The Journal of Social Psychology
ISSN: 0022-4545 (Print) 1940-1183 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
What We Talk About Matters: Content Moderates Cognitive Depletion in Interracial Interactions Kevin L. Zabel, Michael A. Olson, Camille S. Johnson & Joy E. Phillips To cite this article: Kevin L. Zabel, Michael A. Olson, Camille S. Johnson & Joy E. Phillips (2015) What We Talk About Matters: Content Moderates Cognitive Depletion in Interracial Interactions, The Journal of Social Psychology, 155:6, 545-552, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2015.1032197 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2015.1032197
Accepted author version posted online: 26 Mar 2015. Published online: 26 Mar 2015. Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 45
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vsoc20 Download by: [York University Libraries]
Date: 05 November 2015, At: 22:34
The Journal of Social Psychology, 155: 545–552, 2015 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0022-4545 print / 1940-1183 online DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2015.1032197
What We Talk About Matters: Content Moderates Cognitive Depletion in Interracial Interactions
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 22:34 05 November 2015
KEVIN L. ZABEL MICHAEL A. OLSON University of Tennessee
CAMILLE S. JOHNSON San Jose State University
JOY E. PHILLIPS University of Tennessee
ABSTRACT. The antecedents and consequences of intergroup interactions have been well studied, but interaction content—what partners actually talk about—has not. In the experiment we report here, interaction content moderated well-documented self-regulation effects (i.e., cognitive depletion) among White participants interacting with a Black partner. Specifically, White individuals participated in a video email interaction with an ostensible Black or White partner who broached topics systematically varying in intimacy. Greater cognitive depletion was evident after interacting with a Black partner relative to a White partner, but only after discussing more intimate topics. When conversation topics aligned with Whites’ preferences to avoid intimacy in interracial interactions, depletion effects were reduced. Thus, interaction content, which has been largely ignored in intergroup interaction research, has important implications for intergroup interaction. Keywords: dyadic interaction, intergroup contact, intergroup interaction, prejudice, self-regulation
“There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin.” —Linus van Pelt (Shulz & Melendez, 1966).
INTERGROUP INTERACTIONS ARE INTEGRAL to navigating a diverse world. As such, psychologists have long investigated the antecedents (e.g., prejudice: Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002; expectations: Plant, Butz, & Tartakovsky, 2008) and consequences (e.g., cognitive depletion: Richeson & Shelton, 2003; friendship development: Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) of intergroup interaction. However, there has been little systematic study of content in intergroup interactions, even though people do agree that sensitivity to which topics are “taboo” vs. “safe” Address correspondence to Kevin L. Zabel, University of Tennessee, Department of Psychology, Austin Peay Building, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
546
THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
is critical for everyday discourse. We argue that systematic consideration of interaction content is required for a complete understanding of intergroup interactions, in part because interaction content can determine interaction consequences.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 22:34 05 November 2015
Intimacy Here we focus on the content dimension of intimacy (i.e., revealing personal information). Intimate self-disclosure is critical for friendship development within and between groups; it engenders liking between partners and increases relationship satisfaction (Cole & Bradac, 1996; Collins & Miller, 1994). Self-disclosure between members of conflicting groups can foster friendship (Ensari & Miller, 2002; Shelton, Trail, West, & Bergsieker, 2010), which in turn can reduce prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). However, people are strategic self-disclosers and have distinct preferences for disclosure (Clark, 1998; Grice, 1975; Reis & Shaver, 1988). Whites in particular prefer to avoid intimate topics with a Black relative to a White partner in a getting-acquainted context (Johnson, Olson, & Fazio, 2009). Cognitive Depletion We argue that discussion of non-preferred topics in interracial interaction is a negative experience that increases self-regulation, leading to depletion on later tasks (Tice, Baumeister, Shmueli, & Muraven, 2007). In intergroup contexts, for example, activation of prejudice vs. performance concerns (Richeson & Trawalter, 2005), and activation of prevention relative to promotion goals (Trawalter & Richeson, 2006) can increase interference on Stroop tasks, which assess such cognitive depletion (MacLeod, 1991). We reason that violation of Whites’ preferences to avoid intimate content in interracial interactions increases self-regulatory effort to manage the non-preferred interaction. Violations of content preferences should lead to greater self-regulation because people prefer topics that are predictable and relatively pleasant (Johnson et al., 2009). Conversations that deviate from preferences, in the present case regarding intimacy, are likely to require greater effort to understand, predict, and sustain. One important and measureable outcome, we predict, is cognitive depletion. Overview of Study White participants engaged in an ostensible video interaction with either a Black or White partner who first broached low or high intimacy topics. Participants then voiced responses to their partner’s questions, and finally completed a Stroop task as a measure of cognitive depletion. We expected that because White individuals prefer to avoid intimate topics in interracial interaction, those interacting with a Black partner and discussing intimate topics would exert more effort in the interaction, resulting in greater cognitive depletion.
METHOD Participants Sixty-seven White (39 female, 28 male) undergraduates completed the experiment for credit in their psychology courses.
ZABEL ET AL.
547
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 22:34 05 November 2015
Materials and Procedure Participants attended individually and were told they would engage in an “icebreaker” video session with a randomly chosen partner. The experimenter took a photo of each participant (purportedly to send to the partner), and provided participants with information about their partner (school, age, and major was constant across conditions). Participants were randomly assigned to either a Black or White gender-matched partner, manipulated via name and photo (pilot-tested to be equivalent on attractiveness and likeability). Participants next learned their partner would choose 3 of 6 provided questions to ask of them. Ratings by participants from the same population in previous research indicate that the intimacy questions differed in intimacy level (high vs. low), but were near the mid-point on other content dimensions of valence and controversy (Johnson et al., 2009). Participants saw all six questions before their partner’s choices were revealed. Their partner’s selected questions were all either high (i.e., “Describe your first love.,” “Do you plan to marry? Why or why not?,” & “Do you plan to have children? Why or why not?”) or low (i.e., “Describe your favorite instructor.,” “If you could live in a TV family, which would it be?,” & “What is your favorite thing about your school?”) in intimacy, and have been used in previous research to manipulate content intimacy (Johnson et al., 2009; Experiment 2). Participants responded via webcam and were led to believe that the interaction would continue. Lastly, participants completed a Stroop task as a measure of cognitive depletion (just as administered in Richeson & Shelton, 2003).
RESULTS Data Preparation All Stroop response latencies greater than 3 SD’s (SD = 485.72 ms) from the mean (M = 871.30 ms) were deleted (
ISSN: 0022-4545 (Print) 1940-1183 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
What We Talk About Matters: Content Moderates Cognitive Depletion in Interracial Interactions Kevin L. Zabel, Michael A. Olson, Camille S. Johnson & Joy E. Phillips To cite this article: Kevin L. Zabel, Michael A. Olson, Camille S. Johnson & Joy E. Phillips (2015) What We Talk About Matters: Content Moderates Cognitive Depletion in Interracial Interactions, The Journal of Social Psychology, 155:6, 545-552, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2015.1032197 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2015.1032197
Accepted author version posted online: 26 Mar 2015. Published online: 26 Mar 2015. Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 45
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vsoc20 Download by: [York University Libraries]
Date: 05 November 2015, At: 22:34
The Journal of Social Psychology, 155: 545–552, 2015 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0022-4545 print / 1940-1183 online DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2015.1032197
What We Talk About Matters: Content Moderates Cognitive Depletion in Interracial Interactions
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 22:34 05 November 2015
KEVIN L. ZABEL MICHAEL A. OLSON University of Tennessee
CAMILLE S. JOHNSON San Jose State University
JOY E. PHILLIPS University of Tennessee
ABSTRACT. The antecedents and consequences of intergroup interactions have been well studied, but interaction content—what partners actually talk about—has not. In the experiment we report here, interaction content moderated well-documented self-regulation effects (i.e., cognitive depletion) among White participants interacting with a Black partner. Specifically, White individuals participated in a video email interaction with an ostensible Black or White partner who broached topics systematically varying in intimacy. Greater cognitive depletion was evident after interacting with a Black partner relative to a White partner, but only after discussing more intimate topics. When conversation topics aligned with Whites’ preferences to avoid intimacy in interracial interactions, depletion effects were reduced. Thus, interaction content, which has been largely ignored in intergroup interaction research, has important implications for intergroup interaction. Keywords: dyadic interaction, intergroup contact, intergroup interaction, prejudice, self-regulation
“There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin.” —Linus van Pelt (Shulz & Melendez, 1966).
INTERGROUP INTERACTIONS ARE INTEGRAL to navigating a diverse world. As such, psychologists have long investigated the antecedents (e.g., prejudice: Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002; expectations: Plant, Butz, & Tartakovsky, 2008) and consequences (e.g., cognitive depletion: Richeson & Shelton, 2003; friendship development: Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) of intergroup interaction. However, there has been little systematic study of content in intergroup interactions, even though people do agree that sensitivity to which topics are “taboo” vs. “safe” Address correspondence to Kevin L. Zabel, University of Tennessee, Department of Psychology, Austin Peay Building, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
546
THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
is critical for everyday discourse. We argue that systematic consideration of interaction content is required for a complete understanding of intergroup interactions, in part because interaction content can determine interaction consequences.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 22:34 05 November 2015
Intimacy Here we focus on the content dimension of intimacy (i.e., revealing personal information). Intimate self-disclosure is critical for friendship development within and between groups; it engenders liking between partners and increases relationship satisfaction (Cole & Bradac, 1996; Collins & Miller, 1994). Self-disclosure between members of conflicting groups can foster friendship (Ensari & Miller, 2002; Shelton, Trail, West, & Bergsieker, 2010), which in turn can reduce prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). However, people are strategic self-disclosers and have distinct preferences for disclosure (Clark, 1998; Grice, 1975; Reis & Shaver, 1988). Whites in particular prefer to avoid intimate topics with a Black relative to a White partner in a getting-acquainted context (Johnson, Olson, & Fazio, 2009). Cognitive Depletion We argue that discussion of non-preferred topics in interracial interaction is a negative experience that increases self-regulation, leading to depletion on later tasks (Tice, Baumeister, Shmueli, & Muraven, 2007). In intergroup contexts, for example, activation of prejudice vs. performance concerns (Richeson & Trawalter, 2005), and activation of prevention relative to promotion goals (Trawalter & Richeson, 2006) can increase interference on Stroop tasks, which assess such cognitive depletion (MacLeod, 1991). We reason that violation of Whites’ preferences to avoid intimate content in interracial interactions increases self-regulatory effort to manage the non-preferred interaction. Violations of content preferences should lead to greater self-regulation because people prefer topics that are predictable and relatively pleasant (Johnson et al., 2009). Conversations that deviate from preferences, in the present case regarding intimacy, are likely to require greater effort to understand, predict, and sustain. One important and measureable outcome, we predict, is cognitive depletion. Overview of Study White participants engaged in an ostensible video interaction with either a Black or White partner who first broached low or high intimacy topics. Participants then voiced responses to their partner’s questions, and finally completed a Stroop task as a measure of cognitive depletion. We expected that because White individuals prefer to avoid intimate topics in interracial interaction, those interacting with a Black partner and discussing intimate topics would exert more effort in the interaction, resulting in greater cognitive depletion.
METHOD Participants Sixty-seven White (39 female, 28 male) undergraduates completed the experiment for credit in their psychology courses.
ZABEL ET AL.
547
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 22:34 05 November 2015
Materials and Procedure Participants attended individually and were told they would engage in an “icebreaker” video session with a randomly chosen partner. The experimenter took a photo of each participant (purportedly to send to the partner), and provided participants with information about their partner (school, age, and major was constant across conditions). Participants were randomly assigned to either a Black or White gender-matched partner, manipulated via name and photo (pilot-tested to be equivalent on attractiveness and likeability). Participants next learned their partner would choose 3 of 6 provided questions to ask of them. Ratings by participants from the same population in previous research indicate that the intimacy questions differed in intimacy level (high vs. low), but were near the mid-point on other content dimensions of valence and controversy (Johnson et al., 2009). Participants saw all six questions before their partner’s choices were revealed. Their partner’s selected questions were all either high (i.e., “Describe your first love.,” “Do you plan to marry? Why or why not?,” & “Do you plan to have children? Why or why not?”) or low (i.e., “Describe your favorite instructor.,” “If you could live in a TV family, which would it be?,” & “What is your favorite thing about your school?”) in intimacy, and have been used in previous research to manipulate content intimacy (Johnson et al., 2009; Experiment 2). Participants responded via webcam and were led to believe that the interaction would continue. Lastly, participants completed a Stroop task as a measure of cognitive depletion (just as administered in Richeson & Shelton, 2003).
RESULTS Data Preparation All Stroop response latencies greater than 3 SD’s (SD = 485.72 ms) from the mean (M = 871.30 ms) were deleted (
