Individuals’ freedom in socially diverse settings can be harmful to broad societal cohesion.

What is it about?

New research shows that negative interactions between members of opposing social groups in society can have disproportionately detrimental effects on social cohesion. The research, led by Professor Stefania Paolini, from Durham University’s Department of Psychology, analyses 70 years of research into the psychological effects of ‘intergroup contact’ and finds that negative experiences with people who are different from us influence our perceptions significantly more than positive ones. Critically, this negativity bias is more pronounced under conditions in which people have freedom to opt-out of such interactions. Negative interactions with ‘the other’ are less influential when individual freedoms to choose who to associate with are curtailed. Hence, less individual freedom, rather than more, seems to be better and safer for tackling stigmatization in society and for achieving broader social cohesion and peace. This might feel very wrong in many Westernized societies that celebrate personal liberties, like the US or Britain. The article advances understanding of the amplified impacts of negativity bias in unstructured, unmonitored, and unsanctioned settings where individual freedom is the largest. It highlights the hidden benefits of measures (policy/interventions) that limit, rather than boost, individual liberties in diverse settings.New research shows that negative interactions between members of opposing social groups in society can have disproportionately detrimental effects on social cohesion. The research, led by Professor Stefania Paolini, from Durham University’s Department of Psychology, analyses 70 years of research into the psychological effects of ‘intergroup contact’ and finds that negative experiences with people who are different from us influence our perceptions significantly more than positive ones. Critically, this negativity bias is more pronounced under conditions in which people have freedom to opt-out of such interactions or are motivated to do so. Negative interactions with ‘the other’ are less influential when individual freedoms to choose who to associate with are curtailed. Hence, less individual freedom, not more, is better and safer for tackling stigmatization in society, for achieving broader social cohesion and build peace. This might feel very wrong in many Western societies that celebrate personal liberties, like the US or the UK. The article advances understanding of the amplified impacts of negativity bias in unstructured, unmonitored, and unsanctioned settings where individual freedom is largest. It highlights the hidden benefits of measures (policy/interventions) that limit, rather than boost, individual liberties in diverse settings.

Featured Image

Photo by pine watt on Unsplash

Photo by pine watt on Unsplash

Why is it important?

Do you want or want your children to feel welcome and valued in society irrespective of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, health status, gender, or sexuality? This new research speaks to those interested in stigmatization, desegregation, mainstreaming, social integration, and peace building around the world. In a global context fraught by societal friction, polarization, and marginalization, it is existentially important to find ways to harness societal diversity for the greater good. These new findings help us understand how positive and negative experiences with people who are different from us shape broad societal cohesion unevenly, especially where individuals are free to opt-out of contact or are motivated to avoid it. The article advances understanding of the impacts of negativity bias and highlights the need for more coordinated and curated introductions and contacts between social groups, especially where the chances for the social contact to go badly are high. It calls for intergroup contact in formalized settings, like educational, organizational, and institutional where it is harder to opt-out of contact as it turns sub-optimal and respective roles encourage people to endure contact’s ups-and-downs towards greater mutual knowledge, non-polarized judgments and behavioral intentions. These new data can help shape more effective policies and interventions that limit the risk of negative outcomes and increase the chances of sustained social cohesion.

Perspectives