revolution” in the 1970s, social psychologists have tended to focus most of their attention on mental processes and much less attention on actual behaviour. As such, most interventions aimed at enhancing positive inter-group inclusion dynamics have actually focused on changing negative attitudes (e.g., reducing prejudice), and not that many studies have included behavioural outcomes. It may seem strange, but many intervention studies (e.g., on racism, sexism, homophobia) do not include behavioural outcome measures. Also, for those intervention studies where behaviour is measured, even when attitudes do improve (i.e., become less negative), attitude change does not necessarily translate into behaviour change.
Brauer also notes that changing attitudes is quite difficult. For example, research indicates that people will resist changing their attitudes because of a desire to maintain consistency (i.e., people seek to avoid cognitive dissonance). Brauer wonders, if intergroup attitudes are so resistant to change and have at best a small effect on intergroup behaviour, why do researchers continue to focus on attitudes if their aim is to reduce discrimination and enhance inclusion? Brauer suggests we can learn from other domains of behaviour change research and focus attention on what actually works to enhance inter-group inclusion.
What Works
A good place to start, says Brauer, is to focus directly on the target behaviour, rather than focus on attitudes. For example, initiate direct contact between groups and foster cooperation and a focus on shared goals. To provide one example, Mousa (2020) randomized Christian Iraqi refugees to soccer teams that were composed of either all Christian players or a mixture of Christian and Muslim players. After playing in the mixed soccer league, Christians displayed more favorable intergroup behaviors. These behaviours included an increased likelihood of voting for a Muslim candidate not on their team for a sports award, a greater willingness to register for a mixed team in the following season, and an increased likelihood of training with Muslims six months after the intervention.
When we look at the other strategies Brauer points, what’s interesting is the following: (a) evidence suggests that the strategies directly impact behaviour, and (b) the strategies can be used to promote the (positive) target behaviour (i.e., enhanced inclusion).
For example, rather than target the negative attitudes of individual group members, we can target positive social norms within the group. For example, by focusing on student peer group dynamics, Paluck et al. (2016) found that when peer group members are seen to endorse an antibullying campaign, reports of negative behaviour in the group are lower. We can also encourage people to make public commitments, says Brauer, as this prompts people to act in the future in a way that is consistent with their verbal behaviour (i.e., their prior public commitment). Uhlmann and Cohen (2005) demonstrated how this strategy can enhance inclusive hiring practices.
Furthermore, says Brauer, we can change the choice architecture of the environment and thus “nudge” people toward more inclusive behaviors, for example, by placing round tables rather than individual desks in a classroom environment to promote collaboration. With a little environmental support and perhaps some repetition, we can also foster inclusive habits that, once established, require little conscious effort to maintain — for example, prompting and promoting repeated small, regular acts of kindness that ultimately become habits that lead to lasting behavioural changes in intergroup relations. Finally, we can enhance people’s self-efficacy and confidence by providing a little instruction, for example, on the language they can use to signal respect when talking with people from groups they are unfamiliar with; and we can eliminate barriers and highlighting the benefits of inclusive behavior, says Brauer, for example, by highlighting the benefits of participation in group activities.
Reflecting again on my experience in Ethiopia, I recognize how many of the strategies highlighted by Brauer were naturally woven into the fabric of daily life there. For example, the simple habit of greeting everyone with “salaam” fostered a sense of belonging and community that was palpable and immediately impactful in making the “outsider” feel included. The social norm of referring to one another as “brother” and “sister” further reinforced the inclusive atmosphere and connected the visitor with a deep sense of attachment, care, and cohesion. Moreover, the emphasis on kindness, care, and inclusion was coupled with a gentle process of instruction fostering self-efficacy (e.g., I was coached in how to pronounce words and gently prompted to display the gestures of connection). The communal sharing of meals further illustrated how social norms can facilitate connection and enhance feelings of unity. Overall, upon reflection, my experiences in Ethiopia reinforced the idea that it is often a collection of relatively simple norms, habits, and behaviors that help us to create spaces where everyone feels included, echoing Brauer’s insights in his very interesting paper on pathways to improving intergroup relations.
