27/03/2012

University of Oxford  

Impact of Diversity on Intergroup Relations: The Missing Dimension of Intergroup Contact

Miles Hewstone

Seminar, University of Helsinki, Finland, May 11, 2012

2

Outline

2

Impact of diversity: Putnam’s pessimistic prognosesTypes of intergroup contact: Whether and how they work Direct and extended forms of contact

Impact of contact Focus: generalized/’secondary transfer’ effects

Archival re-analysis of contact effects in extreme conditions Rescuers of Jews from Nazi Europe

Observational research on intergroup contactConclusions

Impact of diversity: Putnam’s pessimistic prognoses

3

LowerPrejudice

Opportunityfor contact

+ Out-group friends

-Percentage of Out-groupers

+

Percentage of Out-groupers

+ Higher Threat/Competition

HigherPrejudice

+

Putnam’s (2007) ‘Diversity-Distrust Hypothesis’: Threat vs Opportunity

4

Threat Theory

Contact Hypothesis

= ‘conflict theory’ (Putnam, 2007): “diversity fosters out-group distrust and in-group solidarity” (p. 142)

“I think it is fair to say that most (though not all) empirical studies have tended instead to support conflict theory ” (Putnam, 2007, p. 142)

5

5

“In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ – that is, to pull in like a turtle.” (Putnam, 2007, p. 149)

Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 137-174.

What is the relationship between diversity and trust? Mixed Findings

More Diversity Less Trust Putnam (2007); Lancee & Dronkers (2008); Fieldhouse &

Cutts (2010)

More Diversity More Trust Marschall & Stolle (2004; Black sample); Fieldhouse &

Cutts (2010; ethnic minority sample in UK); Morales &

Echazarra (forthcoming)

More Diversity No effect on Trust Marschall & Stolle (2004; White sample); Gesthuizen, van

der Meer & Scheepers (2008); Hooghe et al. (2008)

7

8

Some Critical Issues in the Putnam Diversity Hypothesis

8

Role of disadvantage

Measures of Diversity

Index used

Level of measured diversity

Missing or inappropriate measures of

intergroup contact

Putnam uses high-threshold measure of contact (friends)

Does not test whether contact mediates or moderates

diversity effect

9

‘The Contact Hypothesis’ (Allport, 1954)

Positive contact with a member of another group (often a negatively stereotyped group) can improve negative attitudes:

-- not only towards the specific member, --but also towards the group as a whole

9

10

Does Contact Work?Results of a ‘Meta–Analysis’

Number of Studies: 515 studies

Dates of Studies: 1940s -- 2000

Participants: 250,089 people from 38 nations

Consistent, significant negative effect: more contact, less prejudice

• The more rigorous the research, the larger the effect

(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006, 2011)

10

11Do We Have Enough Evidence To Challenge Putnamand Impact Policy?

Imagine you give evidence to the government on the relevance of your work (e.g., on improving inter-ethnic relations), armed with a data base consisting purely of studies using under-graduates. You are left … exposed!

11

12Significant Weaknesses of Prior Research on Contact

Failure to study contact: (1) over time (2) at the level of the neighbourhood (3) taking account of diversity as well as deprivation (4) using multi-level analysis

12

(PIs: M. Hewstone, A. Heath, C. Peach, S. Spencer; Post docs: A. Al Ramiah, N. Demireva, S. Hussain, K. Schmid)

Test of integrated model of group threat theory and contact theory, to examine relationship between macro-level diversity and both individual-level and neighbourhood-level attitudinal outcomes

Sampled respondents from neighbourhoods of varying degrees of ethnic diversity

Control for additional key macro-level variable: neighbourhood deprivation

13

Oxford Leverhulme Project

14

Between-level neighbourhood measures

14

Percentage Non-White British (range: 1% - 84%)

Index of multiple deprivation (IMD; based on variety of indicators, e.g. income, employment, health deprivation)

Analysis

Data hierarchically ordered in a two-level structure (respondents nested within neighbourhoods)

Multilevel structural equation modeling to account for both within-level and between-level variance of constructs

15

Overview of research

Test of effects of diversity on: Outgroup trust Ingroup trust Neighbourhood trust

Focus on key role of intergroup contact

16

16

Putnam (2007)

PERCEIVED THREAT

TRUSTDIVERSITY+ –

–

Diversity is perceived as threatening and has negative consequences for trust

17

17

Our Research

+ –

Prediction: Diversity will have positive indirect effects on trust

INTERGROUP CONTACT

PERCEIVED THREAT

TRUSTDIVERSITY+ –

–

Diversity offers opportunities for positive contact

Positive contact reduces perceived threat

18

18

Results: White British respondents (N = 868)

Trust in neighbo

urs

Diversity(Ethnic

fractionalization)

.55**

–.34***

–.23**

–.43***

Ingroup Trust

Outgroup Trust

Perceived Threat

Intergroup

Contact

–.29***

–.30***

Diversity has positive indirect effects on TrustOutgroup Trust (b = .31, z = 2.93, p < .01), Ingroup Trust (b = .21, z = 2.72, p < .01), Neighbourhood Trust (b = .23, z = 2.93, p < .01)

19

19

Results: Ethnic minority respondents (N = 797)

Trust in neighbo

urs

Diversity(Herfindahl)

.30**

–.38*** –.30**

*

Ingroup Trust

Outgroup Trust

Perceived Threat

Intergroup

Contact

–.31***

–.22***

.16*

.17*

.24**

.21**

Diversity has positive indirect effects on TrustOutgroup Trust (b = .16, z = 2.65, p < .01), Ingroup Trust (b = .16, z = 2.60, p = .01), Neighbourhood Trust (b = .12, z = 2.42, p = .02)

20

20

Contextual effect of intergroup contact

Do individuals from different contexts who have the same amount of intergroup contact differ in their intergroup attitudes?

Does the context influence intergroup attitudes over and above individual level variables?

If so, then context drives this difference (contextual effect) -- can’t be explained with individual level variables.

21

Contextual effect of intergroup contact

Direct Intergroup Contact

Intergroup attitudes(i.e., prejudice)

Within Group Effect (Level 1): e.g., βW = -.30Between Group Effect (Level 2): e.g., βB = -.50Contextual Effect: e.g., βC = βB - βW = -.20(Extended Contact)

βW

βBβC

Context C

Context B

Context A

Do individuals from different contexts who have the same amount of intergroup contact differ in their intergroup attitudes? Then context drives this difference (contextual effect) -- can’t be explained with individual level variables.

22

Results: Leverhulme, UK data

Intergroup contact

Ingroup Bias

Individual level

Context level

βW = -0.346***

βB = -2.223***

Contextual Effect: βC = βB - βW = -1.877**

Intergroup

contact

Ingroup Bias

*controlled for age, sex, education, and IMD

23

Results: Leverhulme, UK data

Intergroup contact

Ingroup Bias

Individual level

Context level

βW = -0.346***

βB = -0.614

Contextual Effect: βC = βB - βW = -0.270

Indirect effect on context level: -0.343***

Intergroup

contact

Ingroup Bias

*controlled for age, sex, education, and IMD

Tolerant norms0.892*** -1.840***

Results: MPI data, German longit. Data

24

Intergroup contact

Ingroup Bias

Individual level

Context level

βW = -0.031*

Contextual Effect: βC = βB - βW = -0.161*

Indirect effect on context level: -0.041+

*controlled for age, sex, education, and unemployment, and sse rate

βB = -0.192**

Intergroup

contact

Intergroup

contact

Tolerant norms

Tolerant norms

time 1 time 2

Threat Threat

0.130+

-0.318*

25

25

Putnam’s impact

“Will first-hand experience weaken stereotypes? That was the belief of the sociologist Samuel Stouffer, who observed during the Second World War that white soldiers who fought alongside blacks were less racially prejudiced than white soldiers who had not. The political scientist Robert Putnam has stood Stouffer, and Aristotle, on their heads. Putnam has found that first-hand experience of diversity in fact leads people to withdraw from these neighbours” (p. 5)

Direct and extended contact

Types of intergroup contact:whether and how they work

26

DIRECT CONTACT Quantity of contact – frequency of interaction with

outgroup members, e.g., ‘how often do you meet/talk to/etc. outgroup members where you live/shop/socialize, etc?’

Quality of contact – nature of the interaction with outgroup members, e.g., how positive/negative; friendly/unfriendly, etc, is the contact?’

Cross-group friendship – being friends with outgroup members, e.g., ‘How many close outgroup friends?’

EXTENDED CONTACT Indirect/Vicarious contact, via family or friends, e.g., ‘How

many of your family members/friends have outgroup friends?

27

Types of contact

Longitudinal Effects and Evidence of Mediators

Direct contact: 28

29

3-Wave Study of Longitudinal Contact in South African ‘Coloured’ Schools(Swart, Hewstone, Christ, & Voci, JPSP, 2011)

Age (yrs): T1: Mean (SD) = 14.68 (1.06) T2 (+ 6 mths): Mean (SD) = 15.31 (1.03) T3 (+ 6 mths): Mean (SD) = 15.67 (1.05)

Variables: Predictors: cross-group (white) friends Mediators: intergroup anxiety; empathy Outcomes: positive outgroup attitudes; outgroup variability;

negative action tendencies

3-wave cross-lagged analyses 3-waves permit mediation analyses Time 1 ‘predictor’ -> Time 2 ‘mediator’ -> Time 3 ‘Outcome’

30

31

x10 x12x9

PositiveOutgroupAttitudes

x11y28 y30

y27

PositiveOutgroupAttitudes

y29y10 y12y9

PositiveOutgroupAttitudes

y11

x14 x15x13

Perceivedoutgroup

Variability

y14 y15y13

Perceivedoutgroup

Variability

y32 y33y31

Perceivedoutgroup

Variability

x17 x18x16

NegativeAction

Tendencies

y17 y18y16

NegativeAction

Tendencies

y35 y36y34

NegativeAction

Tendencies

x1 x2

OutgroupFriendships

y1 y2

OutgroupFriendships

y19 y20

OutgroupFriendships

x4 x5x3

IntergroupAnxiety

y4 y5y3

IntergroupAnxiety

y22 y23y21

IntergroupAnxiety

x7 x8x6

Empathy

y7 y8y6

Empathy

y25 y26y24

Empathy

32

Blue: ‘forward’; Red: ‘reverse’

PositiveOutgroupAttitudes

PositiveOutgroupAttitudes

PositiveOutgroupAttitudes

Perceivedoutgroup

Variability

Perceivedoutgroup

Variability

Perceivedoutgroup

Variability

NegativeAction

Tendencies

NegativeAction

Tendencies

NegativeAction

Tendencies

OutgroupFriendships

OutgroupFriendships

OutgroupFriendships

IntergroupAnxiety

IntergroupAnxiety

IntergroupAnxiety

Empathy Empathy Empathy

-.15**-.27***

-.14**

-.11**

.13** -.14**

.23***

.15**

.23***

-.14**

-.11**

.13**-.14**

.23***

-.15**

.23***

.15**

-.27***

Making Sense of ‘Spaghetti’

Green paths are autoregressive.

Blue paths are 'forward' paths (as predicted by contact

model).

Red paths are 'reverse' paths (self-selection).

Model equates paths from Wave 1-2, and 2-3

All paths indicated are significant.

33

34

Blue: ‘forward’; Red: ‘reverse’

PositiveOutgroupAttitudes

PositiveOutgroupAttitudes

PositiveOutgroupAttitudes

Perceivedoutgroup

Variability

Perceivedoutgroup

Variability

Perceivedoutgroup

Variability

NegativeAction

Tendencies

NegativeAction

Tendencies

NegativeAction

Tendencies

OutgroupFriendships

OutgroupFriendships

OutgroupFriendships

IntergroupAnxiety

IntergroupAnxiety

IntergroupAnxiety

Empathy Empathy Empathy

-.15**-.27***

-.14**

-.11**

.13** -.14**

.23***

.15**

.23***

-.14**

-.11**

.13**-.14**

.23***

-.15**

.23***

.15**

-.27***

35

Blue: ‘forward’; Red: ‘reverse’

PositiveOutgroupAttitudes

PositiveOutgroupAttitudes

PositiveOutgroupAttitudes

Perceivedoutgroup

Variability

Perceivedoutgroup

Variability

Perceivedoutgroup

Variability

NegativeAction

Tendencies

NegativeAction

Tendencies

NegativeAction

Tendencies

OutgroupFriendships

OutgroupFriendships

OutgroupFriendships

IntergroupAnxiety

IntergroupAnxiety

IntergroupAnxiety

Empathy Empathy Empathy

-.15**-.27***

-.14**

-.11**

.13** -.14**

.23***

.15**

.23***

The Surprising Impact of “weak ties”

Extended Contact: 36

37

Some of my friends have friends who are . . . (outgroup members)

‘Extended contact’ is second-hand, rather than involving the participants in direct intergroup contact themselves

Just knowing other people in your group who have out-group friends might improve attitudes to the out-group (Wright et al., 1997)

38

Number of Direct Friends

IntergroupAnxietyR2 = .21

Number ofIndirectFriends

GeneralGroup

VariabilityR2 = .11

PrejudiceTowards

The GroupR2 = .48

-.18***

.17**

- .03.53***

.52

- .31***

- .21

***

.60*

**

- .22***

Extended Contact in Northern Ireland(Results for Catholics and Protestants; N = 316)

(Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns & Voci, 2004)

.79

.89

40

Key facts about extended contact

It works by changing group norms

It is especially effective for those who have no direct contact

It should lead people to take up more opportunities for direct contact in the future

41

Impact of Indirect Contact is Moderated by Amount of Direct (Friendship) Contact (NI- CRU Survey, N=984; Christ, Hewstone et al., PSPB, 2010)

-1

0

1

Low High

Indirect contact

In-g

roup

bia

s

Low cross-group friendship High cross-group friendship

When does extended contact work best? When direct contact is low.

42

Longitudinal analysis of the effects of extended contact at time 1 on direct contact at time 2(Swart, Hewstone, Tausch et al., in prep.)

Extended Contact(Time 1)

Neighbourhood Contact Quantity

(Time 2)

Controlling for direct contact scores at Time

1

Neighbourhood Contact Quality

(Time 2)

Contact with Friends(Time 2)

.15***

.23***

.21***

An Experimental Comparison of Different Forms of Contact

44http://www.isxys.org/isolation/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/turkishpopulation1960-present.jpg

Evidence from Cyprus

Study 1

Participants: 52 female students (26 pairs) at the University of Cyprus

Recruitment criteria: Greek/Cypriots Friends with each other Good knowledge of English

Study 1: Methodology- Procedure

T1

Pre- test(baseline

measures)

1 WEEK

T2

Intervention&

Post- test

47

Type of Contact – Manipulation of Direct vs Extended contact

Randomly allocate one of each pair of participants to each of the two conditions:

Direct contact: a 10 minute structured face-to-face interaction of the first member of the pair with a T/C confederate.*

Extended contact: the 2nd member of the pair observed her friend interacting with the T/C through a one-way mirror.

* the T/C confederate was trained to give the same answers every time.

Study 1: Methodology - Contact Intervention

Study 1: Results

Direct ContactMean (SD)

Extended contactMean (SD)

Attitudes tow. out-group member (thermometer)

8.44 (.92) 8.23 (1.31)

Typicality of out-group member

2.28 (.89) 2.58 (1.20)

In-group (Self) disclosure

3.40 (.76) 3.50 (.81)

Out-group disclosure 3.36 (.57) 3.38 (.75)

Group Salience 1.97 (.87) 2.26 (1)

Contact (State) Anxiety

1.47 (.34) 1.5 (.41)

Study 1: Attitudes ResultsPre – Post Contact (improved attitudes, esp. Direct contact)

Impact of contact50

51

Multiple Outcomes of Intergroup Contact

51

Explicit attitudes Attitude strength Implicit attitudes Neural processes Trust Forgiveness Behavioural intentions Outgroup-to-outgroup generalization: the

‘secondary transfer effect’. *

Are the effects of contact with members of one group restricted to that outgroup, or do they have ‘knock-on’ or ‘trickle-down’ effects on attitudes towards other groups?

Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., Küpper, B., Zick, A., & Wagner, U. (2012). Social Psychology Quarterly, 75, 28–51.

‘Secondary Transfer Effect’

53

Overview

Test of secondary transfer effects in cross-national comparison 8 European countries: France, Germany, Hungary,

Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, UK

Moderation by Social dominance orientation (SDO)? Ideology of inequality (Pratto, Sidanius et al.,

1994)

Data from GFE Europe survey (30-minute cross-sectional CATI survey)

Full sample analysis (N = 7042; Schmid, Hewstone et al., 2012; controls: age, gender, education, income, political orientation )

Intergroup Contact – Immigrant

s

NegativeAttitudes – Immigrant

s

Attitudes Jewish

Negative attitudes –homosexu

als–.13***

–.15***

.39***

.37***

Low SDO: –.22***

High SDO: –.08ns

Overall mediation: b = –.06, z = –6.68***Moderated mediation:Low SDO: b = –.08, z = –6.65***High SDO: b = –.02, z = –3.14***

55

1.76*

Longitudinal Secondary transfer effect in Northern Ireland (N = 181 Catholics, 223 Protestants; matched at T1-T2, 1 year; Tausch et al.,2010)

.43***

1.84*

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

1.07, n.s.

Attitude toracial

minorities T2

Ingroupfeeling

thermometerT2

Attitude toethno-religious

outgroup T2

Neighbourhood contact with

ethno-religious outgroup T1

Controlling for:Contact with and attitude to racial minorities T1

Attitude toethno-religious

outgroup T1

56

Kronenberg & Hewstone (in prep.)

Does contact impact behaviour, and when it really matters?Archival re-analysis of contact effects in extreme conditions:Rescuers of Jews from Nazi Europe

57

58

Data

Data from the Altruistic Personality and Prosocial Behaviour Institute (Oliner/Oliner 1988)

510 respondents from 15 European countries Collected in the 1980s Retrospective case-control sample:

Case sample of identified rescuers (N=346, recognized by Yad Vashem, The Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority, as ‘Righteous among the Nations’)

Control sample matched on age, sex, education, region (N=164)

Final sample 412 respondents (297 rescuers, 115 non-rescuers)

59

Main Hypothesis (with multiple controls, e.g. for opportunities to help; pro-social orientation)

59

Pre-war friendships with Jews increase the probability of rescuing Jews (especially Jewish friends) (direct contact via friends)

Multinomial logistic regression (variables coded [0,1]):

Pre-war frnds. w Jews

Helping Jewish friends

12.19**

Helping other Jews

2.24**

Notes: N = 412. Coefficients are odds ratios. No control variables.

+ p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

3. Empirical ApplicationThe Impact of Pre-war Friendships with Jews

61

Odds Ratio

Odds ratio (OR) calculated shows the probability of helping (Jewish friends; other Jews) vs not-helping

OR of 12.19 in previous table 1 means:

The odds of helping other Jews vs. not helping increase (only) by

a factor of 2.24 if respondents had Jewish friends before the war.

Less technically:

If you had pre-war Jewish friends, the probability of Helping Jewish Friends divided by the probability of not-Helping was 12.19 times higher than if you did not have pre-war Jewish friends.

Having Jewish friends before the war made potential rescuers more likely to help, especially to help Jewish friends, but also to help other Jews.

Pre-war frnds. w Jews

Age

Prosocial orientation

Command zone

Size Jewish population

Number of rooms

Many neighbours

Helping Jewish friends

15.41**

1.07**

18.43**

10.89**

0.98

15.28**

0.86

Helping other Jews

2.89**

1.05*

5.18*

10.36**

1.19**

12.11**

0.39*

Multinomial logistic regression (variables coded [0,1]):

Notes: N = 412. Coefficients are odds ratios. Additional control variables: gender; education level; religiosity; religious confession; SS zone, Jewish Neighbours, partner/children in household, financial resources. + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

3. Empirical ApplicationThe Impact of Pre-war Friendships with Jews: Effect of adding controls

Is everything for the best in this best of all possible worlds?

Limits to the impact of contact: Segregation, de-segregation, and re-segregation

Observational research:

64

Cafeteria study in mixed school

64

Coded who sat where and with whom in cafeteria of a 6th Form College (16-18 yrs) in NW England

(40% ethnic minority, mostly Pakistani- and Bangladeshi-heritage British Asians)

Area A1

Costa

Food s

erv

ice

counte

rs

Area A3

Pizz

a

counte

r

Area A4

Area A2

DOOR DOOR

KitchenDay 1

Time 1

Occupied seats 89

Mixed tables 1

66

Coding and measures

Over a two day period, 3,037 seating positions were coded; we analysed the data using:

the segregation index of dissimilarity (D; Clack et al., 2005)

Ethnic composition of ‘social units’ Side-by-side and face-to-face cross-race

adjacencies (Campbell et al., 1966) Aggregation Index of ethnic clustering (I; difference

between actual vs. expected frequency with which Whites and Asians sat opposite each other; Campbell et al., 1966)

Asian*

White*

Black

Other

Pillar (i.e., not a seat)

Empty seat

Key

68

68

Coded data of 22 time intervals . . .

Area A1

Costa

Food s

erv

ice

counte

rs

Area A3

Pizz

a

counte

r

Area A4

Area A2

DOOR DOOR

KitchenDay 1

Time 1

Occupied seats 89

Mixed tables 1

Area A1

Costa

Food s

erv

ice

counte

rs

Area A3

Pizz

a

counte

r

Area A4

Area A2

DOOR DOOR

KitchenDay 1

Time 2

Occupied seats 189

Mixed tables 5

Area A1

Costa

Food s

erv

ice

counte

rs

Area A3

Pizz

a

counte

r

Area A4

Area A2

DOOR DOOR

KitchenDay 1

Time 6

Occupied seats 295

Mixed tables 11

72

All White

All Asian

White/ Asian

White/ Asian/ Black/ Other

White/ Black/ Other

Asian/ Black/Other

Black/ Other

% of social units

58.97%

30.91%

4.18% 0.33% 4.73% 0.55%

0.33%

Ethnic composition of social units

73

Day Area No. of Intervals I Upper Limit Lower Limit

1 1 10 -1.99 -0.98 -4.36

1 2 10 -0.71 0 -2.57

1 3 10 -0.29 0 -1.48

1 4 10 -1.09 0 -3.04

2 1 12 -1.6 -0.32 -3.82

2 2 12 -0.39 0 -1.52

2 3 12 -0.44 0 -3.44

2 4 12 -1.19 0 -3.02

Note: I denotes aggregation index (negative values indicate more ethnic clustering/less cross-ethnic mixing than expected from randomdistribution). See Area 1 . . .

Mean Ethnic Aggregation Indices for each area across both days

Area A1

Costa

Food s

erv

ice

counte

rs

Area A3

Pizz

a

counte

r

Area A4

Area A2

DOOR DOOR

KitchenDay 2

Time 7

Occupied seats 142

Mixed tables 4

75

Day Area No. of

intervals

Number of

Whites

Number of

Asians

1 1 10 251 366

1 2 10 254 16

1 3 10 141 9

1 4 10 282 46

2 1 12 241 461

2 2 12 278 16

2 3 12 182 13

2 4 12 381 36

The number of Whites versus Asians in each area for both days

76

Lessons from cafeteria study

76

Mixed student body does not equate with intergroup contact

Students do, in fact, report contact, including outgroup friends, and contact is associated with more positive attitudes

But why do students choose to sit apart at lunch? Does it even matter that they do?

Ongoing research

77

Actual contact is crucial for integration

Just ‘living together’ is not enough (re-segregation problem in cafeteria)

Contact does mediate impact of neighbourhood diversity; Putnam is too pessimistic

Direct and extended and forms of contact have effects

Contact has multiple outcomes; STE especially important

Effects of contact shown via multi-method approach:

Surveys (cross-sect’l. &longitud.); experiments; archival analysis

To understand diversity effects you have to study contact.

Conclusions

77

FundingLeverhulme Trust

Community Relations Unit (N.I.)Economic and Social Research CouncilNuffield FoundationRussell Sage Foundation, U.S.A.Templeton Foundation, U.S.A.

78

Acknowledgements

(ex) Graduate students Maria IoannouDr Ananthi al-RamiahDr Hermann SwartDr Nicole TauschDr Rhiannon TurnerDr Christiana Vonofakou

Research collaboratorsProf. Ed Cairns (University of Ulster)Dr Oliver Christ (University of Marburg,

Germany)Prof. Joanne Hughes (University of Ulster)Dr Jared Kenworthy (University of Texas)Prof. Clemens Kronenberg (University of

Mannheim)Dr Katharina Schmid (University of

Oxford)Dr Alberto Voci (University of Padua,

Italy)

Undergraduate students Eleanor BakerChristina FloeCaroline PovahElisabeth ReedAnna Westlake

79