This research reported here speaks to a contentious debate concerning the potential negative consequences of diversity for trust. We tested the relationship between neighborhood diversity and out-group, in-group, and neighborhood trust, taking into consideration previously untested indirect effects via intergroup contact and perceived intergroup threat. A large-scale national survey in England sampled White British majority (N = 868) and ethnic minority (N = 798) respondents from neighborhoods of varying degrees of diversity. Multilevel path analyses showed some negative direct effects of diversity for the majority group but also confirmed predictions that diversity was associated indirectly with increased trust via positive contact and lower threat. These indirect effects had positive implications for total effects of diversity, cancelling out most negative direct effects. Our findings have relevance for a growing body of research seeking to disentangle effects of diversity on trust that has so far largely ignored the key role of intergroup contact.
AlesinaA.La FerraraE. (2002). Who trusts others?Journal of Public Economics, 85, 207–234.
2.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3.
AntonioA. L.ChangM. J.HakutaK.KennyD. A.LevinS.MilemJ. F. (2004). Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students. Psychological Science, 15, 507–510.
4.
BlalockH. M. (1967). Per cent non-white and discrimination in the South. American Sociological Review, 22, 677–682.
5.
BoboL. D. (1999). Prejudice as a sense of group position: Microfoundations of a sociological approach to racism and race relations. Journal of Social Issues, 17, 445–472.
6.
BrownR. J.HewstoneM. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–331). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
7.
ChristO.WagnerU. (2012). Methodological issues in the study of intergroup contact: Towards a new wave of research. In HodsonG.HewstoneM. (Eds.), Advances in intergroup contact (pp. 223–261). London, England: Psychology Press.
8.
FoddyM.PlatowM. J.YamagishiT. (2009). Group-based trust in strangers: The role of stereotypes and expectations. Psychological Science, 20, 419–422.
9.
GesthuizenM.Van der MeerT.ScheepersP. (2008). Ethnic diversity and social capital in Europe: Tests of Putnam’s thesis in European countries. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32, 121–142.
10.
HirschmanA. O. (1964). The paternity of an index. American Economic Review, 54, 761–762.
11.
HoogheM.ReeskensT.StolleD.TrappersA. (2009). Ethnic diversity and generalized trust in Europe: A cross-national multilevel study. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 198–223.
12.
KollockP. (1994). The emergence of exchange structures: An experimental study of uncertainty, commitment, and trust. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 313–345.
13.
KramerR. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.
14.
KramerR. M.CarnevaleP. J. (2001). Trust and intergroup negotiation. In BrownR.GaertnerS. L. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 431–450). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.
15.
LanceeB.DronkersJ. (2011). Ethnic, religious and economic diversity in Dutch neighborhoods: Explaining quality of contact with neighbors, trust in the neighborhood and interethnic trust. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37, 597–618.
16.
LetkiN. (2008). Does diversity erode social cohesion? Social capital and race in British neighborhoods. Political Studies, 56, 99–126.
17.
MacKinnonD. P.LockwoodC. M.HoffmanJ. M.WestS. G.SheetsV. (2002). A comparison of methods to test the significance of the mediated effect. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.
18.
MarshH. W.LüdtkeO.RobitzschA.TrautweinU.AsparouhovT.MuthénB.NagengastB. (2009). Doubly-latent models of school contextual effects: Integrating multilevel and structural equation approaches to control measurement and sampling error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 764–802.
19.
MontalvoJ. G.Reynal-QuerolM. (2005). Ethnic polarization, potential conflict and civil wars. American Economic Review, 95, 796–813.
20.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
21.
NobleM.McLennanD.WilkinsonK.WhitworthA.BarnesH.DibbenC. (2008). The English indices of deprivation 2007. London, England: Department for Communities and Local Government.
22.
OliverJ. E.WongJ. (2003). Intergroup prejudice in multiethnic settings. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 567–582.
23.
PettigrewT. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 173–185.
24.
PettigrewT. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 187–199.
25.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
26.
PettigrewT. F.WagnerU.ChristO. (2010). Population ratios and prejudice: Modelling both contact and threat effects. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36, 635–650.
27.
PutnamR. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 137–174.
28.
QuillianL. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60, 586–611.
29.
RiekB. M.ManiaE. W.GaertnerS. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353.
30.
SchlüterE.WagnerU. (2008). Regional differences matter: Examining the dual influence of the immigrant population on derogation of immigrants in Europe. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 49, 153–173.
31.
SteinR. M.PostS. S.RindenA. L. (2000). Reconciling context and contact effects on racial attitudes. Political Research Quarterly, 53, 285–303.
32.
TamT.HewstoneM.KenworthyJ.CairnsE. (2009). Intergroup trust in Northern Ireland. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 45–59.
33.
TanisM.PostmesT. (2005). A social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal perceptions, group membership and trusting behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 413–424.
34.
TauschN.TamT.HewstoneM.KenworthyJ.CairnsE. (2007). Individual-level and group-level mediators of contact effects in Northern Ireland: The moderating role of social identification. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 541–556.
35.
UslanerE. M. (2011). Trust, diversity and segregation in the United States and the United Kingdom. Comparative Sociology, 10, 221–247.
36.
UslanerE. M. (2012). Segregation and mistrust. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
37.
VervoortM.FlapH.DagevosJ. (2010). The ethnic composition of the neighborhood and ethnic minorities’ social contacts: Three unresolved issues. European Sociological Review, 27, 586–605.
38.
WagnerU.ChristO.PettigrewT. F.StellmacherJ.WolfC. (2006). Prejudice and minority proportion: Contact instead of threat effects. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 380–390.
39.
WagnerU.HewstoneM.MachleitU. (1989). Contact and prejudice between Germans and Turks: A correlational study. Human Relations, 42, 561–574.
40.
WrightS. C.AronA.McLaughlin-VolpeT.RoppS. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73–90.
41.
YamagishiT.YamagishiM. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 129–166.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
