Hate in Context

Week 9: Reducing Hate Crime I — Contact · LENS preview

Violeta Haas

Department of Political Science

School of Social Sciences and Philosophy

Trinity College Dublin

This Week

  1. Reminder
  2. Catch-up: Week 8
  3. Theoretical Background
  4. Alrababa’h et al. (2021)
  5. Mousa (2020)
  6. Scacco & Warren (2018)
  7. Synthesis

Reminder

Research proposal (60%)

A proposal for an empirical study (2,500–3,000 words):

  1. Clear research question
  2. Critical literature synthesis
  3. Theoretical argument
  4. Empirical approach (cases, methods, data)

You do not need to carry out the full study. Deadline: Fri 11 Dec, 11:59 pm.

Research proposal (60%)

A typical table of contents for the research paper might look like this:

  1. Introduction
  2. Literature review
  3. Theoretical motivation
  4. Design
  5. Data description
  6. Results
  7. Interpretation and conclusions
80%
20%
 

 

Catch-up: Week 8

Fickle Prosocial Violence Response model

Roman and Thompson 2024 Figure 2: Fickle Prosocial Violence Response model linking salient illegitimate violence to temporary prosocial attitudes

SSM support increases post-Pulse

Pulse: June 2016 massacre at Pulse, an LGBTQ+ nightclub in Orlando

Roman and Thompson 2024 Figure 3: balance, Pulse effect on same-sex marriage support, and falsification tests, with panel b framed

Post-Pulse respondents more supportive of same-sex marriage

Pulse effect attenuates over time

Roman and Thompson 2024 Figure 4: influence of Pulse on same-sex marriage support attenuates over time

The prosocial shift is short-lived, consistent with the “fickle” FPVR prediction

Anti-gay attitudes after Pulse

Roman and Thompson 2024 Figure 5: post-Pulse reduces anti-gay attitudes across bandwidths

Roman and Thompson 2024 Figure 6: post-Pulse reduction in anti-gay attitudes attenuates over time

Top: post-Pulse cuts implicit and explicit anti-gay bias (D-score, straight bias, heterocentrism) across bandwidths.
Bottom: that reduction holds for ~50 days, then fades. Same “fickle” pattern as SSM support

Critique/Open questions?

Local, low-salience crimes by out-group members can spark majority retaliation (Riaz et al. 2024), while majority prosociality toward minorities seems to need highly salient events (Roman and Thompson 2024).

Synthesis

Exercise: sort the readings

In pairs (≈5 min): place today’s readings. Any earlier required readings that also fit?

whose reaction is observed
Minority group
Majority group
who discriminates/enacts violence
Bottom-up
hostility
Bottom-up discrimination → minority outcomes
Bottom-up discrimination → majority outcomes
Top-down
hostility
Top-down discrimination → minority outcomes
Top-down discrimination → majority outcomes

Exercise: sort the readings

[discussed in class]

Theoretical Background

Discussion: contact

Turn to a neighbor (≈4 min):

  1. What is intergroup contact/parasocial contact, and under what conditions does each reduce prejudice?
  2. How does social contact reduce prejudice? What are the mechanisms?
  3. Is there contact that backfires? What kind?

What is intergroup contact/parasocial contact, and under what conditions does each reduce prejudice?

Contact & parasocial contact

[discussed in class]

How does social contact reduce prejudice? What are the mechanisms?

How contact reduces prejudice

[discussed in class]

Is there contact that backfires? What kind?

What contact backfires

[discussed in class]

Meaningful contact + physical touch

Two people in business attire shaking hands

HBS experiments: pairs who shake hands cooperate more and reach better joint deals than pairs who do not.

Schroeder et al. (2019)

Alrababa’h et al. (2021)

Experimental design

  • Setting: Mohamed Salah joins Liverpool FC (June 2017), a highly visible, practicing Muslim star
  • Design: synthetic control for Merseyside hate crimes, Twitter among LFC fans vs other clubs, and a survey experiment
  • Treatment: parasocial exposure to a successful, openly Muslim celebrity athlete
  • Outcomes: hate crimes, anti-Muslim tweets, and survey attitudes toward Islam/Muslims

Does Salah fulfill the criteria for successful parasocial contact?

✓ Repeated exposure
✓ Positive/likable portrayal
✓ Salient out-group identity

Mohamed Salah celebrating for Liverpool FC

Figure 1 · Attitudes toward Islam

Alrababa'h et al. 2021 Figure 1: attitudes toward Islam in the British public, 2015–2018

Context: share saying Islam clashes with British values rises through 2015–17, then eases slightly.

Figure 2a · Hate crimes: observed vs imputed

Alrababa'h et al. 2021 Figure 2a: observed and imputed hate crime rates for Merseyside

After Salah joins, Merseyside hate crimes fall ~16% below the synthetic (imputed) counterfactual.

Figure 2b · Hate crimes: treatment vs placebos

Alrababa'h et al. 2021 Figure 2b: treatment effect estimates for Merseyside and placebo units

Merseyside’s post-treatment drop stands out against placebo units (other police stations), not a generic UK trend.

Figure 3 · All crime types in Merseyside

Alrababa'h et al. 2021 Figure 3: synthetic control results for all crime types in Merseyside

Decline is specific to hate crimes. Other Merseyside crime types do not show the same pattern.

Figure 4a · Twitter: observed vs imputed

Alrababa'h et al. 2021 Figure 4a: observed and imputed anti-Muslim tweet rates for Liverpool fans

Liverpool fans’ anti-Muslim tweets fall ~50% below the imputed path after Salah arrives (3.8% vs 7.3%).

Figure 4b · Twitter: ATT vs other clubs

Alrababa'h et al. 2021 Figure 4b: estimated ATT for Liverpool FC vs other clubs

Liverpool’s ATT is more negative than placebo clubs. The effect is concentrated among LFC fans.

Survey experiment · Design

  • Sample: UK Facebook users who like Liverpool F.C.
  • Goal: test the generalization step of parasocial contact. Does highlighting Salah’s Muslim identity improve attitudes toward Muslims more broadly?
  • Design: 2×2 among treated fans (+ pure control): success vs failure × religiosity vs character + no Salah content
  • Outcomes: Islam compatible with British values, feel common with Muslims, immigrants’ impact on the UK

Figure 5 · Survey evidence

Alrababa'h et al. 2021 Figure 5: survey evidence on attitudes

Religiosity cue raises pro-Muslim/“Islam compatible” attitudes. Weaker or null on commonality and immigrants.

Discussion: experimenter demand

Experimenter demand effects: respondents infer the hypothesis and answer in the way they think the researcher wants.

“participant awareness of the purpose of the study can result in inaccurate self-reporting about prejudice.”

— Scacco & Warren (2018)

Turn to a neighbor (≈4 min):

Do you think this survey experiment is vulnerable to experimenter demand, and why?

Do you think this survey experiment is vulnerable to experimenter demand, and why?

Why this survey experiment is vulnerable

[discussed in class]

Discussion: scope conditions

Scope condition: the subset of cases/conditions under which a theory applies.

Turn to a neighbor (≈4 min):

In the case of Salah, many potentially favorable circumstances for parasocial contact might have driven the results. What do you think are these possible scope conditions?

In the case of Salah, many potentially favorable circumstances for parasocial contact might have driven the results. What do you think are these possible scope conditions?

[discussed in class]

[discussed in class]

[discussed in class]

Open Questions/Critique

Open Questions/Critique

  • How much of the survey effect is persuasion vs image management/experimenter demand among Liverpool fans?
  • Would effects reverse if Salah played poorly, left, or took controversial political stances?

Mousa (2020)

Experimental design

  • Setting: amateur soccer leagues for displaced men in post-ISIS Northern Iraq
  • Sample: Christian players randomized within league teams
  • Treatment: ~3 Muslim teammates on an otherwise Christian squad (~25% Muslim)
  • Control: all-Christian teams in the same leagues
  • Outcomes: on-field vs off-field behaviors + attitudinal indices (weeks to months later)

Does this experiment fulfill the criteria for successful intergroup contact?

✓ Equal status
✓ Common goals
✓ Cooperative environment
✓ Institutional support

Salma Mousa on a soccer pitch in Northern Iraq during the amateur league intervention

Figure 1 · Behavioral results

Mousa 2020 Figure 1: on-the-field vs off-the-field behavioral results for treated and control players

On-field: more likely to train with Muslims, vote a Muslim for sportsmanship, and sign up for a mixed team next season. Off-field: little change for a Mosul restaurant visit or a mixed social event.

How does Mousa (2020) measure if competition created hostility?

Did competition create hostility?

Yellow and red soccer cards

Yellow/red cards as a proxy for on-pitch aggression:

  • Card rates do not differ by match type (mixed vs all-Christian)
  • No extra hostility when mixed teams play all-Christian teams
  • Referee’s religion also unrelated to carding

→ Competitive contact here does not look like backlash/escalation on the pitch.

Open Questions/Critique