beyondtheline-research

Relevant Research

Introduction

Many American schools and camps use an activity called Cross the Line to educate children about diversity, inclusion, and bullying. In this activity, participants walk across a line on the ground when a moderator calls out an experience they might have had, such as “you’ve felt left out because you’re a girl” or “you’ve been teased about your accent or your voice.” By seeing their classmates and campmates “cross the line” for various experiences, participants are expected to develop empathy for people different from themselves and more egalitarian attitudes and behaviors.

Beyond the Line is an expansion Cross the Line. Beyond the Line participants also share their opinions and experiences by physically crossing a line on the floor. But unlike Cross the Line participants, Beyond the Line participants discuss the differences and similarities they discover. In addition, the statements used in Beyond the Line encourage participants to explore their own and others’ identities in depth.

Neither Cross the Line nor Beyond the Line has been formally evaluated. But researchers at Stanford are currently testing how and why Beyond the Line may improve both intergroup relations and individual development.

Discussion Norms

At a Beyond the Line event, the facilitator first sets norms to help create a brave and safe space where participants can discuss their opinions and identities openly and honestly (Arao & Clemens, 2013). These norms include:

• Using I-statements, which help participants recognize their own beliefs and lessen others’ defensiveness (Kubany, et al., 1995).
• Considering both their intentions and their impact on others, which likely encourages participants to take the perspective of listeners and frame their messages more compassionately
• Considering when to speak up and when to listen, which likely exposes participants to the opinions and experiences of less visible, less vocal, or lower status groups

Learning About Others

Humans usually seek and prefer people who are like themselves — tendencies known as homophily (love of sameness, McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001) and ingroup favoritism (Efferson, C., Lalive, R., & Feh, 2008). If left unchecked, homophily and ingroup favoritism can lead us to surround ourselves with people just like us while learning very little about most of the world’s people.

Beyond the Line undermines our similarity-seeking tendencies by making us confront, explore, and manage our differences. Research shows that delving into our differences with others has a long list of positive effects. For instance, a study of 1,450 students at the University of Michigan showed that a course devoted to talking about racial and gender differences led students to develop more insight into how other people perceive the world, greater commitment to bridging cultural differences, and more empathy for people different from themselves (Gurin, Nagda, & Zuniga, 2013).

More generally, in a groundbreaking review of 515 psychological studies, social psychologists Thomas Pettigrew and Linda Tropp (2006) concluded that just getting different groups to spend time together reduces their prejudices toward each other. Even more surprising, the researchers discovered that the good feelings arising from intergroup contact extend to other groups as well. In other words, if you are a White person who has been spending time with a Black person, you are also likely to develop better feelings about gay people and Middle Easterners. (See SPARQ’s toolkit on this research, Team Up Against Prejudice.

Seeing ‘They’ Aren’t All The Same

Another result of our tendency to hang out with people like ourselves is that we often see people in other groups as very similar to each other, a phenomenon known as the outgroup homogeneity effect (Brauer, 2001). When coupled with our preference for our own groups, the outgroup homogeneity effect can lead us to treat outgroup members poorly. Beyond the Line may undermine the outgroup homogeneity effect–and improve our treatment of others — by showing us that “they” aren’t all the same. Just like people in our own groups, people in other groups have a diversity of opinions and experiences, which are on display in the Beyond the Line activity.

Learning How to Talk About Yourself

A final expected result of Beyond the Line events is that participants learn how to discuss their own opinions, cultures, and identities. A widespread way of handling cultural differences in U.S. society is just not to talk about them–to pretend we are colorblind. As a result, many Americans have little experience thinking about or discussing their opinions, cultures, and identities with people who are different from them.

Yet research suggests that acknowledging and celebrating our differences has better results than does pretending we are all the same (Plaut, Thomas, & Goren, 2009). To that end, we invite you to contemplate and share your own cultural backgrounds and identities in the Beyond the Line activity.

See Also

Higher Ed Diversity and Inclusion Toolkits Collection

Are You Read to Talk? toolkit

Fishbowl Discussions toolkit

References

Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces. In Lisa M. Landeman (Ed.), The art of effective facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. 135-150.

Aron, A., Aron E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612.

Brauer, M. (2001). Intergroup perception in the social context: The effects of social status and group membership on perceived out-group homogeneity and ethnocentrism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(1), 15-31.

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-126.

Efferson, C., Lalive, R., & Fehr, E. (2008). The coevolution of cultural groups and ingroup favoritism. Science, 321(5897), 1844-1849.

Gurin, P., Nagda, B. R. A., & Zuniga, X. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and research on intergroup dialogue. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Kubany, E. S., Bauer, G. B., Muraoka, M. Y., Richard, D. C., & Read, P. (1995). Impact of labeled anger and blame in intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14(1), 53-60.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415-444.

Nagda, B. R. A., Kim, C. W., & Truelove, Y. (2004). Learning about difference, learning with others, learning to transgress. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 195-214.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751.

Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or color blindness better for minorities?. Psychological Science, 20(4), 444-446.

Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 199-214.

Wang, Y. W., Davidson, M. M., Yakushko, O. F., Savoy, H. B., Tan, J. A., & Bleier, J. K. (2003). The scale of ethnocultural empathy: Development, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 221.