Learning About Outgroups
Policy Context
False or exaggerated beliefs about outgroups underlie many forms of prejudice and discrimination worldwide. These beliefs—for example, seeing other races, religions, or ethnicities as greedy, untrustworthy, or aggressive—can exacerbate social tensions and undermine community cohesion. Intergroup contact has emerged as a leading tool for addressing these challenges. However, recent evidence suggests that such interventions have limited effects on generalized attitudes toward outgroups.
This study examines how different types of intergroup contact—“broad” (short interactions with many outgroup members) versus “deep” (prolonged interactions with a single outgroup member)—affect intergroup relations. Through understanding these dynamics, researchers’ hope is that policymakers can design more effective interventions to foster harmony in diverse societies.
Study Design
The research team conducted a field experiment in West Bengal, a region with entrenched tensions between Hindus (the majority groups) and Muslims (the minority group). Researchers set up a factory and recruited 964 men aged 18-40 to work for 6 days each. Participants were assigned to one of four groups: (1) “deep” contact with the same outgroup partner for six days, (2) “broad” contact with six different outgroup partners (one per day), (3) “deep” contact with the same ingroup partner, or (4) a pure control condition that only completed the baseline and endline survey. Participants made paper bags together, a joint production task that required continuous interaction and cooperation between partners. The measures included daily morale in the workplace, productivity, and endline assessments of beliefs about outgroups, willingness to interact with outgroup members, and economic and social ties.
Results and Policy Lessons
The analyses reveal distinct benefits of broad and deep contact. Broad contact increased accurate updating about the visible attributes of outgroups, (e.g., their productivity and religiosity), and the updating extended to the overall outgroup and not just the partners. These effects are concentrated among Hindus, who, as the majority, have less accurate prior beliefs about the outgroup to begin with. In contrast, deep contact led to stronger social and economic ties with outgroup partners, with participants more likely to maintain in-person or phone contact with their partners and engage in mutual aid, such as borrowing money or job-finding assistance. Deep contact was also better for workplace camaraderie.
Despite these positive outcomes, neither type of contact improved broader intergroup behaviors, such as willingness to donate to an outgroup stranger. The findings suggest a trade-off: deep contact excels in building interpersonal connections with partners, while broad contact is more effective for correcting misperceptions. These insights highlight the need for tailored interventions depending on policy priorities, whether fostering social ties or addressing misinformation about outgroups.
