Search

Although the effects of direct and indirect forms of contact on intergroup relations are well documented, little is known about their longitudinal co-development. Based on the social-psychological literature, we hypothesize that indirect contact predicts future direct contact by reducing intergroup anxiety. Across five longitudinal studies (Study 1: German adults, N = 560; Study 2: German, Dutch, and Swedish school students, N = 6,600; Study 3: Northern Irish children, N = 1,593; Study 4: Northern Irish adults, N = 404; Study 5: German adults, N = 735), we systematically examined this effect, and further tested the mediating role of intergroup anxiety in Studies 3 to 5. Cross-lagged models provided consistent evidence for the positive effect of indirect contact on future direct contact, whereas a reduction in intergroup anxiety mediates this effect in most models. Results highlight the importance of indirect contact, which has the potential to increase direct contact, and thus promote social cohesion in diverse contexts, over time. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Previous research has shown that (a) positive intergroup contact with an advantaged group can discourage collective action among disadvantaged-group members and (b) positive intergroup contact can encourage advantaged-group members to take action on behalf of disadvantaged outgroups. Two studies investigated the effects of negative as well as positive intergroup contact. Study 1 ( n = 482) found that negative but not positive contact with heterosexual people was associated with sexual-minority students' engagement in collective action (via group identification and perceived discrimination). Among heterosexual students, positive and negative contacts were associated with, respectively, more and less LGB (lesbian, gay, bisexual) activism. Study 2 ( N = 1,469) found that only negative contact (via perceived discrimination) predicted LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) students' collective action intentions longitudinally while only positive contact predicted heterosexual/cisgender students' LGBT activism. Implications for the relationship between intergroup contact, collective action, and social change are discussed.

Secondary transfer effects (STEs) of intergroup contact refer to the generalization of contact effects from a primary encountered outgroup to attitudes towards secondary outgroups (Pettigrew, 2009). Using two large, cross-sectional data sets from Germany (N = 1,381) and Northern Ireland (N = 1,948), this article examined the extent to which STEs of intergroup contact on attitudes towards a range of secondary outgroups occur via a previously unexplored psychological construct, social identity complexity (operationalized as similarity complexity and overlap complexity). Study 1 found primary outgroup contact to be associated with greater similarity complexity, but no indirect effects on secondary outgroup attitudes via complexity emerged. Study 2, however, revealed indirect positive relationships between primary outgroup contact and secondary outgroup attitudes via increased similarity complexity and overlap complexity. These relationships were obtained while controlling for two previously tested mediating mechanisms, attitude generalization (operationalized as primary outgroup attitude) and deprovincialization (operationalized as ingroup attitude and identification). We discuss the theoretical implications of these findings and the contribution of social identity complexity to understanding processes underlying STEs of contact., (© 2013 The British Psychological Society.)

Two studies tested the prediction that more positive intergroup contact would be associated with reduced aggressive intergroup action tendencies, an effect predicted to occur indirectly via reduced intergroup threat perceptions, and over and above well-established effects of contact on intergroup attitudes. Study 1, using data based on a cross-section of the general population of eight European countries (France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and the UK; N = 7,042), examined this hypothesis in the context of aggressive action tendencies towards immigrants. Study 2, using longitudinal data obtained from a general population sample in Northern Ireland, considered effects on aggressive action tendencies between ethno-religious groups in conflict. Both studies confirmed our predictions, showing that while perceived threat was associated with greater intergroup aggressive tendencies, positive intergroup contact was indirectly associated with reduced aggressive action tendencies, via reduced intergroup threat. Findings are discussed in terms of the theoretical contributions of this research for understanding the relationship between intergroup contact and intergroup aggression., (© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

We assessed evidence for a contextual effect of positive intergroup contact, whereby the effect of intergroup contact between social contexts (the between-level effect) on outgroup prejudice is greater than the effect of individual-level contact within contexts (the within-level effect). Across seven large-scale surveys (five cross-sectional and two longitudinal), using multilevel analyses, we found a reliable contextual effect. This effect was found in multiple countries, operationalizing context at multiple levels (regions, districts, and neighborhoods), and with and without controlling for a range of demographic and context variables. In four studies (three cross-sectional and one longitudinal) we showed that the association between context-level contact and prejudice was largely mediated by more tolerant norms. In social contexts where positive contact with outgroups was more commonplace, norms supported such positive interactions between members of different groups. Thus, positive contact reduces prejudice on a macrolevel, whereby people are influenced by the behavior of others in their social context, not merely on a microscale, via individuals' direct experience of positive contact with outgroup members. These findings reinforce the view that contact has a significant role to play in prejudice reduction, and has great policy potential as a means to improve intergroup relations, because it can simultaneously impact large numbers of people.

We propose that intergroup contact provides an effective means by which to reduce, resolve, and prevent conflict of all kinds, including violent conflict. We review the vast literature on the effectiveness of intergroup contact and discuss when and how it reduces prejudice. We also discuss key features of successful interventions, highlighting examples from conflict zones around the world. Rather than accepting, as some scholars do, that conflict is inevitable, we argue that intergroup contact, in its various forms, can play a pivotal and preemptive role in conflict prevention. We suggest that a blunt application of contact theory, particularly when groups are of unequal status, can have some unfortunate consequences, and contact interventions can, and should, be designed to overcome these pitfalls. We argue that, ultimately, contact is a powerful tool that needs to be used alongside other means of conflict reduction, resolution, and prevention in order to frame sound public policy and build lasting peace., (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)

Background: Implicit negative attitudes towards other races are important in certain kinds of prejudicial social behaviour. Emotional mechanisms are thought to be involved in mediating implicit "outgroup" bias but there is little evidence concerning the underlying neurobiology. The aim of the present study was to examine the role of noradrenergic mechanisms in the generation of implicit racial attitudes., Methods: Healthy volunteers (n = 36) of white ethnic origin, received a single oral dose of the β-adrenoceptor antagonist, propranolol (40 mg), in a randomised, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, design. Participants completed an explicit measure of prejudice and the racial implicit association test (IAT), 1-2 h after propranolol administration., Results: Relative to placebo, propranolol significantly lowered heart rate and abolished implicit racial bias, without affecting the measure of explicit racial prejudice. Propranolol did not affect subjective mood., Conclusions: Our results indicate that β-adrenoceptors play a role in the expression of implicit racial attitudes suggesting that noradrenaline-related emotional mechanisms may mediate negative racial bias. Our findings may also have practical importance given that propranolol is a widely used drug. However, further studies will be needed to examine whether a similar effect can be demonstrated in the course of clinical treatment.

M. Rothbart and B. Park (1986) demonstrated that, consistent with the common negativity bias, positive traits are difficult to confirm and easy to disconfirm, whereas the opposite is true for negative traits. This article extends their analysis by showing that trait (dis-)confirmability is moderated by trait content (warmth vs. competence). Study 1 identifies a trait sample representative of warmth and competence. Study 2 shows a strong negativity effect for warmth and a reduced (or absent) negativity effect for competence. Study 3 examines trait properties related to the behavioral range of the trait possessor and to the motivational goals of the perceiver as predictors of trait (dis-)confirmability. The theoretical and practical implications of the authors' findings are discussed, and avenues for future research are suggested., (2007 APA, all rights reserved)

Three experiments investigated the effect of consensus information on majority and minority influence. Experiment 1 examined the effect of consensus expressed by descriptive adjectives (large vs. small) on social influence. A large source resulted in more influence than a small source, irrespective of source status (majority vs. minority). Experiment 2 showed that large sources affected attitudes heuristically, whereas only a small minority instigated systematic processing of the message. Experiment 3 manipulated the type of consensus information, either in terms of descriptive adjectives (large, small) or percentages (82%, 18%, 52%, 48%). When consensus was expressed in terms of descriptive adjectives, the findings of Experiments 1 and 2 were replicated (large sources were more influential than small sources), but when consensus was expressed in terms of percentages, the majority was more influential than the minority, irrespective of group consensus.