Distinción

4.3.1 Physical distance.

Although unexpected, the absence of a relationship between state interracial anxiety and physical distance is consistent with findings from another study employing the same chair distance paradigm and measure of state-level anxiety about an interracial interaction (Stern & West, 2014, Study 3). Regarding their findings, Stern and West speculated that the intervention employed in their study, implementation intentions, may have weakened the relationship between state anxiety and desire for interpersonal proximity. Findings from this study,

particularly the lack of an association between state anxiety and distance in the control condition, suggest that such a relationship might not exist even in the absence of an intervention.

Despite the non-significant relationship with distance, state anxiety did demonstrate theory-consistent associations with other constructs. State interracial anxiety was positively associated with trait general anxiety and trait interracial anxiety. Trait anxiety is typically conceptualized as a dispositional propensity to experience state anxiety in response to specific stressors (Spielberger et al., 1983). Thus some degree of correlation between state and trait anxiety, both general and specific to the domain of interracial interactions, would be expected. The negative relationship between state interracial anxiety and trait mindful acceptance is similarly consistent with literature suggesting that trait mindfulness can buffer anxious responding to laboratory-based stressors (Arch & Craske, 2010). This pattern of associations suggests that the absence of a relationship between state interracial anxiety and distance is thus indicative of some disjunction between the constructs, rather than validity issues with the measure of state interracial anxiety.

It may be illustrative to compare the unanticipated nonsignificant findings regarding state interracial anxiety with the significant relationship found between distance and post-intervention negative affect. Across conditions, negative affect was moderately correlated with distance. In addition to suggesting that the distance outcome measure was sensitive to state-level affect, this significant finding also raises the possibility that participants’ physical distancing was driven by a broader affective process. While the state interracial anxiety measure included items narrowly tailored to the experience of anxiety and social discomfort (“anxious,” “uncomfortable,”

“nervous,” and “awkward”), the negative affect scale items employed here also encompassed more overt distress and fear (“afraid,” “upset,” “distressed,” “scared,” and “nervous”).3

3 _{When zero-order correlations between distance and individual items on the PANAS negative}

affect subscale were explored, three items evinced significant associations with distance (“afraid,” “scared,” and “distressed”). By contrast, only one item from the state anxiety scale

Previous research has identified many situational and state-level individual factors that drive interpersonal distance, including anger (Meisels & Dosey, 1971), situational stress, and perceived threat (Dosey & Meisels, 1969; Ickes, 1984). The broader scope and greater severity captured in the construct of negative affect may have better reflected this array of influences and thus contributed to the positive association between negative affect and physical distance in the present study. If so, this suggests that physical distancing in the context of an interracial

interaction—at least in the present sample—is related more to general distress and fear than interracial anxiety. Although brief mindfulness has demonstrated efficacy in reducing negative affect (Arch & Craske, 2006), more severe negative emotion might require more intensive mindfulness training to counteract associated avoidance behaviors. It could be that the intervention employed in this study was not sufficiently potent to diminish the link between strong negative affect and physical avoidance.

4.3.2 Reschedule delay.

Unexpectedly, state interracial anxiety did not independently predict reschedule delay. This finding contrasts with prior evidence that state-level anxiety about interracial interactions was associated with decreased interest in future contact (West et al., 2009; Stern & West, 2014, Study 2) or a lower likelihood of future contact (Plant & Devine, 2003). Methodological

differences may help account for the discrepancy between this study and the earlier findings. Two of the previous studies assessed state anxiety with respect to a preceding interracial interaction, either with a roommate (West, Shelton, & Trail, 2009) or specific outgroup member (Stern & West, 2014). As noted above, state anxiety retrospectively reported after an interaction may have more predictive value for future behavior—or behavioral intentions—than anxiety

(“anxious”) was significantly associated with distance. One item (“nervous”) appears on both

reported prior to an interaction. In the social anxiety literature, post-event processing, a cognitive review of one’s performance following social interaction, is seen as a key factor maintaining social anxiety via negative self-appraisals and diminished self-efficacy (Rapee & Heimberg, 1997), and ultimately leading to greater social avoidance (Rachman, Grüter-Andrew, & Shafran, 2000). A similar process may be at work in interracial anxiety and interactions: retrospective reports of state anxiety may better predict future avoidance because they also reflect some degree of postevent appraisal. Plant and Devine (2003) also found a significant association between state anxiety about an upcoming interaction and avoidance. In that study, however, rather than assessing intentions for future contact/avoidance, the authors measured actual avoidance behavior dichotomously, by whether participants returned for an interaction postponed by one week.

Unlike those earlier studies, the present study operationalized future avoidance as participants’ proposedlatency in returning to an (ostensibly) anxiety-provoking interaction. Latency to initiate a stressful task has been used to assess behavioral avoidance in laboratory paradigms (e.g., Eifert & Heffner, 2003). As suggested by participants’ universal willingness to reschedule, however, returning for the conversation might not have seemed like a particularly stressful experience. Consequently, participants’ proposed reschedule dates might not have been an accurate index of avoidance but instead reflected other factors, such as their individual scheduling constraints.