1. When Does Diversity Erode Trust? Neighborhood Diversity, Interpersonal Trust and the Mediating Effect of Social Interactions Written by Dietlind Stolle, Stuart Soroka and Richard Johnston Political Studies: 2008 Volume 56, 57-75 Written by Dietlind Stolle, Stuart Soroka and Richard Johnston Political Studies: 2008 Volume 56, 57-75

2. The Background  The Diversity Paradox  Recent studies suggest that socio-economic diversity in neighborhoods, regions, states, countries, etc. can lead to greater problems with cooperation, trust and support, all of which are necessary for social welfare  Ethnic and racial neighborhood diversity across the United States leads to negative short-term effects on trust in other people, civic attitudes and behavior (Harvard professor Robert Putnam, 2007)  High levels of neighborhood diversity = low levels of trust  Discussion question: How do these findings relate to the “need to belong” theory discussed in class?  Discussion question: Do you agree with these conclusions? Are there other possible explanations?  The Diversity Paradox  Recent studies suggest that socio-economic diversity in neighborhoods, regions, states, countries, etc. can lead to greater problems with cooperation, trust and support, all of which are necessary for social welfare  Ethnic and racial neighborhood diversity across the United States leads to negative short-term effects on trust in other people, civic attitudes and behavior (Harvard professor Robert Putnam, 2007)  High levels of neighborhood diversity = low levels of trust  Discussion question: How do these findings relate to the “need to belong” theory discussed in class?  Discussion question: Do you agree with these conclusions? Are there other possible explanations?

3. The Background (continued)  In-group bias and out-group hostility comes with an absence of direct contact or sustained knowledge about people who are different from us and reinforces prejudices  Bridging vs. bonding  Bonding: bringing together individuals who are alike (e.g., church)  Bridging: bringing together people of diverse backgrounds (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious)  BUT…  Recent literature may suggest that social interactions among individuals from dissimilar groups may help ease or mediate in-group biases and develop inclusion of out-group members (Allport, 1954; Gaertner et al., 1996; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2000)  Two conclusions:  1. Aggregate-level proximity of diverse others negatively affects trust  2. Out-group interaction among neighbors positively affects attitudes  Researchers’ question: How can these contradictory perspectives be reconciled by studying interpersonal interaction?  In-group bias and out-group hostility comes with an absence of direct contact or sustained knowledge about people who are different from us and reinforces prejudices  Bridging vs. bonding  Bonding: bringing together individuals who are alike (e.g., church)  Bridging: bringing together people of diverse backgrounds (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious)  BUT…  Recent literature may suggest that social interactions among individuals from dissimilar groups may help ease or mediate in-group biases and develop inclusion of out-group members (Allport, 1954; Gaertner et al., 1996; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2000)  Two conclusions:  1. Aggregate-level proximity of diverse others negatively affects trust  2. Out-group interaction among neighbors positively affects attitudes  Researchers’ question: How can these contradictory perspectives be reconciled by studying interpersonal interaction?

4. The Research  Canada-US Comparison  Canada: salient ethnic division is between visible majority (white) and visible minority (race is not referred to in political discourse)  United States: salient ethnic division is between Blacks, Hispanics and whites (based on American political history)  Hypothesis: Diversity has a similar (negative) effect on trust in both countries absent social interaction among out-groups  Dependent variable: interpersonal trust  Question: If you lost a wallet or purse with two hundred dollars, how likely is it to be returned with the money in it if it was found by (1) strangers; (2) neighbors; and (3) police?  Canada-US Comparison  Canada: salient ethnic division is between visible majority (white) and visible minority (race is not referred to in political discourse)  United States: salient ethnic division is between Blacks, Hispanics and whites (based on American political history)  Hypothesis: Diversity has a similar (negative) effect on trust in both countries absent social interaction among out-groups  Dependent variable: interpersonal trust  Question: If you lost a wallet or purse with two hundred dollars, how likely is it to be returned with the money in it if it was found by (1) strangers; (2) neighbors; and (3) police?

5. The Results  Used 2002-2003 Equality Security Community Survey (ESCS) for Canada and 2005 Citizenship, Involvement, Democracy (CID) survey for United States  Limitations: May not reflect the racial and socio-economic realities that individuals encounter on a daily basis; difference in response measurements between surveys  Results  Negative correlation between visible minority status and level of trust for both countries (stronger in US)  Correlation is stronger for majority respondents than the minority  Used 2002-2003 Equality Security Community Survey (ESCS) for Canada and 2005 Citizenship, Involvement, Democracy (CID) survey for United States  Limitations: May not reflect the racial and socio-economic realities that individuals encounter on a daily basis; difference in response measurements between surveys  Results  Negative correlation between visible minority status and level of trust for both countries (stronger in US)  Correlation is stronger for majority respondents than the minority

6. The Research (continued)  The Mediating Effect of Social Interactions  Hypothesis: Diverse personal ties with neighbors could compensate for the negative effects of proximity, particularly when the personal ties call for social interaction  Dependent variable: interpersonal trust  Interested in two aspects of social interactions and bridging ties.  Question 1: Of the people you interact with in your neighborhood, how many of them are of a different race from yours?  Used as an alternative measure to neighborhood diversity  Question 2: Of the neighbors you know, how often do you talk to them: about every day, several times a week, several times a month, once a month, several times a year, once a year or less or never?  Used to capture the degree of interaction with neighbors  The Mediating Effect of Social Interactions  Hypothesis: Diverse personal ties with neighbors could compensate for the negative effects of proximity, particularly when the personal ties call for social interaction  Dependent variable: interpersonal trust  Interested in two aspects of social interactions and bridging ties.  Question 1: Of the people you interact with in your neighborhood, how many of them are of a different race from yours?  Used as an alternative measure to neighborhood diversity  Question 2: Of the neighbors you know, how often do you talk to them: about every day, several times a week, several times a month, once a month, several times a year, once a year or less or never?  Used to capture the degree of interaction with neighbors

7. The Results (continued)  Used 2005 United States CID survey only  Measured only the majority response because they are most affected by diversity  Results  Diversity measured by individualized neighborhood networks is “a more powerful predictor of trust than the measure of proximity.”  Respondents in diverse neighborhoods who talk to each other on a regular basis are more trusting than those who do not talk to each other  Used 2005 United States CID survey only  Measured only the majority response because they are most affected by diversity  Results  Diversity measured by individualized neighborhood networks is “a more powerful predictor of trust than the measure of proximity.”  Respondents in diverse neighborhoods who talk to each other on a regular basis are more trusting than those who do not talk to each other

8. The Conclusions  Researchers confirm recent findings on the negative effect of neighborhood diversity on white majorities and show that it is not just in the United States  Personal experiences with diverse neighbors is important for developing trust  Most important: Everyone is different.  “Individuals who regularly talk with their neighbors are less influenced by the racial and ethnic character of their surroundings than people who lack such social interaction.”  Researchers confirm recent findings on the negative effect of neighborhood diversity on white majorities and show that it is not just in the United States  Personal experiences with diverse neighbors is important for developing trust  Most important: Everyone is different.  “Individuals who regularly talk with their neighbors are less influenced by the racial and ethnic character of their surroundings than people who lack such social interaction.”

9. The Alternative Explanations  Reverse causation  How can we be sure that it’s the social interaction and talking that matters?  Could trusting respondents be more talkative in general while distrusting respondents remain silent?  Discussion question: Do you think that reverse causation is more or less likely?  Hull (2003)  “Certain aspects of neighborhood context indirectly influence adolescent psychological distress through their impact on perceived emotional support and aspirations/expectations for the future, both of which are associated with lower levels of psychological distress.”  Neighborhood physical disorder = lower levels of perceived emotional support  Higher concentration of Hispanics in the neighborhood is associated with higher perceived emotional support for other Hispanics.  Reverse causation  How can we be sure that it’s the social interaction and talking that matters?  Could trusting respondents be more talkative in general while distrusting respondents remain silent?  Discussion question: Do you think that reverse causation is more or less likely?  Hull (2003)  “Certain aspects of neighborhood context indirectly influence adolescent psychological distress through their impact on perceived emotional support and aspirations/expectations for the future, both of which are associated with lower levels of psychological distress.”  Neighborhood physical disorder = lower levels of perceived emotional support  Higher concentration of Hispanics in the neighborhood is associated with higher perceived emotional support for other Hispanics.

10. The Questions  Do you think that social contact with diverse groups promotes positive relationships with out- group members, or does it simply neutralize out-group biases?  Is it possible for dissimilar groups to truly trust one another?  How are these issues carried out currently in the news and media? In your life?  Do you think that social contact with diverse groups promotes positive relationships with out- group members, or does it simply neutralize out-group biases?  Is it possible for dissimilar groups to truly trust one another?  How are these issues carried out currently in the news and media? In your life?

11. The Sources  Stolle, Dietlind; Soroka, Stuart; and Johnston, Richard. “When Does Diversity Erode Trust? Neighborhood Diversity, Interpersonal Trust and the Mediating Effect of Social Interactions.” Political Studies: 2008 Vol. 56, 57-75.  Hull, Pamela. "Race/Ethnicity and the Impact of Neighborhood Context on Adolescent Psychological Distress" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta Hilton Hotel, Atlanta, GA, Aug 16, 2003. 2009-01-23  Stolle, Dietlind; Soroka, Stuart; and Johnston, Richard. “When Does Diversity Erode Trust? Neighborhood Diversity, Interpersonal Trust and the Mediating Effect of Social Interactions.” Political Studies: 2008 Vol. 56, 57-75.  Hull, Pamela. "Race/Ethnicity and the Impact of Neighborhood Context on Adolescent Psychological Distress" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta Hilton Hotel, Atlanta, GA, Aug 16, 2003. 2009-01-23