Search

This research was partly supported by a senior postdoctoral research grant from the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO) awarded to Jasper VanAssche (FWO.3E0.2021.0085.01) under the supervision of Arne Roets. Data collection for the South African studies was supported by the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, for which the authors thank Steve Vertovec. This research was also funded by grants from the NORFACE ERA NET Plus Migration in Europe program, TheLeverhulme Trust, and the Central Community Relations Unit. Intergroup contact provides a reliable means of reducing prejudice. Yet, critics suggested that its efficacy is undermined, even eliminated, under certain conditions. Specifically, contact may be ineffective in the face of threat, especially to (historically) advantaged groups, and discrimination, experienced especially by (historically) disadvantaged groups. We considered perceived intergroup threat and perceived discrimination as potential moderators of the effect of contact on prejudice. Two meta-analyses of correlational data from 34 studies (totaling 63,945 respondents-drawn from 67 subsamples across 19 countries) showed that contact was associated with decreased prejudice and increased out-group positivity, in cross-sectional and longitudinal designs, among advantaged and disadvantaged group members, and in both Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) and non-WEIRD contexts. Both perceived threat and perceived discrimination moderated the contact-attitude association, but in an unanticipated direction. Indeed, contact's beneficial effects were at least as strong among individuals high (r = .19) as among individuals low (r = .18) in perceived threat. Similarly, the effects of contact were at least as strong among those high (r = .23) as among those low (r = .20) in perceived discrimination. We conclude that contact is effective for promoting tolerant societies because it is effective even among subpopulations where achieving that goal might be most challenging. Postprint

We will conduct a series of studies to validate a new scale that measures the extent to which respondents engage with situations that are morally or ethically ambiguous. This will involve assessing their perception and comfort with such ambiguity, their willingness and perceived ability to deal with it, and their perceived value of such ambiguity. Our first study will be focused on the psychometric properties of the items and scales. Our intention is to reduce our initial set of 42 items by roughly half. We will identify items to retain for the final scales using traditional criteria; e.g., by their factor loadings on the expected factors, their distributional properties, their importance and centrality to the concepts we want to measure, and their performance as parts of scales. Study 1 will focus on these exploratory analyses (i.e., exploratory factor analysis, descriptive statistics, alpha and item-total correlations). Study 2 will also use this strategy if no clear set of items is identified in Study 1 and/or if items need to be substantially re-written or replaced with new items. If a clear set of items is identified in Study 1, we will analyze the data using a confirmatory factor analysis that tests the expected factor structure, and continue to refine items and scales if that analysis yields unsatisfactory fit indices. We will continue new studies (rounds of data collection) until we find a stable set of items and scales (as established by acceptable fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis).

To enhance the prejudice-reducing effects of imagined contact we investigated a novel form of imagined contact (“balanced similarity”) which emphasized both similarities and differences between the ingroup(er) and the outgroup(er). Experiment 1 compared balanced similarity with conditions inducing only differences or only similarities. “Balanced similarity” led to more positive outgroup attitudes; its differences with the “high similarity” condition were mediated by reduced distinctiveness threat, whereas its differences with the “low” similarity condition were mediated by higher perceived intergroup similarity. Experiment 2 compared the “balanced similarity” imagined contact scenario with the “standard” (positive) imagined contact scenario (Crisp, Stathi, Turner, & Husnu, 2008), and found that both conditions promoted equally favourable attitudes that were significantly more positive than in the control condition. However, only the “balanced similarity” imagined contact condition differed from the control condition on intergroup anxiety and contact self-efficacy. The “balanced similarity” condition also had an indirect effect (via self-efficacy) on positive action tendencies towards the outgroup. We discuss the utility of “balanced similarity” imagined contact, especially where contact is limited and conflict is present.

Indirect forms of intergroup contact, such as extended and vicarious contact, are thought to provide a promising alternative to direct contact, but very few studies have compared the effectiveness of these two types of contact to confirm this claim. Furthermore, Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, and Ropp (1997) postulated, but did not test, that the usefulness of extended (or vicarious) over direct contact lies in these forms of indirect contact being likely to elicit less anxiety and more group salience at the time of the interaction, both of which are beneficial for contact. The present paper reports two experiments comparing the effects of direct and vicarious contact on: (i) outgroup attitudes and anxiety for future contact both immediately after contact (posttest) as well as a week later (delayed posttest), and (ii) their elicited interaction-induced anxiety and group salience. Both studies were conducted in Cyprus, with Greek Cypriot participants and the Turkish Cypriot community as the outgroup. Results did not support Wright et al.’s postulations. They furthermore showed that direct contact had a relative advantage over vicarious contact in leading to more positive outgroup attitudes at posttest, but that attitudes reverted to pretest levels for both conditions at delayed posttest. Vicarious, unlike direct, contact, did, however, lead to a persistent reduction of anxiety for future contact, thus suggesting that the greatest utility of indirect forms of contact may lie in their emotionally preparing individuals for subsequent face-to-face interactions.

Over three studies, we identified the phenomenon of ethnic 'resegregation' and assessed the extent to which it was predicted by attributions and norms, among other variables. Study 1, an observational study, showed extensive resegregation between White and Asian students in the cafeteria of a highly mixed school. In Study 2, we found evidence of attributional correspondence for White students, who attributed both their own and the outgroup's contact avoidance more to a lack of interest than fear of rejection, whereas Asian students attributed the outgroup's contact avoidance more to lack of interest, but preferred neither explanation of their own avoidance. In Study 3, we observed a pattern of attributional correspondence among both White and Asian students who attributed both their own and the outgroup's inaction in a hypothetical intergroup cafeteria scenario more to a lack of interest than fear of rejection. Study 3 also demonstrated longitudinally, for both groups, that own lack of interest in the outgroup reduced likelihood of cafeteria contact, whereas having outgroup friends and perceiving positive ingroup norms promoted it. In addition, positive outgroup norms promoted likelihood of cafeteria contact only for Asian students. We discuss how an understanding of the factors driving resegregation is critical to effectively realizing the potential of desegregated settings.

This article reexamines the so-called "wallpaper effect" of intergroup contact, which contends that for minority group members living in areas more densely populated by majority group members, intergroup contact fails to reduce prejudice. We tested this claim in five studies, using data from five countries, two types of contexts, a range of measures, and involving different minority versus majority groups. Using multilevel cross-level interaction models, we considered whether effects of contact on outgroup attitudes were moderated by relative outgroup size. Results failed to replicate the previously reported findings, revealing, by and large, nonsignificant cross-level moderation effects; instead, we witnessed consistent positive contact effects on attitudes. Findings are discussed against the backdrop of recent research on the consequences of diversity, as well as context-based considerations regarding minority versus majority constellations. We also discuss some exceptions to our findings that emerged for some respondent groups and contexts across the five studies.

We assessed whether intergroup contact at a nation-building intervention in Malaysia improved participants’ perceptions of threat and outgroup evaluations and whether this process was conceptually moderated by group status in a three-group setting. We found evidence of a strong relationship between post-intervention contact and post-intervention outgroup evaluations in all groups and evidence of indirect effects of post-intervention contact on outgroup evaluations by symbolic threat for the minority groups rating the majority group. We found that in the context of institutional inequalities, integrated threat theory may not be sufficiently complex to uncover the processes that underlie the contact–attitude link for majority groups rating minority groups. Further, we found indirect effects of post-intervention contact on outgroup evaluations via realistic threat for interminority group ratings. Thus, we elucidate some of the different mechanisms that underlie the intergroup perceptions of majority and minority group members.

This article provides a social psychological analysis of the neglected issue of ‘intergroup compromise’. We discuss the factors that promote respondents' willingness to compromise with two very different outgroups. We present a framework in which altruistic motivations (such as empathy) and egoistic motivations (such as trust and symbolic threat) act as proximal predictors of compromise, with intergroup contact as a distal predictor. We found that respondents who had more positive contact with homosexuals perceived them to be less threatening, and felt more empathy towards them, and in turn, were more likely to compromise with them on group-specific issues (controlling for the general tendency to compromise). We also found that respondents who had more negative contact with Muslims perceived them to be more threatening, and in turn, were less likely to compromise with them. We discuss these results with reference to recent developments in intergroup relations and the state of public discourse in contemporary Britain, examine their implications for intergroup relations in pluralistic contexts, and make suggestions for future research on willingness to compromise with outgroups.

A longitudinal study evaluated the success of a contact-based nation-building intervention (the Malaysian National Service Programme) in promoting various facets of national unity. The study assessed how post-test measures of quality of intergroup contact, outgroup evaluations, and levels of identification changed compared to their respective pre-test levels, for both National Service and control group participants. The intervention did not lead to a worsening of any of the constructs related to intergroup relations, which is noteworthy given the novelty for many participants of mixing in a multi-ethnic setting. Furthermore, all rater groups (Malays, Chinese, and Indians) maintained their ethnic identity, even in the presence of high levels of national identity, which we discuss with respect to past research on the effects of positive intergroup contact on minority group identification. However, the changes associated with the intervention yielded only small effect sizes, and, on the whole, National Service participants did not show significantly greater improvement than that experienced by control participants. We discuss the value of intergroup contact in this novel setting, considering various features of this programme that may have limited its effectiveness and discuss how such interventions can more successfully meet their goals.

Five studies tested whether intergroup contact reduces negative outgroup attitudes through a process of ingroup distancing. Based on the deprovincialization hypothesis and Social Dominance Theory, we hypothesized that the indirect effect of cross-group friendship on outgroup attitudes via reduced ingroup identification is moderated by individuals’ Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), and occurs only for members of high status majority groups. We tested these predictions in three different intergroup contexts, involving conflictual relations between social groups in Germany (Study 1; N = 150; longitudinal Study 2: N = 753), Northern Ireland (Study 3: N = 160; Study 4: N = 1,948), and England (Study 5; N = 594). Cross-group friendship was associated with reduced ingroup identification and the link between reduced ingroup identification and improved outgroup attitudes was moderated by SDO (the indirect effect of cross-group friendship on outgroup attitudes via reduced ingroup only occurred for individuals scoring high, but not low, in SDO). Although there was a consistent moderating effect of SDO in high-status majority groups (Studies 1–5), but not low-status minority groups (Studies 3, 4, and 5), the interaction by SDO was not reliably stronger in high- than low-status groups. Findings are discussed in terms of better understanding deprovincialization effects of contact.

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: Study 1 was supported by a grant from the Community Relations Unit, Northern Ireland, awarded to Miles Hewstone, Ed Cairns, and Joanne Hughes. We gratefully acknowledge the Russell Sage Foundation for their grant support for studies 2 and 3. Across one longitudinal and two cross-sectional surveys in Northern Ireland, we tested a model of intergroup relations in which out-group attitudes and behavioral tendencies are predicted by cross-group friendship and positive intergroup appraisals, mediated by intergroup emotions and out-group trust. In study 1, out-group friendship at time 1 predicted out-group trust at time 2 (one year later), controlling for prior out-group trust. In study 2, positive and negative intergroup emotions mediated the effects of friendship on positive and negative behavioral tendencies and attitudes. In study 3, a confirmatory factor analysis indicated that trust and emotions are distinct constructs with unique predictive contributions. We then tested a model in which cross-group friendship predicted intergroup emotions and trust through intimate self-disclosure in out-group friendships. Our findings support an integration of an intergroup emotions framework with research highlighting the importance of cross-group friendship in fostering positive intergroup outcomes. Postprint

Funding: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Research Fellowship CH 743, 2-1 (to O.C.) and a Leverhulme Trust Programme Grant (to M.H.). 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. Publisher PDF

This research reported here speaks to a contentious debate concerning the potential negative consequences of diversity for trust. We tested the relationship between neighborhood diversity and out-group, in-group, and neighborhood trust, taking into consideration previously untested indirect effects via intergroup contact and perceived intergroup threat. A large-scale national survey in England sampled White British majority ( N = 868) and ethnic minority ( N = 798) respondents from neighborhoods of varying degrees of diversity. Multilevel path analyses showed some negative direct effects of diversity for the majority group but also confirmed predictions that diversity was associated indirectly with increased trust via positive contact and lower threat. These indirect effects had positive implications for total effects of diversity, cancelling out most negative direct effects. Our findings have relevance for a growing body of research seeking to disentangle effects of diversity on trust that has so far largely ignored the key role of intergroup contact.

Intergroup contact theory is enjoying a renaissance; positive contact does reduce intergroup prejudice, but intergroup contact has generally been studied in relatively benign settings. With a number of countries either still experiencing or having just emerged from periods of pervasive intergroup animosity, contact theory is, nowadays, being put to its most stringent test as contact theorists try to uncover ways in which intergroup conflict can be reduced and reconciliation fostered. This article draws on research conducted at the Oxford Centre for the Study of Intergroup Conflict in countries including South Africa, Northern Ireland, Cyprus, and Bosnia. We report on our efforts to add to the emerging body of literature by (a) exploring the possible roles that direct and extended contact play in (post-) conflict societies; (b) asking when we might-or might not-expect contact to positively affect more demanding outcomes (such as intergroup trust and forgiveness); and (c) by investigating the processes by which contact achieves these outcomes. We then outline a research program that aims to further study both the benefits and limitations of intergroup contact in societies that are immersed in or emerging from protracted intergroup conflict. © 2014 American Psychological Association.

The authors argue that exposure to contextual diversity can prompt more complex, differentiated, and inclusive multiple in-group perceptions, that is, social identity complexity, with positive consequences for intergroup relations. Two unique, large-scale national surveys, involving respondents sampled from neighborhoods of varying degrees of diversity in Germany (Study 1; N = 1,381 drawn from 50 different neighborhoods) and England (Study 2; N = 580 drawn from 192 different neighborhoods), tested the prediction that people living in ethnically diverse neighborhoods would be higher in social identity complexity and, in turn, hold less negative intergroup attitudes. Results confirmed this hypothesis, showing that greater diversity was directly associated with higher social identity complexity (Studies 1 and 2) and indirectly associated with less in-group bias (Studies 1 and 2), and less social distance (Study 2), via social identity complexity. Findings are discussed with regard to their implications for the consequences of diversity for intergroup relations. © The Author(s) 2012.

In this paper, we focused on mixing in educational settings between members of Catholic and Protestant ethnoreligious groups in Northern Ireland.In Study 1, we examined whether opportunities for contact at home and at university were associated with greater actual out-group friendships, and whether this friendship was associated with a reduction in prejudice. We also assessed whether the impact of out-group friendships at university was moderated by experience of out-group friendships outside university, such that the prejudice-reducing effect of university friendships was stronger for those with fewer friendships at home. In Study 2, we assessed opportunities for contact and actual out-group friendships at prior stages of the educational system and their relationship with prejudice. Sample(s). In both studies, our participants were students at universities in Northern Ireland (Study 1 N= 304 and Study 2 N= 157).We analysed the data using multiple regression and structural equation modelling.First, opportunities for contact were positively associated with self-reported out-group friendships in all domains and stages of the educational system. Second, having more out-group friends was associated with reduced prejudice. Finally, the relationship between out-group friendships and current levels of prejudice was moderated by prior levels of out-group friendships (at home in Study 1; and at secondary and primary school in Study 2).Contact, in the form of out-group friendships, was more powerful when it was a novel feature in a person's life. We discuss these findings in terms of the impact of mixing in educational contexts, especially in Northern Ireland, and outline suggestions for future research.

Income inequality undermines societies: The more inequality, the more health problems, social tensions, and the lower social mobility, trust, life expectancy. Given people’s tendency to legitimate existing social arrangements, the stereotype content model (SCM) argues that ambivalence―perceiving many groups as either warm or competent, but not both―may help maintain socio-economic disparities. The association between stereo- type ambivalence and income inequality in 37 cross-national samples from Europe, the Americas, Oceania, Asia, and Africa investigates how groups’ overall warmth-compe- tence, status-competence, and competition-warmth correlations vary across societies, and whether these variations associate with income inequality (Gini index). More unequal societies report more ambivalent stereotypes, whereas more equal ones dislike competitive groups and do not necessarily respect them as competent. Unequal societies may need ambivalence for system stability: Income inequality compensates groups with partially positive social images. UCR::Vicerrectoría de Investigación::Unidades de Investigación::Ciencias Sociales::Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas (IIP)

A longitudinal study evaluated the success of a contact-based nation-building intervention (the Malaysian National Service Programme) in promoting various facets of national unity. The study assessed how post-test measures of quality of intergroup contact, outgroup evaluations, and levels of identification changed compared to their respective pre-test levels, for both National Service and control group participants. The intervention did not lead to a worsening of any of the constructs related to intergroup relations, which is noteworthy given the novelty for many participants of mixing in a multi-ethnic setting. Furthermore, all rater groups (Malays, Chinese, and Indians) maintained their ethnic identity, even in the presence of high levels of national identity, which we discuss with respect to past research on the effects of positive intergroup contact on minority group identification. However, the changes associated with the intervention yielded only small effect sizes, and, on the whole, National Service participants did not show significantly greater improvement than that experienced by control participants. We discuss the value of intergroup contact in this novel setting, considering various features of this programme that may have limited its effectiveness and discuss how such interventions can more successfully meet their goals.