An Age Apart: The Effect of Intergenerational Contact and Stereotype Threat on Performance and Intergroup Bias Dominic Abrams, University of Kent ; Anja Eller, University of St. Andrews; and Jacqueline Bryant, University of Kent Psychology and Aging 2006, Vol. 21, no. 4,

Stereotype Threat Theory  Implied or explicit intergroup comparisons can impair test performance  This is because of the threat that a negative stereotype of the ability of one’s group may be confirmed.

Intergroup Contact Theory  Under the right conditions, contact can reduce intergroup prejudice

Hypothesis  A consequence of positive intergroup contact could also be to change the implications of intergroup comparison, and thus moderate stereotype threat effects  Participants who had experienced more positive contact would be relatively unaffected by the threat manipulation, whereas those who had experienced less positive contact would be more anxious and perform less well in the high-threat than in the low-threat condition

Independent Variables  Stereotype threat  High, Low  Intergroup contact  Relatively less positive, Relatively more positive

Independent Variables  Operational Definition:  Stereotype Threat  Intergroup Contact  Theoretical Construct:  Stereotype threat - tape recorded instructions  Intergroup Contact - self-report (amount of positive contact with younger people)

Dependent Variables  Test Performance  Anxiety  Positive Intergroup Contact  Intergroup Bias  Ingroup Identification

Dependent Variables  Operational Definition:  Test Performance  Anxiety  Positive Intergroup Contact  Theoretical Construct:  Test performance - Tests adapted from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence scale – third revised edition, and the Cambridge Cognitive Examination – revised edition.  Anxiety - Osborne  Positive Intergroup Contact – Series of measures measuring quality of experiences of intergenerational contact

Dependent Variables  Theoretical Construct:  Intergroup Bias  Ingroup Identification  Operational Definition:  Intergroup Bias - six item general evaluation scale  Ingroup Identification - seven point likert scale

Participants  97 total participants  32 male, 65 female  Retired, with ages ranging from  Ages ranging from  Defined as cognitively and socially active  Live independently  Live in the country of Kent, United Kingdom

Procedure  Threat manipulation  High: “Intelligence decreases with age, we want to see if old people perform more poorly on intelligence tasks than young people; both older and younger people will participate in this study.”  Low: No reference of intellectual abilities. “We want to see how people differ in response to different tasks; different types of people will take part in this study.”

Procedure continued…  Listen to a short tape recording of a man describing himself  Answer questions about the recording  Told to remember the words apple, table and penny  Six digit-span items ranging from four to nine digits; had to say them backwards  Three ways in which three pairs of objects are alike  Repeat the three words they were suppose to remember earlier  Brainstorm as many uses for scissors as possible in 30 seconds

Results  Anxiety is significantly related to performance (t = -.49)

Results Continued…  Threat had a large significant effect on anxiety among participants with relatively less positive contact (.67), but its effect on those with relatively more positive contact was not significant (-.10)

 Participants who experienced more positive contact would be relatively unaffected by the threat manipulation, whereas those who had experienced less positive contact would be more anxious and perform less well in the high-threat than in low-threat condition

 TheThe main effect of Threat was not significant for intergroup bias, but the main effect of Contact was  Those who experienced less positive contact were relatively unaffected by threat  Participants who had experienced more positive contact reduced their levels of bias when they thought they were being compared with outgroup members.

The Effects of Threat and Contact on Identification…  Participants who experienced less positive contact were relatively unaffected by Threat, but for those who experienced more positive contact, identification decreased in a high-threat situation

Possible Changes/Improvements  Recruit participants from other places (expand population pool)  Have participants from different age groups  Break down the age groups differently, maybe have more than just two groups  Although they asked participants to state their age, sex, marital status and occupation at retirement at the end of testing, they didn’t do anything with the information…incorporate that in somehow?