Topic Statement

317

14

Racism and other forms of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination plague the United States in insidious ways. Research conducted on nation- ally representative samples suggests that almost two thirds of adult U.S. residents experience some sort of day-to-day discrimination (e.g., receiv- ing poor service, being called names) and more than one third experience a major discriminatory event in their lifetime (e.g., being denied or fired from a job, being prevented from buying a home; Kessler, Mickelson, & Williams, 1999). On the extreme end of prejudice, more than 6,216 hate crimes involving race (46.9%), sexual orientation (20.8%), religion (19.8%), or ethnic/national origin (11.6%) were reported to the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ, 2012) during 2011. These reports are likely a gross underestimate, as hate-crime estimates derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)—a yearly survey of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14852-015 The Cost of Racism for People of Color: Contextualizing Experiences of Discrimination, A. N. Alvarez, C. T. H. Liang, and H. A. Neville (Editors) Copyright © 2016 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

TOWARD A RELEVANT PSYCHOLOGY OF PREJUDICE, STEREOTYPING,

AND DISCRIMINATION: LINKING SCIENCE AND PRACTICE

TO DEVELOP INTERVENTIONS THAT WORK IN COMMUNITY SETTINGS

IGNACIO D. ACEVEDO-POLAKOVICH, KARA L. BECK, ERIN HAWKS, AND SARAH E. OGDIE

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

318 acevedo-polakovich et al.

criminal victimization in the United States conducted by the USDOJ and involving a nationally representative sample of 76,000 households comprising nearly 135,300 persons—suggest that 191,000 hate crime incidents occur each year (Rand, 2009).

Compared with victims of random crimes, victims of hate crime exhibit higher rates of delayed effects, such as depression, stress, and anger (Herek, Gillis, Cogan, & Glunt, 1997). This is not surprising, as even relatively milder daily forms of discrimination can significantly affect individuals’ health and well-being. The results of a meta-analysis that included 134 independent samples identified a significant and negative effect of perceived discrimina- tion on both mental health (r = -.20) and physical health (r = -.13; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009). This meta-analysis also provided evidence of specific relations between perceived discrimination and depressive symptoms, psychi- atric distress, general well-being, and the probability of being diagnosed with a mental illness. Such findings poignantly underscore the harm caused by the everyday prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination encountered by most people in the United States and disproportionately by members of ethnic or racial minority groups.

Considering the prevalence and negative impact of prejudice, stereo- typing, and discrimination in the United States, it is not surprising that addressing these variables has been an important focus of both researchers (e.g., Paluck & Green, 2009) and communities in this country (e.g., National Research Council [NRC] & Institute of Medicine [IOM], 2000). In a meth- odological review of the prejudice reduction literature, Paluck and Green (2009) identified 985 studies on the topic, of which 72% were published. Their review included nonpublished studies to facilitate a comparison of lab- oratory-based research and field-based research. Paluck and Green identified six prejudice-reduction approaches supported by both laboratory and field research (i.e., cooperative learning, entertainment, peer influence, contact, value consistency, and intercultural training), two supported mostly by labo- ratory evidence (i.e., social categorization, and cognitive training), and four that were often addressed in the literature but lacked research support (i.e., diversity training, multicultural education, cultural competence, and conflict resolution). These authors noted that most research has been conducted in laboratory settings, with little rigorous research occurring in field settings. As they conclude:

Those interested in creating effective prejudice-reduction programs must remain skeptical of the recommendation of laboratory experiments until they are supported by research of the same degree of rigor outside of the laboratory. (Paluck & Green, 2009, p. 351)

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

toward a relevant psychology of prejudice 319

THE SCIENCE–PRACTICE GAP

Given the widely documented gap between research and practice across an alarming variety of domains of human behavior (Jansson, Benoit, Casey, Phillips, & Burns, 2010; Morrissey et al., 1997), Paluck and Green’s (2009) find- ings are best understood as a specific example of this broader gap. Scholars who study the science–practice gap point out that the goals and contexts of scien- tists and practitioners can differ notably (Jansson et al., 2010; Morrissey et al., 1997). Practitioners are often concerned with maintaining or expanding exist- ing services, frequently in underresourced environments; researchers are con- cerned with conducting rigorous studies, most often with the goal of publication. Although the ultimate aims of both practitioners and researchers may closely overlap (e.g., effective prejudice reduction), their differing concerns can present an obstacle for collaboration. For example, practitioners might perceive practices that increase methodological rigor, such as randomized assignment, as anti- thetical to their service principles (Acevedo-Polakovich, Kassab, & Barnett, 2012; Mason, Fleming, Thompson, Haggerty, & Snyder, 2014).

In the interest of promoting the development of effective prejudice- reduction and antiracism interventions in the communities that need them, we introduce and illustrate in this chapter some basic concepts and approaches that promote collaboration between practitioners and researchers when developing such interventions. We first discuss community–academic partnerships and their role in addressing the science–practice gap, introduc- ing an approach to the development and maintenance of these partnerships: community-based participatory research (CBPR). After this introduction, we use existing work to illustrate two strategies for the development of research- supported community interventions: science-to-practice and practice-to-science. Although the first strategy is frequently used by scholars, it has more often than not failed to result in effective community interventions (Paluck & Green, 2009). We discuss the second, less frequently used, strategy in greater detail, as it is explicitly designed to overcome the limitations of the first strategy. We conclude the chapter by offering recommendations for future research and practice.

ADDRESSING THE SCIENCE–PRACTICE GAP THROUGH COMMUNITY–ACADEMIC PARTNERSHIPS

Overcoming the science–practice gap regarding interventions to address racism and other forms of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimina- tion requires careful attention to the development of partnerships between

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

320 acevedo-polakovich et al.

academics and community service providers (Acevedo-Polakovich et al., 2012; Jansson et al., 2010; Morrissey et al., 1997; Paluck & Green, 2009). The development of such partnerships is slow and deliberate and can require changes to the traditional approaches of both academics and communities (Acevedo-Polakovich et al., 2012). For example, community service providers who are involved in these partnerships may have to reallocate resources (e.g., time, personnel) in exchange for data that support their efforts to refine, improve, and fund their services. Similarly, scientists who are involved in these partnerships may have to share control over the focus of research, its design, and implementation. The reward for scientists who engage in these partnerships is the ability to conduct field-based research that does not suffer from the limited external validity that characterizes most prejudice reduction research (Paluck & Green, 2009).

COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH

Various approaches to research exist that can guide the formation and maintenance of community–academic partnerships. These include—but are not limited to—participatory research (e.g., Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995), participatory action research (e.g., Baum, MacDougall, & Smith, 2006), emancipatory research (e.g., Rose & Glass, 2008), and CBPR (e.g., Israel, Eng, Schulz, & Parker, 2005). Although community–academic partnerships that seek to address stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination need not be framed by formal approaches to collaboration, the approaches we have listed are particularly worthy of consideration by such partnerships, as they repre- sent direct attempts to rectify within the research process the very conditions of inequality that foster racism and other forms of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination (Wallerstein & Duran, 2003).

Traditional research paradigms devalue community perspectives by reflecting the assumption that researchers are the experts who have some- thing to offer community participants (Wallerstein & Duran, 2003). When research is focused on historically aggrieved communities, this assumption raises the risk that the manner in which research is conducted will perpetu- ate the injustice experienced by these communities (Wallerstein & Duran, 2003). By emphasizing equity between researchers and the communities that they study, the approaches that we have listed attempt to ensure that the social conditions leading to racism and other forms of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination do not exist within the research process.

The reasons to introduce CBPR as an example of formal approaches to guide community–academic partnership development and maintenance are both conceptual and pragmatic. Conceptually, CBPR is broadly inclusive,

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

toward a relevant psychology of prejudice 321

such that it is able to capture and incorporate many important elements of other approaches (Wallerstein & Duran, 2003). Pragmatically, our extensive discussion of the practice-to-science strategy uses an active line of CBPR as an illustration. Introducing CBPR facilitates a richer understanding of the practice-to-science strategy.

Rather than relying on particular methodologies or designs, CBPR occurs when researchers and community members adhere to values and prin- ciples emphasizing equity and shared control (Minkler & Wallerstein, 2003). One popular articulation of CBPR includes nine fundamental values and practices (Israel, Eng, Schulz, & Parker, 2005): (a) recognition of the com- munity as a unit of identity, (b) a focus on building community strengths and resources, (c) incorporation of collaborative and equitable partnerships between scientists and community members in all phases of the research, (d) colearning and capacity building for all partners, (e) balance between research and action for the mutual benefit of all partners, (f) emphasis on the multiply determined nature of problems and on the crucial role of community context when understanding and addressing them, (g) the recognition that ideal solutions develop through cyclical and iterative processes that involve researchers and the researched community, (h) dissemination of findings with a focus on relevance to all partners, and (i) committed long-term part- nerships that extend beyond one singularly-focused project.

SCIENCE-TO-PRACTICE

Within the context of community–academic partnerships, the science– practice gap can be addressed using one of two broad strategies. The first of these, which is widely used and can be broadly characterized as a science- to-practice strategy, guides the work of a community–academic partnership toward understanding community needs, cross referencing these with rele- vant scientific findings and then either developing or adapting interventions. Typically—but not always—this intervention development or adaptation is undergone in an academic or laboratory setting before interventions are dis- seminated into the community (Paluck & Green, 2009).

Important challenges can arise when using the science-to-practice strat- egy. First, interventions that are developed in laboratory settings must then be disseminated into communities. Dissemination is an active process that requires considerable resource investment and is not always successful (Wandersman et al., 2008). The challenges to dissemination result in limited community use of interventions developed in laboratory settings (Biglan, Mrazek, Carnine, & Flay, 2003). A second challenge is that interventions that are successfully implemented must then achieve long-term sustainability. As is the case with

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

322 acevedo-polakovich et al.

dissemination, ensuring the sustainability of an intervention is an active pro- cess requiring considerable resource investment and—as such—often does not occur (Hawkins, Shapiro, & Fagan, 2010; Spoth et al., 2011). A final, and related, challenge of interventions developed using the science-to-practice approach involves their ecological validity—the compatibility between the conditions required for the intervention to be maximally effective and the conditions in the communities in which they are to be implemented (Bernal & Saez-Santiago, 2006). Interventions that are not responsive to community conditions are—on average—a quarter as effective as interventions that are responsive to those conditions (Griner & Smith, 2006). They are also much less likely to be successfully implemented and less likely to be sustainable in community settings (Hernandez, Nesman, Mowery, Acevedo-Polakovich, & Callejas, 2009).

Although—as the work of Paluck and Green (2009) suggests—the chal- lenges of the science-to-practice strategy have disproportionately prevented the development and implementation of useful community interventions to address racism and other forms of stereotyping, prejudice and discrimina- tion, some community–academic partnerships have successfully used this strategy. The development of Musekeweya (i.e., “New Dawn”; as cited in Staub, Pearlman, Gubin, & Hagengimana, 2005), a radio-based interven- tion in Rwanda, is one powerful example. Although the focus of much of this chapter is on the United States, Musekeweya is an important illustration because of the nationwide scope of the intervention and the magnitude of the prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination that it strives to address. In this regard, it provides a patent demonstration of the capacity of well-designed community interventions (Paluck & Green, 2009).

The need for Musekeweya arose from the significant and longstand- ing conflict between Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups. After taking control of Rwanda away from Germany in the aftermath of World War I, the Belgian government capitalized on historical differences between these groups and enacted policies that ensured Tutsis would hold and retain positions of authority (Sadowski, 1998). This systemic disempowerment of Hutus fueled the escalation of interethnic conflict throughout the 20th century and led to several periods of extreme ethnic violence, including the killing of at least 10,000 Tutsi during a 1959 retaliation for the Tutsi attack on a Hutu leader (Sadowski, 1998); the 1972 killing of hundreds of thousands of Hutu by the Tutsi military leadership in neighboring Burundi (Lemarchand, 1998); and bloody civil war along ethnic lines during the 1990s that resulted in approxi- mately 1,000,000 deaths (Kanyangara, Rime, Philippot, & Yzerbyt, 2007). In the aftermath of the civil war, the Tutsi-led government pursued a policy of unity, which provided the context for the development of Musekeweya (Staub, Pearlman, Weiss, & Hoek, 2008).

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

toward a relevant psychology of prejudice 323

As a first step toward the development of an intervention to foster inter- ethnic unity, the community–academic partnership that ultimately designed Musekeweya documented local conditions among Rwandans, including the historical context of the violence, the resulting trauma, and the reconciliation efforts already underway (Staub, 2006; Staub et al., 2005). These local condi- tions were then interpreted using existing scholarship on violence, trauma, heal- ing, and reconciliation (Staub, 2006; Staub et al., 2008). In brief, the researchers interpreted the conflict between Tutsi and Hutu as fueled by social conditions leading to the dehumanization of the other, unjust societal arrangements, and the creation of a passive bystander culture (Staub, 2006). To address these fac- tors, the academic partners collaborated with Hutu and Tutsi Rwandans in the development of a radio-based intervention, Musekeweya, which took the form of a soap opera—followed by an estimated 85% of radio listeners in Rwanda— that integrated themes important for reconciliation (Staub et al., 2008).

Musekeweya had positive effects on listeners’ perceptions of social norms and on their behavior (Paluck, 2009). When compared with a control group that listened to a health education radio show, Rwandans who listened to Musekeweya were less likely to report that they would prohibit their chil- dren from marrying individuals from a different ethnic group, more likely to report that they should speak up if they disagree with someone’s actions, and more likely to endorse talking about trauma (Paluck, 2009). Consistent with the belief that they would speak up when they disagree with someone’s actions, participants in the intervention group were also more likely to chal- lenge each other during discussions (Paluck, 2009).

Musekeweya’s strong effects and broad dissemination powerfully illus- trate the capacity of well-designed science-to-practice interventions that are intentional about addressing the challenges that this development strategy often encounters (Paluck & Green, 2009). Working collaboratively with communities from the outset of the process, the researchers involved in the development of Musekeweya were able to design an intervention with a high degree of ecological validity and a broad, sustainable dissemination.

PRACTICE-TO-SCIENCE: EVIDENCE-BASING COMMUNITY INTERVENTIONS

Musekeweya illustrates how a thoughtful implementation of the science- to-practice strategy can lead to successful community interventions to reduce racism and other forms of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination; how- ever, the challenges associated with this strategy have often prevented the development of useful community interventions (Paluck & Green, 2009). In the absence of successfully scaled science-to-practice efforts, communities

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

324 acevedo-polakovich et al.

have frequently developed their own interventions to address racism, often focused on improving intergroup relations (NRC & IOM, 2000).

Long-standing community-driven interventions are less likely to encounter the challenges faced by interventions developed using a science- to-practice strategy (Wandersman & Florin, 2003). Dissemination—at least with a local focus—is by definition unnecessary, as these interventions are developed in the communities that need them (Glasgow, Vogt, & Boles, 1999). Sustainability is less likely to be an issue with long-standing commu- nity interventions, as they often remain in existence because they incorpo- rate the sustainability infrastructures that science-to-practice programs are challenged to develop (Mason et al., 2014). Finally, the development and implementation of these interventions within the community usually results in a high degree of ecological validity (Barkham & Mellor-Clark, 2003). Despite these benefits of community-driven interventions, it is usually the case that limited or no efforts have been made to rigorously examine whether these interventions produce their intended effects (NRC & IOM, 2000). For this reason, community–academic partnerships attempting to address the science–practice gap may also adopt a practice-to-science approach focused on the rigorous evaluation and improvement of interventions that are long- standing within community settings (Mason et al., 2014).

Mason et al. (2014) recently described a framework to guide community– academic partnerships that pursue the practice-to-science strategy, which we summarize in Figure 14.1. The framework assumes the existence of

Figure 14.1. Mason et al.’s (2014) Practice-to-science framework. From “A Frame- work for Testing and Promoting Expanded Dissemination of Promising Preventive Interventions That Are Being Implemented in Community Settings,” by W. A. Mason, C. B. Fleming, R. W. Thompson, K. P. Haggerty, and J. J. Snyder, 2014, Prevention Science, 15, pp. 674–683. Copyright 2013 by Springer. Reprinted with permission.

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

toward a relevant psychology of prejudice 325

community–academic partnerships and recognizes that their development and maintenance are effortful processes that should be guided by best prac- tices as documented in the literature. We describe and illustrate the appli- cation of Mason et al.’s framework for the evidence-basing of community interventions to address racism and other forms of prejudice using examples from active CBPR involving ANYTOWN™, an intervention for high- school-age youth in the United States, with the goals of promoting diver- sity acceptance, intergroup contact, social responsibility, and community involvement. Because the practice-to-science strategy is implemented much less often than its science-to-practice alternative, we focus on providing one well-developed example of its application, and we hope that our discussion can better inform researchers and practitioners considering the application of a practice-to-science strategy in different contexts.

ANYTOWN™—the focus of our practice-to-science work—is a time- limited residential intervention typically lasting one week. For the week, youth are assigned to dormitories and discussion groups such that they are maximally exposed to peers whose background differs significantly from their own in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation. ANYTOWN™ includes workshops and activities on var- ious foci of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination (e.g., race, sexual ori- entation, gender, socioeconomic status), dialogue, social responsibility, and community involvement. Along with the workshops and activities, youth participate in small dialogue groups to discuss the implications of the work- shops and activities for their attitudes and their behavior.

EXAMINING AND DOCUMENTING CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION

Intervention Promise

As seen in Figure 14.1, a first step in the practice-to-science strategy is documenting current implementation efforts, specifically attending to an intervention’s promise, its service provision networks, and its service provi- sion resources (Mason et al., 2014). Examining and documenting an inter- vention’s promise involves three important considerations, the first of which is examining whether it includes components associated with other success- ful interventions (Mason et al., 2014).

ANYTOWN™ was developed in the 1950s on the basis of Gordon Allport’s (1954) intergroup contact theory, which at the time provided the state-of-the-science understanding of the conditions under which stereo- typing, prejudice, and discrimination could be overcome. More than 60 years

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

326 acevedo-polakovich et al.

of research suggest that intergroup contact is among the most reliable and powerful influences on intergroup attitudes (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). A meta-analysis that included 713 independent samples from 515 stud- ies conducted between 1940 and 2000 found that the average effect size of intergroup contact upon prejudice was between r = -.20 and r = -.21 (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). To the extent that ANYTOWN™ successfully implements intergroup contact, it appears to include at least one compo- nent that is associated with successful interventions. Cooperative learning, peer influence, contact, and value consistency—all of which were identi- fied by Paluck and Green (2009) as components of effective interventions to decrease prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination—are also part of ANYTOWN™.

The second consideration in determining an intervention’s promise is ascertaining whether it is evaluable (Mason et al., 2014). The existence of documentation of the intervention—including intervention manuals, proto- cols for interventionist selection and training, and tools for the monitoring of implementation fidelity—informs this consideration. The implementation of ANYTOWN™ is guided by a carefully developed curriculum; interven- tionists are selected and prepared according to established and documented practices; and although limited in their current form, tools exist—and can be improved—that can be used to track fidelity.

A final consideration is reviewing any preliminary evidence of an intervention’s success (Mason et al., 2014). Evaluations of ANYTOWN™ published in the peer-reviewed literature document pretreatment to post- treatment changes in single-item measures of knowledge and attitudes regarding sexual orientation, gender identity, and race (Boulden, 2005, 2006) and on psychometrically derived multi-item assessments of self-concept, per- sonal and civic responsibility, race-based prejudice, heterosexism, and gender equality (Otis & Loeffler, 2005).

Service Provision Networks

Two levels of networks are involved in the provision of ANYTOWN™. The first involves a national network associated with the dissemination of the intervention. The second involves local networks associated with ANYTOWN™’s implementation in specific communities. At the national level, ANYTOWN™ was originally developed by the National Conference of Christians and Jews (NCCJ; later renamed the National Conference for Community and Justice), an organization founded in 1927 to promote interfaith unity, which later expanded its scope to promote intergroup unity across races, social classes, genders, sexual orientations, and ability levels. Between 1927 and 2005, the NCCJ was structured as central organization

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

toward a relevant psychology of prejudice 327

with regional chapters. It was through these chapters that ANYTOWN™ was originally disseminated. Although the structure of NCCJ changed after 2005 such that regional chapters became autonomous and independent, ANYTOWN™ continues to be implemented in local communities by some of the now autonomous organizations that previously functioned as NCCJ chapters.

At the local level, the implementation of ANYTOWN™ relies on the community networks of each NCCJ chapter (or their descendant organiza- tions). For instance, within the Tampa Bay area of Florida, the local NCCJ chapter was rebranded as Community Tampa Bay Inc. (CTB), a nonprofit organization with a mission to promote dialogue and respect among all cul- tures, religions, and races by cultivating leaders to change communities. The local implementation of ANYTOWN™ depends on established relations between CTB and community stakeholders—such as religious congregations, schools, civic groups, and youth-serving organizations—each of which sup- port ANYTOWN™ by referring youth and/or providing volunteers or other tangible forms of aid (e.g., funding).

Service Provision Resources

Funding for the implementation of ANYTOWN™ in the Tampa Bay area depends on a variety of sources, including donations, grants, contracts and volunteer support. This is particularly the case as—to guarantee access to as diverse a pool of participants as possible—until 2012 the program had avoided charging participants despite per-participant costs of implementa- tion running as high as $1,700. Reflecting national trends (Mason et al., 2014), some of the more substantial private and public grants available to CTB for the implementation of ANYTOWN™ increasingly required that the interventions they support be evidence based. This requirement both compromises the sustainability of ANYTOWN™ and heightens interest in pursuing the practice-to-science approach.

Taken together, the available evidence suggests that ANYTOWN™ is a promising intervention with strong service provision networks and resources that have enabled it to be sustainably delivered for more than 50 years nationally and for more than 20 years in the Tampa Bay area (the community that is the focus of the CBPR partnership being described in this section). At its height, the program was in existence in more than 60 communities in 22 states. Although the nationwide dissemination of the intervention has decreased—in part a result of the reduced funding of nonprofits during the recent economic downturn and the co-occurring trend among funders to primarily support evidence-based programs—CTB continues to operate ANYTOWN™ in the Tampa Bay area.

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

328 acevedo-polakovich et al.

EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH

As illustrated in Figure 14.1, through the interrelated activities of rig- orous intervention testing, study site development, and pursuing research funding, the second step in Mason et al.’s (2014) practice-to-science frame- work is focused on establishing evidence of an intervention’s effectiveness and—when indicated—modifying or improving the intervention on the basis of the research data. Our CBPR has focused on the effectiveness of ANYTOWN™ with the long-term goal of examining its eligibility for inclu- sion in any of several registries of empirically based programs. As Mason et al. (2014) suggested, one of the main challenges we have encountered is bal- ancing the internal validity required of good effectiveness research with the service needs of an intervention that is well established in the community.

Rigorous Intervention Tests

Mason et al.’s (2014) consideration of the effectiveness research step in general, and its rigorous program test component in particular, is heavily focused on the difficulties that can arise in attempting to implement a random- ized controlled trial (RCT), which is a best practice in efficacy/effectiveness research. Although their discussion is on point with our experience, we have found that crucial antecedent issues must be addressed. The issue of determin- ing appropriate measures is illustrative.

Determining Appropriate Measures

Although the measurement and conceptualization of stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination are remarkably advanced within the research literature (e.g., Olson, 2009), very little attention has been given to the con- ceptualization and measurement of the positive intergroup variables targeted by ANYTOWN™ (Fuertes, Sedlacek, Roger, & Mohr, 2000). Given this state of affairs—and before we formed our CBPR partnership—CTB worked closely with a researcher to examine available measures and determine their relevance. Although some existing measures were found to be relevant to the program and adopted as part of ANYTOWN™’s evaluation, no measure of positive intergroup variables was found adequate. As a result, CTB and its research partner developed a new measure, the Youth Diversity Acceptance scale (YoDA), which captured the intergroup change sought by the program (Lyons, 2005).

The YoDA was developed using standard psychometric practices and has demonstrated adequate internal validity in existing unpublished research, which has also shown that YoDA scores increase from pretreat- ment to posttreatment as a result of ANYTOWN™ participation (Beck,

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

toward a relevant psychology of prejudice 329

2012; Hawks, 2010; Lyons, 2005). Consistent with the few other studies that have developed measures of positive intergroup variables (e.g., Fuertes et al., 2000)—but in contrast to the literature on stereotyping, prejudice, and dis- crimination (e.g., Olson, 2009)—in the YoDA behavioral, attitudinal, and cognitive indicators hold together in one factor (Lyons, 2005; Beck et al., 2014). The YoDA is thus relevant to the program, empirically sound and conceptually relevant, but not yet published in the peer-reviewed literature.

Under this state of affairs, we have implemented several complimen- tary strategies as we build toward a RCT. First, we have pursued the publica- tion of expanded psychometric work supporting the YoDA (e.g., Beck et al., 2014). If successful, these efforts would allow for the YoDA to remain as one of the program’s primary outcome measures in a future RCT. Second, we have examined the usefulness of several other published scales in our efforts to evaluate and/or research ANYTOWN™ (e.g., Beck, 2012; Hawks, 2010). Although none of these measures have the relevance of the YoDA, most of them have evinced pretreatment to posttreatment changes around ANYTOWN™ participation. As such, although not ideally tied to program goals, these scales are likely to make a suitable complement to the YoDA in a future RCT.

Building Toward Randomized Controlled Trials

Echoing others (e.g., Glasgow et al., 1999), Mason et al. (2014) describe the difficulties that community–academic partnerships can encounter when attempting to implement an RCT. Briefly, RCTs require significant resources and can require modifications to service delivery practices that compromise the integrity of the intervention. For these reasons, it can be necessary and useful to conduct a series of studies—beginning with designs least disruptive to the intervention—that progressively develop the infrastructure needed for an RCT along with the justification for such a design (Glasgow et al., 1999). This progressive approach can also foster site development and the procure- ment of research funding, two additional components of the effectiveness research step within Mason et al.’s practice-to-science framework.

In planning the work to be conducted in the effectiveness step, our CBPR partnership first estimated the cost of conducting an RCT in a manner that would not compromise the integrity of the service practices involved in the implementation of ANYTOWN™. Although procuring the resources for an RCT depended on our success attaining external funding, our avail- able resources enabled a series of studies that could progressively strengthen the research infrastructure of our partnership and provide data to support later proposals for external funding. We began our work by designing and implementing three studies that as a group sought to build on the published pretreatment to posttreatment evaluations of ANYTOWN™.

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

330 acevedo-polakovich et al.

In Study 1, we used a non-equivalent control group design and found that, compared with students enrolled in social science courses at the same high schools from which they are recruited, ANYTOWN™ participants achieved greater short-term increases in measures of knowledge regarding diversity, diversity acceptance, social competence, social responsibility, and community involvement (Acevedo-Polakovich, Lyons, Beck, Estevez, & Hawks, 2015). It is important to note that most differences between groups remained significant at a midterm follow up. In Study 2, we examined whether potential mediating variables identified through a logic modeling exercise could account for the short-term growth in ANYTOWN™ participants’ scores on diversity accep- tance (Acevedo-Polakovich et al., 2015). Consistent with the intergroup con- tact approach that underlies ANYTOWN™, results suggested that increases in the emotional closeness participants feel toward individuals who belong to socially constructed outgroups significantly mediated the increases in diversity awareness. In Study 3, we used an expert consensus methodology to identify additional potential mediators that might account for program effects (Acevedo- Polakovich et al., 2015). Results of this approach identified other potential mediators that might be explored including group categorization strategies and changes in specific cognitive processes (i.e., awareness, defusion, action).

Site Development

The key determination in site development is where and how to access study participants, which—particularly in the case of long-standing community- driven interventions, such as ANYTOWN™—must account for established service delivery practices (Mason et al., 2014). Because these service practices can be an obstacle for an RCT, methodological flexibility can be necessary (Mason et al., 2014). As previously stated, the resources required to conduct an RCT without compromising the integrity of the service practices involved in the implementation of ANYTOWN™ are at this time unavailable to our CBPR partnership without external funding. In pursuing methodological options that can strengthen the rigor of our research while fitting within our current constraints, we opted for the implementation of two additional studies, both currently active. One of these uses a wait-list control design to assess short-term effects and another involves time series data collected from a subsample of program participants during the months before and after their participation in ANYTOWN™.

Research Funding

Scientists have access to traditional research funders (e.g., the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation), whereas community

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

toward a relevant psychology of prejudice 331

organizations can access national, regional, and local services funders (e.g., the U.S. Substance Use and Mental Health Service Administration, state departments of health and/or education, local foundations). Research into community interventions offers community–academic partnerships the oppor- tunity to tie together these different funding streams (Mason et al., 2014). For instance, combining funding streams can make use of service grants to support the program evaluation component of research or, where allowable, make use of research funds to support the delivery of the intervention under study. Even with enhanced opportunities for funding, obtaining external funding is a competitive and challenging endeavor. Although our CBPR partnership includes individuals with a history of success attracting external funding from national, regional and local funders, our research activities to date have had to make creative use of our existing resources.

INTERVENTION IMPROVEMENT

Mason et al.’s (2014) practice-to-science framework directly relates the improvement of an intervention to effectiveness research. As findings emerge from research, they should guide the modification (with the goal of improve- ment) of the community intervention. The effects of these modifications should then be examined via follow-up research. One example from our work is illustrative. Our early research suggested that ANYTOWN™’s effects on diversity acceptance—one of its primary outcomes of interest—were associ- ated with increases in the emotional closeness participants feel toward indi- viduals who belong to socially constructed outgroups (Acevedo-Polakovich et al., 2015). Stated plainly, it is the quality—rather than the quantity—of intergroup relationships that seems to have an effect on attitudes. This finding led to changes in interventionist training. In the interest of expanding inter- group contact, interventionists had traditionally been trained to continu- ously encourage participants’ active efforts to meet new people, often at the expense of spending time getting to know a few new people well. The findings regarding emotional closeness led to changes in the role of interventionists, who are now trained to facilitate the time and opportunity for participants to form close bonds with others whose backgrounds differ significantly from their own.

Mason et al.’s (2014) practice-to-science framework specifies that inter- vention modification can occur that is not directly guided by the findings of effectiveness research. The comparison of the intervention curriculum to those of other evidence-based interventions might reveal areas for improve- ment. It is also possible that an intervention might be modified to incorporate technological innovations that seem likely to enhance its effects or its reach.

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

332 acevedo-polakovich et al.

This type of modification has been overlooked in our CBPR and constitutes an important direction for our future work.

EXPANDED DISSEMINATION

When research results support the effectiveness of an intervention, a community–academic partnership can move to the final step of Mason et al.’s (2014) practice-to-science framework, expanded dissemination. The three activities included in this step together support an expanded implementation of the program: establishment of evidence-based status, expansion of service networks, and expansion of service resources.

Evidence-Based Status

In the United States, several registries of evidence-based interventions exist and have come to play an important role in the promotion of interven- tions. As part of the trend to finance only empirically supported treatments, funders will often require that proposals seeking support for services focus only on interventions included in these registries. Given this funding cli- mate, our CBPR into the effectiveness of ANYTOWN™ has the long- term goal of examining its eligibility for inclusion in these registries. As Mason et al. (2014) pointed out, most of these registries have a hierar- chy of designations and—although it is in some cases impossible for one research team to facilitate the consideration of an intervention for the highest level designations—we have tried to develop our research agenda such that, if positive, findings would first allow for the lower level designa- tions, with subsequent research facilitating the consideration of the program at higher designations. Inclusion at even the lowest level of the registry nota- bly expands the funding opportunities available to ANYTOWN™ or any other community-developed intervention.

Expanded Service Networks

It is important to keep in mind that although inclusion in the registries of empirically supported programs provides the opportunity for increased dissemi- nation of an intervention, dissemination is an active and resource-intensive pro- cess that must be carefully managed to be successful (Wandersman et al., 2008). One of the interesting challenges of our work with ANYTOWN™ is its exist- ing dissemination across an established national network. Prevalent models for the dissemination of interventions—such as the interactive systems frame- work of Wandersman et al. (2008)—tend to focus on dissemination into new

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

toward a relevant psychology of prejudice 333

settings. Should our effectiveness research prove successful, we will be faced with the challenge of attempting to disseminate any innovations that have been made to the program across the existing national network. The extent to which the dissemination of innovations and/or improvements to an exist- ing intervention parallels the dissemination of entirely new interventions is an important direction for future research.

Expanded Service Resources

We have noted that dissemination is an active and resource intensive process. Mason et al. (2014) highlight that the lack of resources to support dissemination can lead to many unrealized opportunities. To this end, they suggest that community organizations take advantage of opportunities to cap- italize financially on the inclusion of the interventions they have developed into evidence-based registries.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite devoting a great deal of attention to racial and ethnic prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination, psychologists have largely failed to provide communities with interventions to address these issues. In part, this failure reflects the broader practice of research existing independently from com- munity needs or contexts. Successfully addressing racism and other forms of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination within communities requires part- nerships between these communities and researchers. Community–academic partnerships can follow two broad strategies in the development of interven- tions to address and prevent racism. The first, science-to-practice, can lead to the development of innovative interventions with broad public impact, such as Musekeweya. The second strategy, practice-to-science, can document, improve and give broader dissemination to successful community-developed interventions, such as ANYTOWN™.

The traditional manner in which social scientists study racism and other forms of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination has provided few tractable solutions for the communities harmed by these social ills (Paluck & Green, 2009). The scientific understanding of racism is voluminous and growing. The human beings that suffer because of racism and other injustices do not need one more study examining one more nuance within this scien- tific understanding—Instead, they need solutions for the injustices that chal- lenge their daily living. It is high time for social scientists to work alongside the communities aggrieved by the injustices that they study. To do otherwise is to be complicit with scientific obsolescence in the face of people’s suffering.

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

334 acevedo-polakovich et al.

REFERENCES

Acevedo-Polakovich, I. D., Kassab, V. A., & Barnett, M. L. (2012). Las Asociaciones entre la Academia y la Comunidad como Fuente de Transformación Social Sustentable [Community–academic partnerships as a source of sustainable social change]. In N. N. Asili (Ed.), Vida Sustentable [Sustainable living] (pp. 236–253). Puebla, México: Universidad de las Américas Press.

Acevedo-Polakovich, I. D., Lyons, E. M., Beck, K. L., Estevez, J., & Hawks, E. (2015). Liberty and justice for all: The effects of a community-based youth program to pro- mote diversity acceptance. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Barkham, M., & Mellor-Clark, J. (2003). Bridging evidence-based practice and practice- based evidence: Developing a rigorous and relevant knowledge for the psycho- logical therapies. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 10, 319–327. http://dx.doi. org/10.1002/cpp.379

Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(10), 854–857. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ jech.2004.028662

Beck, K. L. (2012). From program evaluation to practice-based evidence: A wait-list con- trol evaluation of the ANYTOWN program. Unpublished master’s thesis, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI.

Beck, K. L., Acevedo-Polakovich, I. D., Sevecke, J. R., Rossman, D. L., Lyons, E., & Estevez, J. (2014). The Youth Diversity Acceptance Scale: Development and validity. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University.

Bernal, G., & Saez-Santiago, E. (2006). Culturally centered psychosocial interven- tions. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 121–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ jcop.20096

Biglan, A., Mrazek, P. J., Carnine, D., & Flay, B. R. (2003). The integration of research and practice in the prevention of youth problem behaviors. American Psychologist, 58, 433–440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.433

Boulden, W. T. (2005). Evaluation of the ANYTOWN leadership institute program- ming on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 17, 17–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J041v17n04_02

Boulden, W. T. (2006). Youth leadership, racism, and intergroup dialogue. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 15, 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/ J051v15n01_01

Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine, 41, 1667–1676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127-S

Fuertes, J. N., Sedlacek, W. E., Roger, P. R., & Mohr, J. J. (2000). Correlates of universal-diverse orientation among first-year university students. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 12, 45–59.

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

toward a relevant psychology of prejudice 335

Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1322–1327. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322

Griner, D., & Smith, T. B. (2006). Culturally adapted mental health intervention: A meta-analytic review. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 43, 531–548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.43.4.531

Hawkins, J. D., Shapiro, V. B., & Fagan, A. A. (2010). Disseminating effective com- munity prevention practices: Opportunities for social work education. Research on Social Work Practice, 20, 518–527.

Hawks, E. M. (2010). Bridging the science and practice of prejudice reduction: Explaining the effects of a community-based diversity acceptance program. Unpublished master’s thesis, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI.

Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., Cogan, J. C., & Glunt, E. K. (1997). Hate crime victim- ization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults: Prevalence, psychological cor- relates, and methodological issues. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 195–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088626097012002003

Hernandez, M., Nesman, T., Mowery, D., Acevedo-Polakovich, I. D., & Callejas, L. M. (2009). Cultural competence: A literature review and conceptual model for mental health services. Psychiatric Services, 60, 1046–1050. http://dx.doi. org/10.1176/ps.2009.60.8.1046

Israel, B., Eng, E., Schulz, A. J., & Parker, E. A. (2005). Methods in community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Jansson, S. M., Benoit, C., Casey, L., Phillips, R., & Burns, D. (2010). In for the long haul: Knowledge translation between academic and nonprofit organizations. Qualita- tive Health Research, 20, 131–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732309349808

Kanyangara, P., Rime, B., Philippot, P., & Yzerbyt, V. (2007). Collective rituals, emo- tional climate, and intergroup perception: Participation in “Gacaca” tribunals and assimilation of the Rwandan genocide. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 387–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00515.x

Kessler, R. C., Mickelson, K. D., & Williams, D. R. (1999). The prevalence, dis- tribution, and mental health correlates of perceived discrimination in the United States. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40, 208–230. http://dx.doi. org/10.2307/2676349

Lemarchand, R. (1998). Genocide in the Great Lakes. Which genocide? Whose genocide? African Studies Review, 41, 3–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/524678

Lyons, E. M. (2005). The effects of a leadership and diversity awareness program on ado- lescents’ attitudes and behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.

Mason, W. A., Fleming, C. B., Thompson, R. W., Haggerty, K. P., & Snyder, J. J. (2014). A framework for testing and promoting expanded dissemination of promising preventive interventions that are being implemented in com- munity settings. Prevention Science, 15, 674–683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11121-013-0409-3

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

336 acevedo-polakovich et al.

Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2003). Community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Morrissey, E., Wandersman, A., Seybolt, D., Nation, M., Crusto, C., & Davino, K. (1997). Toward a framework for bridging the gap between science and practice in prevention: A focus on evaluator and practitioner perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20, 367–377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0149-7189(97)00016-5

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2000). Improving intergroup relations among youth: Summary of a research workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Olson, M. A. (2009). Measures of prejudice. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of preju- dice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 367–386). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Otis, M. D., & Loeffler, D. N. (2005). Changing youths’ attitudes toward difference: A community-based model that works. Journal of Social Work with Groups, 28, 41–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J009v28n01_04

Paluck, E. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 574–587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0011989

Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607

Pascoe, E. A., & Smart Richman, L. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 531–554. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/a0016059

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

Rand, M. R. (2009, September). National Crime Victimization Survey: Criminal victimization in 2008. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, 1–8. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv08.pdf

Rose, J., & Glass, N. (2008). The importance of emancipatory research to contempo- rary nursing practice. Contemporary Nurse, 29, 8–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/ conu.673.29.1.8

Sadowski, Y. (1998). Ethnic conflict. Foreign Policy, 111, 12–23. http://dx.doi. org/10.2307/1149375

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Clair, S., Shin, C., Greenberg, M., & Feinberg, M. (2011). Preventing substance misuse through community-university partnerships: Ran- domized controlled trial outcomes 4½ years past baseline. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40, 440–447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.12.012

Staub, E. (2006). Reconciliation after genocide, mass killing, or intractable conflict: Understanding the roots of violence, psychological recovery, and steps toward

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

toward a relevant psychology of prejudice 337

a general theory. Political Psychology, 27, 867–894. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-9221.2006.00541.x

Staub, E., Pearlman, L. A., Gubin, A., & Hagengimana, A. (2005). Healing, recon- ciliation, forgiving and the prevention of violence after genocide or mass killing: An intervention and its experimental evaluation in Rwanda. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 297–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.24.3.297.65617

Staub, E., Pearlman, L. A., Weiss, G., & Hoek, A. (2008). Public education through radio to prevent violence, promote trauma healing and reconciliation, and build peace in Rwanda and the Congo. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from http://people. umass.edu/estaub/radio%20article%20--January%202008.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice. (2012, October). Uniform crime reports: Hate crime statis- tics, 2011. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Criminal Justice. Information Services Division. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ ucr/hate-crime/2011/narratives/incidents-and-offenses

Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2003). The conceptual, historical, and practice roots of community-based participatory research and related participatory traditions. In M. Winkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community-based participatory research for health (pp. 27–52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wandersman, A., & Florin, P. (2003). Community interventions and effective prevention. American Psychologist, 58, 441–448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0003-066X.58.6-7.441

Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R., Lubell, K., Stillman, L., . . . Saul, J. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 171–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10464-008-9174-z

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .