How Demographic Change Impacts Attitudes About Diversity

Learning Objectives:

Students will:

• Analyze social science research critically, including methodology and limitations
• Synthesize findings across multiple studies to identify patterns
• Distinguish between documenting patterns and endorsing them
• Apply Pettigrew and Tropp’s contact framework to interpret findings
• Connect research to conditions in schools and communities
• Understand demographic anxiety as a learned response that can be interrupted

Connects to Re-Imagining Migration Dispositions:

• Disposition 1: Understand and value diverse perspectives
• Disposition 2: Inquire about migration with care and nuance
• Disposition 4: Recognize power and inequities in human experiences and migration

---

Standards Alignment

Common Core State Standards – English Language Arts:

Reading Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies:

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.6: Evaluate authors’ differing points of view on the same historical event or issue by assessing claims, reasoning, and evidence
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.8: Evaluate an author’s premises, claims, and evidence by corroborating or challenging them with other information
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.9: Integrate information from diverse sources into a coherent understanding

Speaking and Listening Standards:

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.11-12.1: Engage effectively in collaborative discussions, building on others’ ideas
• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.11-12.3: Evaluate a speaker’s point of view, reasoning, and use of evidence

C3 Framework for Social Studies:

Dimension 2 – Psychology/Sociology:

• D2.Psy.2.9-12: Analyze how societal change influences individual development and identity
• D2.Soc.6.9-12: Use sociological perspectives to analyze content and bias in social structures

Dimension 3 – Evaluating Sources and Using Evidence:

• D3.1.9-12: Gather relevant information from multiple sources representing a wide range of views
• D3.3.9-12: Identify evidence that draws information from multiple sources to detect inconsistencies

Dimension 4 – Communicating Conclusions:

• D4.1.9-12: Construct arguments using precise claims with evidence from multiple sources

AP Psychology:

• Unit 9: Social Psychology – Prejudice and discrimination, intergroup relations
• Unit 2: Research Methods – Experimental design, correlation vs. causation

AP U.S. Government:

• Unit 4: American Political Ideologies and Beliefs – How demographic changes affect political behavior

Day 1: The Train Platform Puzzle (50 minutes)

Opening: Present the Puzzle (10 minutes)

Display this scenario (no context yet):

In 2012, a researcher conducted an experiment on Boston commuter trains:

• Selected 9 train stations in predominantly white suburbs
• For 10 consecutive weekdays during morning rush hour
• Had pairs of Spanish speakers stand on platforms, speaking Spanish to each other
• Surveyed commuters before and after about their views on immigration

What do you predict happened to commuters’ attitudes?

Think-Pair-Share:

• Individual prediction (30 seconds silent think time)
• Partner discussion: What factors might influence the outcome? (2 minutes)
• Quick poll: Raise hands—How many think attitudes became more positive? More negative? No change?

Don’t reveal findings yet. Chart predictions on board.

---

Investigation 1: Analyzing the Research Design (10 minutes)

Distribute: Handout 1 – Enos Experiment (methodology AND findings)

Small groups analyze the research design (5 minutes):

• What question is this trying to answer?
• What are strengths of this design?
• What are limitations?
• Whose perspectives are captured/missing?

Brief whole class share (5 minutes):

Groups share key observations. Teacher charts:

• Strengths: Field experiment (real-world setting), random assignment, before/after comparison
• Limitations: Only measures white commuters’ attitudes, Spanish speakers treated as experimental “treatment,” doesn’t capture why attitudes change
• Missing: Latino commuters’ perspectives, longer-term effects, quality of interactions

Key teaching point: “Good research design answers specific questions well—but every study has limitations. Part of thinking like a social scientist is recognizing what a study can and can’t tell us.”

---

Investigation 2: Interpreting the Findings (20 minutes)

Look at the findings section of Handout 1:

Commuters exposed to Spanish speakers showed:

• ↑ Support for decreasing immigration
• ↑ Support for English-only policies
• ↑ Support for denying citizenship to undocumented immigrants
• Stronger effects for those on platforms vs. in cars
• BUT: Effects diminished by day 10

Small groups discuss (5 minutes): “What might explain this pattern? Why did attitudes change this way?”

Whole class: Chart interpretations (5 minutes)

Don’t evaluate—just collect student ideas:

• Brief exposure triggers threat?
• Language signals “outsiders”?
• Lack of interaction breeds anxiety?
• Proximity without communication creates misunderstanding?
• Other possibilities?

Reveal Enos’s interpretation (5 minutes):

Enos concluded:

• Brief, superficial exposure to visible diversity (without meaningful interaction) can trigger exclusionary responses
• Proximity ≠ connection – seeing people without interacting can increase anxiety
• BUT responses aren’t permanent – repeated exposure led to adaptation even without interaction
• This is about perceived demographic change, not actual threat
• Conditions of contact matter – not just whether contact happens, but how it happens

Discussion (3 minutes): “How is Enos’s interpretation different from just saying ‘people don’t like immigrants’? What’s the difference?”

Key takeaway: “Enos showed prejudiced responses are common but changeable. They depend on conditions—and conditions can be designed.”

Introduce concept: Social scientists call this demographic anxiety or demographic threat—the psychological response some people have to perceived changes in their community’s makeup. We’re going to examine what triggers it and, more importantly, what reduces it.

---

Exit Reflection (5 minutes)

Individual quick-write:

“Based on today’s experiment, what conditions might make people more or less anxious about demographic change?”

Collect or have students keep for Day 3 synthesis.

---

Day 2: Patterns Across Research (50 minutes)

The Putnam Puzzle (20 minutes)

Present the scenario:

Robert Putnam is a Harvard sociologist who studies “social capital”—the networks, trust, and civic engagement that make communities function. In 2000, he published Bowling Alone, documenting declining civic participation in America.

Then he conducted a massive study of 41 communities across the US, examining how ethnic diversity affects social capital. He found something that troubled him so much he delayed publishing for several years.

What do you think he found? Why might it trouble him?

Think-Pair-Share predictions

Reveal the findings:

In more ethnically diverse communities (in the short term):

• Lower trust—even within the same ethnic group
• Lower civic engagement and volunteering
• Less voting
• Fewer social connections
• People “hunker down” and withdraw

Distribute: Handout 2 – Putnam Excerpts

Small groups read and analyze (5 minutes):

The handout includes:

1. Putnam’s findings about “hunkering down”
2. His key quote about short-term vs. long-term effects
3. His recommendations: Build bridging institutions, create opportunities for cross-group connection

Groups answer:

• What did Putnam find?
• What did Putnam recommend?
• Why might findings trouble him?

---

Interpreting the Data (8 minutes)

Pose the question to the class:

“Putnam found that diverse communities show lower trust and civic engagement. What might explain this pattern?”

Chart student interpretations (don’t evaluate yet—just collect):

Possible interpretations students might suggest:

• Diversity itself causes problems?
• People naturally prefer homogeneous communities?
• Rapid change is disruptive (not diversity per se)?
• Communities lack structures to support connection?
• Historical segregation means people haven’t learned to connect across difference?
• Language/cultural barriers create practical challenges?
• Other?

Then reveal what Putnam concluded:

Putnam argued these effects are:

• Short-term/transitional (not permanent features of diverse communities)
• Due to lack of bridging institutions (not diversity itself)
• Addressable through policy (investment in connection-building)

His recommendation: Don’t reduce diversity—build better support for diverse communities.

Discussion: “Same data, different possible interpretations. Why did Putnam conclude this? What evidence would support his interpretation over others?”

Key point: “Data doesn’t interpret itself. Putnam documented a pattern. He interpreted it as a transitional challenge requiring institutional support—not as evidence that diversity itself is problematic. Interpretation matters.”

---

The Richeson Research (15 minutes)

Present as puzzle:

Jennifer Richeson (social psychologist at Yale) studies what happens when white Americans hear demographic projections—specifically, that the U.S. will become “majority-minority” (no single racial/ethnic group holds majority).

Poll the class: “Predict: When people hear this projection, do their policy preferences become more liberal or more conservative?”

Reveal findings:

• More conservative policy preferences (not just on immigration—across domains)
• Stronger racial in-group identification
• More support for existing hierarchies
• BUT: Different framing of the same information reduced these effects

Distribute: Handout 3 – Richeson Summary

Small groups: Interpret the data (5 minutes)

“Why might hearing demographic projections trigger these responses?”

Chart student interpretations:

• Fear of losing majority status?
• Uncertainty about future?
• Media has framed diversity as threat?
• Demographic information feels threatening?
• Other?

Reveal Richeson’s interpretation (5 minutes):

Richeson concluded this is status threat:

• Responses to perceived status loss, not demographic facts themselves
• When dominant position seems threatened, people protect existing hierarchies
• Framing shapes threat – same info, different frame, different response
• Frames emphasizing competition trigger threat; frames emphasizing shared identity reduce it
• These reactions are psychological and changeable

Key insight: If framing changes responses to identical facts, reactions aren’t about the demographics themselves—they’re about how we understand change.

---

Connecting Across Studies (7 minutes)

Teacher synthesis:

“All three researchers found that demographic change can trigger prejudiced responses. But notice what else they all found:

• Enos: Responses changed over time (adaptation with repeated exposure)
• Putnam: Effects are short-term and addressable (need bridging institutions)
• Richeson: Responses depend on framing (changeable through how information is presented)

These aren’t inevitable reactions. They’re conditional and malleable. Tomorrow we’ll examine what conditions actually reduce prejudice.”

---

Day 3: What Actually Works (50 minutes)

Opening: The Good News (15 minutes)

Frame the shift:

“We’ve examined how demographic change can trigger prejudiced responses. Today: What reduces prejudice? What does the research say actually works?“

Introduce Pettigrew and Tropp:

Linda Tropp (UMass Amherst) and Thomas Pettigrew conducted a meta-analysis—they analyzed over 500 studies with more than 250,000 participants asking: Does contact between different groups reduce prejudice?

Quick poll: “Based on Enos, predict: Does contact reduce prejudice or increase it?”

The Finding:

Contact consistently reduces prejudice across studies, contexts, and groups.

BUT—not all contact works the same way.

Distribute: Handout 4 – Contact Conditions Framework

Present Pettigrew and Tropp’s findings:

Contact reduces prejudice most effectively when these conditions are present:

1. Equal status between groups in the situation
2. Common goals that require cooperation
3. Intergroup cooperation (not competition)
4. Support from authorities/institutions

Plus:

• Friendship-level contact is most effective
• Quality matters more than quantity
• Even knowing that in-group members have cross-group friends reduces prejudice

Discussion: “This is based on 500+ studies. This framework is robust. We know what works. Now let’s use it to make sense of what we learned.”

---

Making Sense Through Tropp’s Framework (15 minutes)

Small groups: Apply contact conditions retrospectively

Assign each group one of the studies we examined. Using Handout 4, analyze through Tropp’s framework:

Group 1: Enos Train Platform

• Which contact conditions were present? Which were missing?
• Equal status? Common goals? Cooperation? Institutional support?
• Why did initial contact increase exclusionary attitudes?
• Why did attitudes shift by day 10?

Group 2: Putnam’s Hunkering Down

• Why might diverse communities show low trust initially?
• Which contact conditions are likely missing?
• What are “bridging institutions”? How do they create contact conditions?
• What did Putnam recommend and how does it connect to Tropp?

Group 3: Richeson’s Framing Effects

• How does “shared identity” framing relate to contact conditions?
• What conditions does “we’re all Americans” framing create?
• What conditions does “majority-minority shift” framing undermine?

Share out (8 minutes):

Each group briefly presents. Teacher synthesizes on board:

Study	What We Saw	Missing Contact Conditions	What Would Help
Enos	Initial anxiety, then adaptation	No interaction, no common goals, no equal status	Structured interaction with shared purpose
Putnam	Short-term hunkering down	Depends on community, but often missing bridging opportunities	Bridging institutions that create connections
Richeson	Framing effects	“Threat” framing positions groups as competitors	Shared identity framing creates common goals

Key Insight: “The problem isn’t diversity itself—it’s the absence of conditions that allow diverse people to connect meaningfully. Enos, Putnam, and Richeson showed us what happens without those conditions. Tropp shows us what creates them.”

---

Applied to Our Lives (15 minutes)

Start with the key distinction:

“Before we design anything, we need to understand something critical. What’s the difference between a diverse student body and actual contact conditions that reduce prejudice?”

Guided discussion (5 minutes):

“Think about our school [or a school you know]. It might have students from many different backgrounds in the same building. Let’s analyze: Where are Tropp’s conditions actually present? Where are they missing?”

Chart student observations – both:

Where conditions ARE working: [Teacher charts what students observe – might include: sports teams, certain classes, clubs, specific teachers’ approaches, school events, etc.]

Where conditions are MISSING: [Teacher charts what students observe – might include: tracking, social segregation, lack of structured interaction, etc.]

Key insight: “Just being in the same building isn’t enough. Most ‘diverse’ schools have proximity without the conditions that actually reduce prejudice. In fact, as Enos showed, proximity without the right conditions can sometimes increase prejudice. But notice – some parts of school life DO create these conditions. So when we design programs, we’re learning from what already works and extending it to places where conditions are missing.”

---

Now brainstorm programs (10 minutes):

“Now imagine: You could design any program, activity, or change to build connection across difference in your school or community. What would you create? Don’t worry about whether it’s realistic or perfect – just dream. What would you try?”

As students share ideas, chart them and occasionally ask:

• Which of Tropp’s conditions does this create?
• How does this build on what’s already working?

Students might suggest:

• Redesigning how certain classes or activities work
• New kinds of teams, clubs, or programs
• Changes to school structures or policies
• Different ways of organizing social spaces
• Community projects or events

If students struggle to start: “Think about a place in school where different groups don’t really connect. What could make that different?”

“Or think about something that already works well for connection – how could we do more of that?”

---

Closing Synthesis (5 minutes)

Individual quick-write:

Choose one prompt:

1. “The most important thing I learned from this research is…”
2. “One specific thing our school/community could do based on this research is…”
3. “This research changed my thinking about…”

Optional: 2-3 volunteers share

Why This Research Matters

These bodies of research have become foundational—and controversial—in debates about immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism. Teaching this research helps students:

• Develop media literacy about how social science gets used in public discourse
• Understand prejudice as patterned and changeable, not inevitable
• See the importance of institutional design and framing
• Think systemically about creating inclusive communities
• Practice analyzing research critically

Key Scholarly Context

Ryan Enos’ Contribution:

• Rare field experiment providing causal evidence (not just correlational)
• Shows short-term effects of perceived demographic change
• Important caveats: Effects diminished over time; only measured one form of contact
• Limitations: Only white commuters studied; Spanish speakers used as experimental treatment

Robert Putnam’s Contribution:

• Large-scale community analysis (41 U.S. communities)
• Documented short-term challenges of diversity for social capital
• Emphasized “short-term” and strongly advocated for bridging policies
• Widely misrepresented by anti-immigration advocates who ignore his recommendations

Jennifer Richeson’s Contribution:

• Demonstrates psychological mechanisms of demographic threat
• Shows how framing shapes responses to same information
• Later work examines costs of prejudice for those who hold it
• Provides evidence for solutions (shared identity framing)

Pettigrew and Tropp’s Contribution:

• Meta-analysis of 500+ studies = robust, reliable findings
• Specifies conditions under which contact reduces prejudice
• Shows contact works across contexts, groups, and settings
• Provides actionable framework for intervention design

Critiques of This Research Agenda:

• Focuses primarily on white American responses (whose anxiety is “worthy” of study?)
• Risk of reifying “white” and “diverse” as oppositions
• Can frame demographic change as “problem” needing white adjustment
• Limited attention to immigrant agency and perspectives
• Doesn’t examine how communities of color experience white migration (gentrification)

Connection to “Understanding Anti-Immigrant Prejudice”

This lesson deepens concepts from “Understanding Anti-Immigrant Prejudice: A Guide for Educators”:

Contact Hypothesis (from primer): Tropp’s research provides the evidence base. Contact reduces prejudice when conditions are met—this is why schools as “belonging infrastructure” matters.

Putnam’s “Hunkering Down”: Provides evidence for why intentional institutional support during demographic transition is essential. Without it, even well-intentioned diversity can create temporary isolation.

Enos’ Findings: Illustrate how proximity without quality interaction can increase prejudice. This is why the primer emphasizes structured opportunities for meaningful engagement.

Richeson’s Work: Demonstrates how narrative framing (from narratives lesson) operates psychologically. Same information, different frame, different response.

Integration: All four researchers document that prejudice emerges from specific conditions—and different conditions reduce it. This is why schools can be belonging infrastructure: they control conditions.

FrameWorks Institute Connection

This lesson draws on framing research from the FrameWorks Institute, particularly their work on demographic change and immigration narratives. FrameWorks emphasizes:

• How information is framed matters as much as the information itself
• Threat framing activates prejudiced responses; shared identity framing reduces them
• Research documenting challenges can be used to build solutions or weaponized to justify prejudice
• Strategic framing helps people understand systemic issues rather than individual blame

For more on FrameWorks’ approach to immigration communications: frameworksinstitute.org

Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2014). On the precipice of a “majority-minority” America: Perceived status threat from the racial demographic shift affects White Americans’ political ideology. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1189-1197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614527113

Enos, R. D. (2014). Causal effect of intergroup contact on exclusionary attitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(10), 3699-3704. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317670111

Enos, R. D. (2017). The Space Between Us: Social Geography and Politics. Cambridge University Press.

FrameWorks Institute. (2025). Changing conversations around immigration. https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/blog/changing-conversations-around-immigration/

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137-174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x

Richeson, J. A., & Sommers, S. R. (2016). Toward a social psychology of race and race relations for the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 439-463. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115115

Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16(12), 951-957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01643.x