Anxiety in intergroup relations: a comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and integrated threat theory

ANXIETY IN INTERGROUP RELATIONS: ACOMPARISON OF ANXIETY/UNCERTAINTY

MANAGEMENT THEORY AND INTEGRATED THREATTHEORY

WALTER G. STEPHAN,* and COOKIE WHITE STEPHAN

New Mexico State University,USA

WILLIAM B. GUDYKUNST

University of California, Fullerton, CA 92634 USA

ABSTRACT. In this article we review two theories in which anxiety and its re-lationship to intergroup relations play a central role: anxiety/uncertainty manage-ment (AUM) theory and the integrated threat theory (ITT) of prejudice. Theantecedents and consequences of anxiety in each theory are presented and compari-sons between the theories are drawn. AUM speci®es a greater range of antece-dents, while ITT speci®es a greater range of threats. The theories di�er in theconceptualizations of the e�ects of anxiety with AUM holding that anxiety oftenhas bene®cial e�ects on intergroup relations and ITT arguing that anxiety typi-cally has detrimental e�ects. AUM examines communication as the primary e�ectof anxiety whereas ITT focuses on prejudice. Possible reconciliations between thetheories are discussed along with directions for future research. # 1999 ElsevierScience Ltd. All rights reserved

INTRODUCTION

Feelings of anxiety are produced by stress combined with the percep-tion of a situation as personally dangerous or threatening. In contrastto fear, anxiety may be objectless, or the intensity of the negative feel-ings may be disproportionate to the objective reality (Spielberger, 1976).In recent years a number of researchers have come to the conclusionthat anxiety plays an important role in intergroup relations (Barna,

Int. J. Intercultural Rel. Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 613±628, 1999# 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain0147-1767/99 $20.00+0.00

PII: S0147-1767(99)00012-7

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

*Corresponding author. New Mexico State University, Department of Psychology, Box

30001, Department 3452, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA. Tel.: +1-505-646-4102; fax: +1-

505-646-6218.; E-mail: [email protected]

613

1983; Dijker, 1987; Glick, DeMorest, & Hotze, 1988; Wilder, 1993).When people who come from di�erent groups interact they often experi-ence a host of concerns. They may be concerned that they will notbehave competently, they worry that they will be taken advantage of, orthey may think that they will cause o�ense. The anxiety aroused bythese concerns may itself create di�culties, leading people to be tenta-tive, to behave awkwardly, or to be overly solicitous. On the otherhand, this anxiety may have bene®cial e�ects, leading people to be morealert and to interact with enhanced e�ectiveness.

The importance of anxiety and the complexity of its potential e�ectshave given rise to several theories that attempt to capture the role ofanxiety in intergroup relations. The purpose of this article is to describetwo such theoriesÐAnxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory (AUM)and the Integrated Threat theory (ITT). We will ®rst summarize eachtheory and some of the evidence supporting it. Then we will comparethe two theories and o�er some suggestions for future research.

Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory

Anxiety/uncertainty management theory (Gudykunst, 1988, 1993,1995, 1998) is designed to explain e�ective interpersonal and intergroupcommunication. AUM theory assumes that managing uncertainty andanxiety are central processes in¯uencing the e�ectiveness of our com-munication with others (Gudykunst, 1995). AUM was initially devel-oped by extending Berger and Calabrese's (1975) uncertainty reductiontheory (URT) of interpersonal communication to intergroup encounters(Gudykunst, 1985). The theory was revised using a communicationcompetence framework (Gudykunst, 1993). The most recent version ofthe theory (Gudykunst, 1995) incorporates cultural and individualvariability in AUM processes.

The ®nal axiom in AUM theory (Gudykunst, 1995) suggests thatanxiety/uncertainty management directly in¯uences the e�ectiveness ofcommunication in interpersonal and intergroup encounters. That is, in-dividuals can communicate e�ectively to the extent that they are able tomanage their anxiety and accurately predict and explain others' atti-tudes, feelings, and behaviors. Anxiety and uncertainty management,therefore, are the `basic' causes of e�ective communication. AUM the-ory assumes that the e�ects of other variables (e.g., identities, expec-tations, and abilities) are mediated through anxiety and uncertainty.

Uncertainty

Uncertainty is a cognitive phenomena; it in¯uences the way peoplethink about others. Berger and Calabrese (1975) isolate two types of

W. G. Stephan et al.614

uncertainty. Predictive uncertainty is the uncertainty people have aboutpredicting others' attitudes, feelings, values, and behaviors. Explanatoryuncertainty involves the uncertainty people have about explainingothers' attitudes, feelings, and behaviors. In addition, Berger (1979) alsodi�erentiates between cognitive uncertainty and behavioral uncertainty.Cognitive uncertainty involves knowledge about others, whereas beha-vioral uncertainty involves the degree to which people are relatively cer-tain that others will behave in a predictable way. People try to managetheir uncertainty when others act in a deviant fashion, they can providerewards, and future interaction is anticipated (Berger, 1979). Somedegree of uncertainty exists in all relationships, but there is greateruncertainty when people communicate with members of di�erent groupsthan when people communicate with members of their own groups(Gudykunst & Shapiro, 1996).

According to AUM, people have maximum and minimum thresholdsfor uncertainty (Gudykunst, 1993). The maximum threshold is the high-est amount of uncertainty people can have and still think they can pre-dict others' attitudes, feelings, and behaviors su�ciently well to feelcomfortable interacting with them. The minimum threshold is the lowestamount of uncertainty people can have and not feel bored or overcon®-dent about their interactions with others. If uncertainty is below theminimum threshold or above the maximum threshold, people have di�-culty communicating e�ectively (Gudykunst, 1993). When cognitive andbehavioral uncertainty is between the two thresholds, people have su�-cient con®dence in their abilities to predict others' attitudes, feelings,and behaviors that they feel comfortable, but con®dence is not su�-ciently high that they become overcon®dent. If uncertainty is above themaximum thresholds or below the minimum thresholds, people need tomindfully (e.g., consciously) manage their uncertainty to improve thee�ectiveness of their communication. Uncertainty ¯uctuates over timeand within speci®c interactions (Planalp, Rutherford, & Honeycutt,1988).

Anxiety

In AUM, anxiety is the a�ective (emotional) equivalent of uncer-tainty. People experience some degree of anxiety any time they commu-nicate with others. Anxiety is a `generalized or unspeci®ed sense ofdisequilibrium' (Turner, 1988, p. 61). It stems from feeling uneasy,tense, worried, or apprehensive about what might happen (Stephan &Stephan, 1985). Anxiety tends to be higher in intergroup than interper-sonal encounters (Gudykunst & Shapiro, 1996).

As with uncertainty, people have maximum and minimum thresholdsfor anxiety (Gudykunst, 1993). The maximum threshold is the highest

Anxiety in Intergroup Relations 615

amount of anxiety people can have and still feel comfortable interactingwith others. The minimum threshold is the lowest amount of anxietypeople can have and still care about their interactions with others. Ifanxiety is above the maximum threshold communication becomes lesse�ective and people tend to process information in a simplistic fashion(e.g., rely on stereotypes). If anxiety is below the minimum thresholdpeople are not motivated to communicate with others. To be motivatedto communicate with others, anxiety must be below the maximumthreshold and above the minimum threshold (cf Csikszentmihalyi, 1990;Janis, 1985; Schneiderman, 1960). Typically, anxiety decreases as peoplecome to know one another, but anxiety can increase or decrease at anypoint in a relationship depending on events in the relationship and howthey are interpreted.

E�ective Communication

Communication is a process involving the exchange of messages andthe creation of meaning. It is e�ective to the extent that the person whois interpreting the message attaches a meaning to the message that isrelatively similar to that which was intended by the person transmittingit (Gudykunst, 1993, 1995). Powers and Lowry (1984) refer to interpret-ing messages similarly as basic communication ®delityÐ``the degree ofcongruence between the cognitions of two or more individuals followinga communication event'' (p. 58).

Anxiety, Uncertainty, and E�ective Communication

Anxiety and uncertainty covary when people are communicating withothers. Demerath's (1993) knowledge-based a�ect theory suggests thatdecreases in uncertainty lead to positive a�ect (e.g., trust) and increasesin uncertainty lead to negative a�ect (e.g., fear). Turner's (1988) theoryof motivation suggests that lack of predictability leads to anxiety andlack of trust. AUM combines these two frameworks to suggest thatthere is a reciprocal, positive relationship between uncertainty andanxiety.

Managing anxiety and uncertainty often requires that people bemindful (e.g., consciously aware) of what is happening when they com-municate with others. Langer (1989) isolates three characteristics ofmindfulness: (1) creating new categories, (2) being open to new infor-mation, and (3) being aware of alternative perspectives.

As indicated in Figure 1, the super®cial causes of e�ective communi-cation are clustered into six general categories (Gudykunst, 1995). Thesuper®cial causes in¯uence the ability to manage anxiety and uncer-tainty. The ability to manage anxiety and uncertainty, in turn, in¯uence


FIGURE1.The

Bas

icAUM

Theo

ryMod

el.


the e�ectiveness of communication. When anxiety or uncertainty areabove the maximum thresholds or below the minimum thresholds, wemust be mindful to communicate e�ectively. When anxiety/uncertaintyare between the two thresholds, being mindful can still facilitate e�ectivecommunication but it may not be necessary in `routine' interactions.

There is extensive empirical support for AUM theory (seeGudykunst, 1988, 1993, 1995; Gao & Gudykunst, 1990; Gudykunst &Hammer, 1988). Anxiety and uncertainty have been found to be corre-lated with one another in a number of studies (Gudykunst & Nishida,1999; Gudykunst & Shapiro; 1996; Hubbert, Gudykunst, & Guerrero,1999). As predicted by AUM, several studies have also found thatanxiety or uncertainty was correlated with communication e�ectiveness(Gudykunst & Nishida, 1999; Gudykunst, Nishida, & Chua, 1986;Gudykunst & Shapiro, 1996; Hubbert et al., 1999). In addition,increases in positive expectations (Gudykunst & Shapiro, 1996; Hubbertet al., 1999) and increases in perceived similarity (Hubbert et al., 1999)have been found to be related to uncertainty and anxiety in interperso-nal and intergroup encounters.

INTEGRATED THREAT THEORY

The integrated threat theory of prejudice is an o�shoot of research onintergroup anxiety (Stephan & Stephan, 1985, 1989a, 1989b, 1992). Thisresearch focused on the antecedents and consequences of the anxietypeople experience when interacting with outgroup members. The inter-group anxiety model suggested that when intergroup anxiety is high,people display exaggerated responses, usually negative ones, rely oncognitive heuristics such as stereotypes, and express polarized emotionsand evaluations, typically negative ones. The research based on thismodel focused on the central role of anxiety as a cause of negative inter-group relations. This model was expanded to include other forms ofthreat that people experience in intergroup interactions (Stephan, 1999;Stephan & Stephan, 1996; Stephan, Diaz-Loving, & Duran, 1999;Stephan, Ybarra, Martinez, Schwarzwald, & Tur-Kaspa, 1998; Stephan,Ybarra, & Bachman, 1999). This expanded model incorporated threeadditional types of threat that have been shown to play a role in causingprejudice: realistic threats, symbolic threats, and negative stereotypes.Thus, the integrated threat theory includes four types of threat.

Realistic Threats

Realistic threats concern threats to the very existence of the ingroup(e.g., through warfare), threats to the political and economic power ofthe ingroup, and threats to the physical or material well-being of the


ingroup or its members (e.g., their health). The concept of realisticthreats has its origins in realistic group con¯ict theory (Ashmore & DelBoca, 1976; Bobo, 1988; Coser, 1956; LeVine & Campbell, 1972; Sherif,1966). Realistic threats encompass any perceived threat to the welfare ofthe group or its members. The theory emphasizes perceived realisticthreats because the perception of threat can lead to prejudice, regardlessof whether or not the threat is `real'.

Symbolic Threats

Symbolic threats primarily involve perceived group di�erences inmorals, values, standards, beliefs, and attitudes. Symbolic threats arethreats to the worldview of the ingroup. These threats arise, in part,because the ingroup believes in the moral rightness of its system ofvalues. These types of threat have been the subject of extensive research(Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993; Katz, Wackenhut, & Glass, 1986;McConahay & Hough, 1976; Kinder & Sears, 1981, Sears, 1988;Sidanius, Devereux, & Pratto, 1992). Much of this research has focusedon threats associated with the values incorporated in the Protestantethic. The concept of symbolic threats in the intergroup threat theory isbroader than most earlier approaches because it includes threats posedby the outgroup to any of the central values held by the ingroup.

Intergroup Anxiety

People experience intergroup anxiety when they feel personally threa-tened in intergroup interactions. Stephan and Stephan (1985) arguedthat people fear four types of negative consequences: negative conse-quences for our self-concepts, negative behavioral consequences, nega-tive evaluations by others, and negative evaluations by members of ouringroups. A number of studies have demonstrated the importance ofanxiety in intergroup contexts (Greenberg et al., 1990; Greenberg,Simon, Pyszczynski, Solomon, & Chatel, 1992; Gudykunst, 1993, 1995;Wilder, 1993; Wilder & Shapiro, 1989). The consequences of anxiety areampli®ed cognitive, a�ective, and behavioral responses, most of whichare negative in intergroup contexts.

Negative Stereotypes

To the extent that outgroup stereotypes are negative, con¯ictual orunpleasant interactions with outgroup members are likely to be antici-pated. The essence of threat is the anticipation of negative events, andthat is what negative stereotypes create. Studies of negative stereotypesindicate that they are consistent predictors of prejudice (Eagly &Mladinic, 1989; Esses et al., 1993; Stephan & Stephan, 1993).


Attitudes Toward Outgroups

In the integrated threat theory four threats are used to predict atti-tudes toward outgroups. The de®nition of attitudes employed in the the-ory includes both emotional reactions like hatred and disdain, as well asevaluative reactions such as disliking and disapproval (Stephan &Stephan, 1993).

Antecedents of Threat

The theory suggests that perceptions of threat depend on the level ofprior con¯ict between the groups, the relative statuses of the groups,and the strength of identi®cation with the ingroup, knowledge of theoutgroup, and the nature of the contact between the groups (Figure 2).

Prior Intergroup Con¯ict. The important role that con¯ict and othertypes of controversy between groups play in causing feelings of threatand prejudice is addressed in many theories (Burton, 1986; Osgood,1959; Patchen, 1988; Stephan & Stephan, 1996). Prior intergroup con-¯icts can be thought to occupy a continuum from openly acknowledged,high levels of con¯ict to low levels of con¯ict that do not involve directconfrontation and may not even be recognized. High con¯ict may

FIGURE 2.The Basic ITT Model.


involve direct physical confrontations, but it may also entail compe-tition or controversy concerning scarce resources (e.g., elective positions,jobs, power, money, territory, etc.) or open disagreements over valuesand rights (e.g., religious values, cultural values, moral values). Whenprior con¯ict has been high, perceptions of all four threats are likely tobe heightened.

Status. Perceived threats may also depend on the relative status orpower of the two groups. Both high and low status groups can experi-ence the other group as threatening. As the degree of status inequalityincreases so, too, does the salience of threats posed by the other group.Thus, to the degree that the ingroup has very high status or very lowstatus relative to the outgroup, threats should be more salient.

Ingroup Identi®cation. Strong identi®cation with the ingroup canincrease the salience of all four types of threat. People who do not ident-ify with their ingroup should not be concerned with threats to it andshould not interact with outgroup members in terms of their groupmemberships. Thus, only people who strongly identify with theiringroups are likely to experience feelings of threat with respect to out-groups.

Knowledge of the Outgroup. When ingroup members know very littleabout the outgroup, they are likely to perceive the outgroup as threaten-ing. They will be likely to think that the other group is dissimilar tothem and that its members probably dislike them. The fear in this caseis a fear of the unknown or the unfamiliar. Thus, ingroup members aremost likely to be fearful of the outgroup when they lack knowledge ofthe other group's beliefs, values, norms, roles, and behavior patterns.

Contact. The amount and type (positive or negative) of prior contactbetween groups also a�ects feelings of threat. The greater the frequencyof positive contacts (e.g., cooperative endeavors, successful team e�orts,pleasurable intergroup activities) relative to negative contacts (e.g., dis-agreements, ®ghts, losing team e�orts, unpleasant intergroup activities)the lower the threat, whereas the greater the frequency of negative topositive contacts the greater the threat. Thus, people whose prior con-tacts with outgroup members have been predominantly negative arelikely to feel threatened by the prospect of future contacts with membersof this group. In addition, contact itself is a direct predictor of inter-group attitudes.

The integrated threat theory has been used to predict attitudes towardimmigrants to the US, Spain, and Israel (Stephan, Ybarra, & Bachman,1999; Stephan, Ybarra, Martinez, Schwarzwald, & Tur-Kaspa, 1998), aswell as mutual attitudes of Mexicans and Americans (Stephan, Diaz-


Loving et al., 1999)and the attitudes of women toward men (Stephan,Stephan, Demitrakis, & Yamada, 1999). Although all four threats havebeen found to be signi®cant predictors of attitudes in some of these stu-dies, in other studies only some of the predictors have been found to besigni®cant. It appears that groups that have high levels of economic andpolitical power are less concerned about the more group-orientedthreats (realistic and symbolic threats) and more concerned about inter-personal threats (intergroup anxiety and negative stereotypes). For lowpower groups, it appears that realistic threats may not predict attitudestoward the more powerful group, if there is the perception that thepower relationship cannot be altered. These studies have also foundthat feelings of threat are predicted by the quality of prior intergroupcontact.

COMPARING AUM AND ITT

AUM theory and ITT share identical conceptions of anxiety andboth imbed anxiety in a broad nomological net of antecedents and con-sequences. The two theories share the assumption that interacting withoutgroup members can create anxiety. Both theories also argue that thee�ects of anxiety on intergroup relations can be negative and both tar-get the arousal created by anxiety as one of the major factors in bring-ing about these negative e�ects. In addition, some of the antecedents foranxiety also are similar in the two theories (e.g., intergroup contact,strength of ingroup identi®cation).

There are also signi®cant di�erences between the two theories. First,the theories focus on di�erent consequences of anxiety. ITT has beenprimarily used to predict intergroup attitudes under the assumption thatattitudes a�ect a variety of di�erent types of behaviors, particularlynegative, hostile, and discriminatory behaviors directed at outgroupmembers. In contrast, in AUM the focus is on communication e�ective-ness. This di�erence is probably attributable to the disciplinary originsof the theorists. One theorist is a student of communication studieswhere the focus in on improving communication e�ectiveness. Theother theorists are students of the psychology of intergroup relationswhere the focus has traditionally been on the causes and consequencesof prejudice. A related di�erence is that ITT focuses exclusively on thee�ects of anxiety on intergroup relations, while AUM focuses on bothintergroup and interpersonal relations.

Second, although the de®nition of anxiety is identical in the two the-ories, there are di�erences in the operationalizations of anxiety.Research on ITT uses a measure of anxiety that incorporates uncer-tainty and related adjectives as items in the measure. Thus, in ITTanxiety and uncertainty are combined. In AUM theory, anxiety and


uncertainty are viewed as distinct, but correlated, constructs. It could beargued that uncertainty about outgroup members' behaviors is a ®fththreat that could be incorporated in ITT or it could be argued thatsince anxiety and uncertainty are highly correlated they may be tappingthe same underlying construct. Empirical research is needed to addressthis question.

Third, di�erences between the theories exist in the antecedents ofanxiety. ITT focuses on multiple sources of threat, whereas AUMfocuses on anxiety as the primary source of feelings of threat. It seemspossible that realistic threats and symbolic threats would in¯uence com-munication e�ectiveness, but no research has been conducted on thisissue. In a related vein, AUM speci®es many more antecedents ofanxiety that ITT and it seems likely that at least some of these antece-dent variables also a�ect perceptions of threat, including anxiety.

Fourth, di�erences exist in the causal relations among the variables.In ITT prejudice is considered to be a consequence of intergroupanxiety, whereas in AUM prejudice is grouped with stereotyping andboth are considered to be the basis for expectancies that can be antece-dents of anxiety. Thus in ITT prejudice is a consequence of anxiety,whereas in AUM it is an antecedent. It seems likely that both directionsof causality occur and that one may predominate depending on situa-tional factors.

Another instance in which the two theories seem to specify di�erentcausal relations among variables concerns quality of interaction andanxiety. In AUM communication e�ectiveness depends on the level ofanxiety. That is, the quality of the behavior is determined by the level ofanxiety. However, in ITT the quality of intergroup interaction is con-sidered to be an antecedent of anxiety, with negative prior contact lead-ing to greater anxiety, and positive prior contact having the oppositee�ect. It may be that quality of interaction can be either a cause or ane�ect or it may be both a cause and an e�ect. Anxiety can in¯uence thequality of interaction (as AUM maintains) which can, in turn, a�ect thelevel of anxiety on subsequent occasions (as ITT maintains). Supportfor this idea comes from unreported data in a study by Hubbert et al.(1999) in which it was found that communication e�ectiveness at onepoint in time in¯uences anxiety the next time interaction occurs.

Fifth, one of the most important di�erences between the theories isthat they have di�erent conceptualizations of the e�ects of anxiety. InITT, anxiety is treated as one of the major threats that leads to preju-dice. According to ITT, the e�ects of anxiety on prejudice are con-sidered to be linearÐthe greater the anxiety, the greater the prejudice.In contrast, in AUM the relationship of anxiety to communicatione�ectiveness is non-linear. When anxiety is in a central range between aminimum threshold and a maximum threshold, it is expected to have


bene®cial e�ects on communication. Only when anxiety exceeds themaximum threshold (leading to fear) or falls below the minimumthreshold (leading to boredom) is it thought to have negative e�ects.

Finally, AUM and ITT make di�erent predictions concerningingroup identi®cation. In ITT the stronger the ingroup identi®cation,the greater the anxiety. AUM theory suggests that the stronger theingroup identi®cation, the less the anxiety (although this prediction isonly thought to hold only if individuals are secure in their ingroupidenti®cations and the other person is perceived to be a typical groupmember).

CONCLUSIONS

There seems to be little question that anxiety plays a central role inintergroup relations. However, it remains to be seen whether its e�ectsare predominantly positive or predominantly negative. A variety ofother questions concerning di�erences between the theories also remainto be addressed, such as the roles of strength of ingroup identity, con-tact, and prejudice. The issue of reciprocal causation needs to beaddressed in both theories. Both theories also need to be more exten-sively tested using a variety of populations. In particular, more attentionin the future needs to be devoted to examining a wider range of antece-dents and consequences than have been assessed to date.

The theories are both presented as if they were culturally universaland research on both theories has been done in multiple cultures, butadditional empirical tests are needed to verify, or modify, this assump-tion. The major strength of both theories is that they are explicitly sta-ted and therefore provide clear guidelines for research that will enableus to more fully understand the role that anxiety plays in intergroup re-lations. The contrasts between the theories reveal the value of multipleapproaches to closely related issues. Studying anxiety in initial inter-group interactions and ongoing intergroup relations will help us betterunderstand the anxiety management process and develop applicationsthat can improve communication in intergroup encounters.

When the necessary research has been done, it is possible that a syn-thesis of the two theories will emerge. Such a synthesis would probablyconsist of those antecedents of anxiety that survive this process, plusthose that are added. A set of anxiety/threat variables will remain afterthe anxiety/uncertainty issue and the utility of other threat variableshave been resolved. These variables would then be used to predict arange of behavioral, cognitive, and a�ective consequences. The researchwould also resolve the issue of whether the relationship of the anxiety/threat variables to their consequences is linear or non-linear. In this syn-thesis the reciprocal interplay among these sets of variables would be


acknowledged. The resulting uni®ed theory would be a demonstrationof the strengths of an interdisciplinary approach to a shared problem.

REFERENCES

Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1976). Psychological approaches to under-

standing intergroup con¯ict. In P. A. Katz (Ed.), Towards the elimination ofracism (pp. 73±124). New York: Pergamon.

Barna, L. R. (1983). The stress factor in intercultural relations. In D. Landis &

R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (vol. II) (pp. 19±49).New York: Pergamon.

Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interactions. In H. Giles & R. St Clair(Eds.), Language and asocial psychology (pp. 122±144). Oxford, UK:

Blackwell.Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorationsn initial interactionsand beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication.

Human Communication Research, 1, 99±112.Bobo, L. (1988). Group con¯ict, prejudice, and the paradox of contemporaryracial attitudes. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism:

Pro®les in controversy (pp. 85±116). New York: Plenum.Burton, J. W. (1986). The procedures of con¯ict resolution. In E. E. Azar & R.W. Burton (Eds.), International con¯ict resolution: Theory and practice (pp.92±116). Boulder, CO: Lynne Reiner Publishers.

Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social con¯ict. New York: Free Press.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. NewYork: Harper & Row.

Demerath, L. (1993). Knowledge-based a�ect. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56,136±147.

Dijker, A. J. M. (1987). Emotional reactions to ethnic minorities. European

Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 305±325.Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes towardwomen and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543±558.

Esses, V. M., Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Values, stereotypes, andemotions as determinants of intergroup attitudes. In D. M. Mackie & D. L.Hamilton (Eds.), A�ect, cognition and stereotyping: Interactive processes ingroup perception (pp. 137±166). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Gao, G., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1990). Uncertainty, anxiety, and adaptation.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 301±317.

Glick, P., DeMorest, J. A., & Hotze, C. A. (1988). Keeping your distance:

Group membership, personal space, and requests for small favors. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 28, 315±330.

Greenberg, J., Simon, L., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Chatel, D. (1992).

Terror management and tolerance: Does mortality salience always intensifynegative reactions to others who threaten one's worldview. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 63, 212±220.

Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Veeder, M.,

Kirkland, S., & Lyon, D. (1990). Evidence for terror management theory II:


The e�ects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster

the cultural worldview. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 308±

318.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1985). A model of uncertainty reduction in intercultural con-

texts. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 401±413.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1988). Uncertainty and anxiety. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B.

Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 123±156).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1993). Toward a theory of e�ective interpersonal and inter-

group communication: An anxiety/uncertainty management perspective. In R.

L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp.

33±71). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1995). Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory:

Current status. In R. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp.

8±58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B. (1998). Applying anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM)

theory to intercultural adaptation training. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 22, 227±250.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Hammer, M. R. (1988). Strangers and hosts: An extension

of uncertainty reduction theory to intercultural adjustment. In Y. Y. Kim &

W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-cultural adaptation (pp. 106±139). Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1999). Anxiety, uncertainty, and perceived

e�ectiveness of communication across relationships and cultures. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Shapiro, R. (1996). Communication in everyday interper-

sonal and intergroup encounters. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 20, 19±45.

Gudykunst, W. B., Nishida, T., & Chua, E. (1986). Uncertainty reduction in

Japanese/North American dyads. Communication Research Reports, 3, 39±46.

Hubbert, K., Gudykunst, W. B., & Guerrero, S. (1999). Intergroup communi-

cation over time. International Journal of Intercultural Relations.

Janis, I. (1985). Stress inoculation in health care. In A. Monat & R. Lazarus

(Eds.), Stress and coping (pp. 330±355). New York: Columbia University

Press.

Katz, I., Wachenhut, J., & Glass, D. C. (1986). An ambivalence-ampli®cation

theory of behavior toward the stigmatized. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.) (pp. 103±117). Chicago:

Nelson-Hall.

Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism

versus racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 40, 414±431.

Langer, E. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of con¯ict,

ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York: Wiley.

McConahay, J. B., & Hough, J. C. (1976). Symbolic racism. Journal of Social

Issues, 32, 23±45.


Osgood, C. E. (1959). Suggestions for winning the real war with communism.

Journal of Con¯ict Resolution, 3, 295±325.

Patchen, M. (1988). Resolving disputes between nations: Coercion or conciliation.

Durham: Duke University Press.

Planalp, S., Rutherford, D., & Honeycutt, J. (1988). Events that increase uncer-

tainty in personal relationships II. Human Communication Research, 14, 516±

547.

Powers, W., & Lowry, D. (1984). Basic communication ®delity. In R. Bostrom

(Ed.), Competency in communication (pp. 57±71). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Schneiderman, L. (1960). Repression, anxiety and the self. In M. Stein, A.

Vidich & D. White (Eds.), Identity and anxiety (pp. 157±165). Glencoe, IL:

Free Press.

Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.),

Eliminating racism (pp. 53±84). New York: Plenum.

Sherif, M. (1966). Group con¯ict and cooperation. London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul.

Sidanius, J., Devereux, E., & Pratto, F. (1992). A comparison of symbolic

racism theory and social dominance theory as explanations for racial policy

attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 377±395.

Spielberger, C. D. (1976). The nature and measurement of anxiety. In C. D.

Spielberger & R. Diaz-Guererro (Eds.), Cross-cultural activity (pp. 132±151).

Washington DC: Hemisphere.

Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues,

41, 157±166.

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1989a). Emotional reactions to interracial

achievement outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 608±621.

Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. (1989b). Antecedents to intergroup anxiety in

Asian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 13, 203±219.

Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. (1992). Reducing intercultural anxiety through

intercultural contact. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 89±

106.

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1993). Cognition and a�ect in stereotyping:

Parallel interactive networks. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.),

A�ect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception

(pp. 111±136). Orlando: Academic Press.

Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. (1996). Predicting prejudice: The role of threat.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 409±426.

Stephan, W. G., Diaz-Loving, R., & Duran, A. (1999). Integrated threat theory

and intercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology.

Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999). Prejudice toward immi-

grants: An integrated threat theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.

Stephan, C. W., Stephan, W. G., Demitrakis, K., & Yamada, A. M. (1999).

Women's attitudes toward men: An integrated threat theory analysis.

Psychology of Women Quarterly.


Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., Martinez, C., Schwarzwald, J., & Tur-Kaspa, M.

(1998). Prejudice toward immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threattheory analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 559±576.

Turner, J. H. (1988). A theory of social interaction. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.Wilder, D. A. (1993). The role of anxiety in facilitating stereotype judgment ofoutgroup members. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), A�ect, cogni-

tion, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 87±110).Orlando: Academic Press.

Wilder, D. A., & Shapiro, P. N. (1989). Role of competition-induced anxiety inlimiting the bene®cial impact of positive behavior by an out-group member.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 60±69.


Documents

Anxiety in intergroup relations: a comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and integrated threat theory