Search

The focus of this special issue is relative deprivation (RD): the judgment that one or one’s group is worse off compared to some standard accompanied by feelings of anger and resentment. This collection of seven papers demonstrates the range of the new thinking and research about RD, and they include data from an impressive variety of participants—including Canadians (both French- and English-speakers), Dutch, the Maoris of New Zealand, Mongols, Singaporeans, and South Africans (both Blacks and Whites). These seven papers show that if RD, and its counterpart, relative gratification, are defined carefully, at the right level of analysis and employed within larger theoretical models, the concept offers invaluable insight to how people respond to often dramatic changes in their objective circumstances.

This paper first offers a tribute to Samuel Stouffer (1900–1960), a major contributor to social psychology. He helped to establish probability surveys as a useful method for social science, led three major studies at midcentury, and introduced important new concepts and statistical methods. Thus, both conceptually and methodologically, he shaped modern social psychology. Second, the paper revitalizes Stouffer’s most famous concept—relative deprivation. A new meta-analysis demonstrates that relative deprivation predicts a wide range of important outcomes, so long as it measures resentment with data from individuals and is paired with dependent variables of similar scope. Unfortunately, sociology largely abandoned the concept because it failed to meet the overstated early claims made for it in the collective protest domain. The history of this use and disuse of relative deprivation is summarized and critiqued.

Social psychology experiences recurring so-called "crises." This article maintains that these episodes actually mark advances in the discipline; these "crises" have enhanced relevance and led to greater methodological and statistical sophistication. New statistical tools have allowed social psychologists to begin to achieve a major goal: placing psychological phenomena in their larger social contexts. This growing trend is illustrated with numerous recent studies; they demonstrate how cultures and social norms moderate basic psychological processes. Contextual social psychology is finally emerging.

Based on two cross-sectional probability samples (Study 1: N = 1,382, Study 2: N = 1,587), we studied the interplay between positive and negative intergroup contact, different types of intergroup emotions (i.e., episodic intergroup emotions encountered during contact and more general chronic intergroup emotions), and outgroup behavior in the context of intergroup relations between non-immigrant Germans and foreigners living in Germany. In Study 1, we showed that positive and negative contact are related to specific episodic intergroup emotions (i.e., anger, fear and happiness). Results of Study 2 indicate an indirect effect of episodic intergroup emotions encountered during contact experiences on specific behavioral tendencies directed at outgroup members via more chronic situation-independent intergroup emotions. As expected, anger predicted approaching (discriminatory) behavioral tendencies (i.e., aggression) while fear predicted avoidance. The results extend the existing literature on intergroup contact and emotions by addressing positive and negative contact simultaneously and differentiating between situation-specific episodic and chronic intergroup emotions in predicting discriminatory behavioral tendencies.

Throughout my career, I have pursued three theories related to intergroup prejudice--each with a different mentor. Each theory and its supporting research help us to understand prejudice and ways to ameliorate the problem. This autobiographical review article summarizes some of the advances in these three areas during the past six decades. For authoritarianism, the article advocates removing political content from its measurement, linking it with threat and dismissive-avoidant attachment, and studying how authoritarians avoid intergroup contact. Increased work on relative deprivation made possible an extensive meta-analysis that shows the theory, when appropriately measured, has far broader effects than previously thought. Increased research attention to intergroup contact similarly made possible a meta-analysis that established the pervasive effectiveness of intergroup contact to reduce prejudice under a wide range of conditions. The article closes by demonstrating how the three theories relate to each other and contribute to our understanding of prejudice and its reduction.

Dramatic forms of discrimination, such as lynching, property destruction, and hate crimes, are widely understood to be consequences of prejudicial hostility. This article focuses on what has heretofore been only an infrequent countertheme in scientific work on discrimination-that favoritism toward ingroups can be responsible for much discrimination. We extend this counterthesis to the strong conclusion that ingroup favoritism is plausibly more significant as a basis for discrimination in contemporary American society than is outgroup-directed hostility. This conclusion has implications for theory, research methods, and practical remedies., ((PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).)

This article memorializes M. Brewster Smith (1919-2012), one of the major champions of humanistic psychology. Smith served psychology in many capacities throughout his career. For the American Psychological Association (APA), not only was he the organization's president (1978-1979), as well as president of the American Psychological Foundation (1983-1984), but he was also a member of APA's Board of Directors for five separate terms spanning a period of three decades. Further highlights of Smith's career and professional contributions are noted.

Relative deprivation (RD) is the judgment that one is worse off compared to some standard accompanied by feelings of anger and resentment. Social scientists use RD to predict a wide range of significant outcome variables: collective action, individual achievement and deviance, intergroup attitudes, and physical and mental health. But the results are often weak and inconsistent. The authors draw on a theoretical and meta-analytic review (210 studies composing 293 independent samples, 421 tests, and 186,073 respondents) to present a model that integrates group and individual RD. RD measures that (a) include justice-related affect, (b) match the outcome level of analysis, and (c) use higher quality measures yield significantly stronger relationships. Future research should focus on appropriate RD measurement, angry resentment, and the inclusion of theoretically relevant situational appraisals. Such methodological improvements would revitalize RD as a useful social psychological predictor of a wide range of important individual and social processes.

This work identifies how cross-group friendships are conceptualized and measured in intergroup research, investigates which operationalizations yield the strongest effects on intergroup attitudes, explores potential moderators, and discusses the theoretical importance of the findings. Prior meta-analyses have provided initial evidence that cross-group friendships are especially powerful forms of intergroup contact. Although studies of cross-group friendship have grown considerably in recent years, varied assessments leave us without a clear understanding of how different operationalizations affect relationships between friendship and attitudes. With a greatly expanded database of relevant studies, the authors compared friendship-attitude associations across a wide range of specific conceptualizations. Time spent and self-disclosure with outgroup friends yielded significantly greater associations with attitudes than other friendship measures, suggesting that attitudes are most likely to improve when cross-group friendships involve behavioral engagement. Processes underlying cross-group friendships are discussed, as are implications for future research and application.

The present article presents a meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. With 713 independent samples from 515 studies, the meta-analysis finds that intergroup contact typically reduces intergroup prejudice. Multiple tests indicate that this finding appears not to result from either participant selection or publication biases, and the more rigorous studies yield larger mean effects. These contact effects typically generalize to the entire outgroup, and they emerge across a broad range of outgroup targets and contact settings. Similar patterns also emerge for samples with racial or ethnic targets and samples with other targets. This result suggests that contact theory, devised originally for racial and ethnic encounters, can be extended to other groups. A global indicator of Allport's optimal contact conditions demonstrates that contact under these conditions typically leads to even greater reduction in prejudice. Closer examination demonstrates that these conditions are best conceptualized as an interrelated bundle rather than as independent factors. Further, the meta-analytic findings indicate that these conditions are not essential for prejudice reduction. Hence, future work should focus on negative factors that prevent intergroup contact from diminishing prejudice as well as the development of a more comprehensive theory of intergroup contact., (Copyright 2006 APA.)

Considerable research has shown that greater intergroup contact corresponds with lower intergroup prejudice, yet little is known regarding how the relationships between contact and prejudice may vary for members of minority and majority status groups. The present research examined differences in contact-prejudice relationships among members of minority and majority status groups, using data from a larger meta-analytic study of the effects of intergroup contact. Results indicate that the relationships between contact and prejudice tend to be weaker among members of minority status groups than among members of majority status groups. Moreover, establishing Allport's (1954) proposed conditions for optimal intergroup contact significantly predicts stronger contact-prejudice relationships among members of majority status groups, but not among members of minority status groups. Implications of these findings for future research on contact between minority and majority status groups are discussed.

Research on affective dimensions of intergroup relationships suggests that positive effects of intergroup contact can generalize through establishing affective ties with outgroup members. However, research on cognitive dimensions emphasizes that it is often difficult to generalize positive contact outcomes. In this research, the authors examine whether affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice bear different relationships to intergroup contact. Using data from a larger meta-analysis of contact effects, Study 1 demonstrates that affective indicators of prejudice typically yield stronger, inverse contact-prejudice relationships than such cognitive indicators as stereotypes. Study 2 replicates these trends in a survey study using multiple indicators of affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Study 2 also shows significant, inverse relationships between contact and affective prejudice when contact is assessed either as number of outgroup friends or intergroup closeness. Together, these results suggest that affective dimensions of intergroup relationships are especially critical for understanding the nature of contact-prejudice effects.

The road to Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was a slow and circuitous climb, whereas the retreat down from Brown has been swift and direct. This article reviews 4 distinct U.S. Supreme Court eras of racial decisions: the segregation, preparatory, desegregation, and resegregation eras. It notes both the strengths and weaknesses of Brown and discusses the effects of school desegregation. Did racial diversity improve the life chances of African American children as intended? The results of longitudinal research demonstrate that the effects have been positive, although these results are not widely known by the American public. The article challenges this and other misconceptions about school desegregation that have become entrenched in the public's thinking and addresses ways to rekindle the spirit of Brown., (((c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved))

Furthering G. W. Allport's contentions for optimal contact, the authors introduce a new construct: the perceived importance of contact. They propose that perceived importance is the best proximal predictor of contact's reduction of prejudice. If individuals have opportunities for contact at work or in the neighborhood, their chances to have intergroup acquaintances and friends increase. Intergroup contact among acquaintances and friends can be perceived as more or less important, which in turn determines intergroup evaluations. A 1st study shows that the new measure of perceived importance is indeed distinct from established quantity and quality indicators. The results are cross-validated in a 2nd study that also sheds light on the meaning of importance. In 3rd and 4th studies, structural equation analyses and a meta-analysis support the hypotheses.

Allport specified four conditions for optimal intergroup contact: equal group status within the situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation and authority support. Varied research supports the hypothesis, but four problems remain. 1. A selection bias limits cross-sectional studies, since prejudiced people avoid intergroup contact. Yet research finds that the positive effects of cross-group friendship are larger than those of the bias. 2. Writers overburden the hypothesis with facilitating, but not essential, conditions. 3. The hypothesis fails to address process. The chapter proposes four processes: learning about the outgroup, changed behavior, affective ties, and ingroup reappraisal. 4. The hypothesis does not specify how the effects generalize to other situations, the outgroup or uninvolved outgroups. Acting sequentially, three strategies enhance generalization-decategorization, salient categorization, and recategorization. Finally, both individual differences and societal norms shape intergroup contact effects. The chapter outlines a longitudinal intergroup contact theory. It distinguishes between essential and facilitating factors, and emphasizes different outcomes for different stages of contact.

The research on memory for schema-relevant information has produced sharply contradictory results. Some studies demonstrate memory selectivity for schema-consistent information, others demonstrate memory selectivity for schema-inconsistent information. Meta-analytic procedures are applied to a sample of 60 independent studies with 165 comparative tests. The overall result shows a slight overall memory advantage for schema-inconsistent information. As the effect sizes are highly heterogeneous, it was hypothesized that schema-based processing is moderated by an array of variables. In large part the direction of the effect is dependent on the memory measure used. Both recognition tests corrected for guessing and recall tests reveal consistently better memory for schema-inconsistent information. But recognition tests uncorrected for guessing consistently uncover better memory for schema-consistent information. In addition, several moderators derived from Wyer & Srull's (1989) Associative Network model of person memory influence the amount of inconsistent information recalled. Processing demands, length of exposure to inconsistent information, delay between presentation of the stimulus and the memory test, proportion of inconsistent items, order of schema-presentation, degree of inconsistency and importance of categories to subjects all had significant impacts on inconsistency resolution. Most of these moderator effects support the Wyer-Srull model; but several of its contentions are called into question. In particular, inconsistency resolution emerges as a more robust consequence than schema-bolstering of longer stimulus exposure and delays between exposure and memory test. The results are compared with a similar meta-analysis, then discussed in relation to the possibilities for stereotype change.