Contact with out-group friends as a predictor of meta-attitudinal strength and accessibility of attitudes toward gay men.

Two studies examined the effects of cross-group friendships on heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men. In Study 1, the authors tested the effects of cross-group friendships with gay men on out-group attitudes, meta-attitudinal strength, and attitude accessibility. The authors simultaneously explored mediational effects of intergroup anxiety. Path analysis showed that cross-group friendships were associated with meta-attitudinally stronger and more accessible out-group attitudes, and the effects on all 3 criterion variables were mediated by intergroup anxiety. In Study 2, the authors sought to replicate the basic results of Study 1, while additionally exploring mediational effects of closeness of cross-group friendship and moderational effects of perceived group typicality. Structural equation modeling showed that cross-group friendships were associated with meta-attitudinally stronger and more accessible out-group attitudes; friendships had indirect effects on all 3 criterion variables, via closeness of friendship and intergroup anxiety. Closeness of friendship only predicted lower intergroup anxiety, however, when the out-group friend was perceived as highly typical. The authors emphasize the importance of considering the nature of out-group attitudes more completely when evaluating the effectiveness of intergroup contact in reducing prejudice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Disruptive Effects of Vigilance on Dominant Group Members' Treatment of Outgroup Members: Choking Versus Shining Under Pressure.

Three studies examined the hypothesis that evaluative concerns exert a disruptive effect on intimacy-building behaviors exhibited by dominant group members in intergroup interaction. The authors predicted that although evaluative concerns would lead individuals with a negative baseline response to outgroup members to shine (i.e., to exhibit warmer, more friendly behavior), such concerns would have a contrary, choking, effect on individuals with a more positive baseline response. Results were generally consistent with these hypotheses across 3 different operationalizations of evaluative concerns and regardless of whether individuals' orientation toward outgroup members was assessed in terms of prejudiced racial attitudes or racial ingroup identification. Implications for lower status group members' experience of intergroup interaction and for the prejudice-reduction process are considered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups.

This article examines moral identity and reactions to out-groups during intergroup conflict. Four studies suggest that a highly self-important moral identity is associated with an expansive circle of moral regard toward out-group members (Study 1) and more favorable attitudes toward relief efforts to aid out-group members (Study 2). Study 3 examines moral identity and national identity influences on the provision of financial assistance to out-groups. Study 4 investigates the relationship between moral identity and (a) the willingness to harm innocent out-group members not involved in the conflict and (b) moral judgments of revenge and forgiveness toward out-group members directly responsible for transgressions against the in-group. Results are discussed in terms of self-regulatory mechanisms that mitigate in-group favoritism and out-group hostility. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Group identification and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal analysis in South Africa.

Social identity theory (SIT) and realistic conflict theory (RCT) suggest that group identification and out-group negativity will be correlated when intergroup relations involve competition and perceived threat, but the theories differ in their predictions about the direction of causality. The authors assessed Black African students' ethnic group identification and their attitudes toward English Whites, Afrikaans Whites, and Whites in general before and after South Africa's transitional election in April 1994. As predicted, Black African identification was significantly related only to attitudes toward Afrikaans Whites. Longitudinal analyses, however, suggested causal impacts from attitudes to identification and not the reverse, contradicting the SIT prediction. The authors discuss evidence for the existence of two distinct modes of group identification with different implications for intergroup behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three european countries.

A widely researched panacea for reducing intergroup prejudice is the contact hypothesis. However, few longitudinal studies can shed light on the direction of causal processes: from contact to prejudice reduction (contact effects) or from prejudice to contact reduction (prejudice effects). The authors conducted a longitudinal field survey in Germany, Belgium, and England with school students. The sample comprised members of both ethnic minorities (n = 512) and ethnic majorities (n = 1,143). Path analyses yielded both lagged contact effects and prejudice effects: Contact reduced prejudice, but prejudice also reduced contact. Furthermore, contact effects were negligible for minority members. These effects were obtained for 2 indicators of prejudice: negative intergroup emotions and desire for social distance. For both majority and minority members, contact effects on negative emotions were stronger when outgroup contacts were perceived as being typical of their group. Contact effects were also mediated by intergroup anxiety. This mediating mechanism was impaired for minority members because of a weakened effect of anxiety on desire for social distance. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice.

The extended contact hypothesis proposes that knowledge that an in-group member has a close relationship with an out-group member can lead to more positive intergroup attitudes. Proposed mechanisms are the in-group or out-group member serving as positive exemplars and the inclusion of the out-group member's group membership in the self. In Studies 1 and 2, respondents knowing an in-group member with an out-group friend had less negative attitudes toward that out-group, even controlling for dispositional variables and direct out-group friendships. Study 3, with constructed intergroup-conflict situations (on the robbers cave model), found reduced negative out-group attitudes after participants learned of cross-group friendships. Study 4, a minimal group experiment, showed less negative out-group attitudes for participants observing an apparent in-group–out-group friendship. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The out-group must not be so bad after all: The effects of disclosure, typicality, and salience on intergroup bias.

Two contact studies integrated the personalization (M. B. Brewer & N. Miller, 1994) and category-based models (M. Hewstone & R. J. Brown, 1986), proposing that greater reduction of intergroup bias can be achieved by the interactive effects of disclosure and typicality (Study 1) or disclosure and salience (Study 2). In Study 1 the impact of self-disclosure and typicality combined interactively to augment intergroup acceptance. Study 2 extended these findings by examining the combined effects of disclosure and category salience. It also explored the mediational roles of group-relevant and person-relevant information on the effects of typicality and disclosure, respectively. Results showed that during cooperative dyadic out-group contact, self-disclosure, typicality, and salience were key factors for reducing bias toward new members of that out-group category. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis.

Experimental research on intergroup discrimination in favor of one's own group is reviewed in terms of the basis of differentiation between in-group and out-group and in terms of the response measure on which in-group bias is assessed. Results of the research reviewed suggest that (a) factors such as intergroup competition, similarity, and status differentials affect in-group bias indirectly by influencing the salience of distinctions between in-group and out-group, (b) the degree of intergroup differentiation on a particular response dimension is a joint function of the relevance of intergroup distinctions and the favorableness of the in-group's position on that dimension, and (c) the enhancement of in-group bias is more related to increased favoritism toward in-group members than to increased hostility toward out-group members. Implications of these results for positive applications of group identification (e.g., a shift of in-group bias research from inter- to intragroup contexts) are discussed. (67 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The importance of being we: Human nature and intergroup relations.

The author discusses the nature of in-group bias and the social motives that underlie ethnocentric attachment to one's own membership groups. Two common assumptions about in-group bias are challenged: that in-group positivity necessitates out-group derogation and that ingroup bias is motivated by self-enhancement. A review of relevant theory and research on intergroup relations provides evidence for 3 alternative principles: (a) in-group attachment and positivity are primary and independent of out-groups, (b) security motives (belonging and distinctiveness) underlie universal in-group favoritism, and (c) attitudes toward out-groups vary as a function of intergroup relationships and associated threats to belonging and distinctiveness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Intergroup Contact and Pluralistic Ignorance.

The present work examined the relationship between people's own interpretations of why they avoid intergroup contact and their interpretations of why out-groups avoid intergroup contact. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that Whites and Blacks would like to have more contact with the out-group but believe the out-group does not want to have contact with them. Studies 3-5 show that Whites and Blacks make divergent explanations about their own and their potential out-group partner's failure to initiate contact. Specifically, individuals explained their own inaction in terms of their fear of being rejected because of their race but attributed the out-group members' inaction to their lack of interest. Study 6 examined the behavioral consequences of this self-other bias. Finally, Study 7 applied theoretical work on the extended contact hypothesis to explore a means to reduce this self- other bias. The implications of these studies for improving intergroup interactions are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The role of categorization and in-group norms in judgments of groups and their members.

Four minimal group experiments tested the prediction that judgments of groups and their members reflect evaluations made simultaneously but independently at the within-group and intergroup levels. On the basis of self-categorization theory and social identity theory, it was predicted that group members seek both intergroup distinctiveness and legitimization of in-group norms. In Experiments 1–3, membership (in-group, out-group), status of group members (modal, deviant), and either accountability to in-group or to out-group or salience of group norms were varied. Accountability and norm salience increased derogation of out-group normative (in-group deviant, out-group modal) and upgrading of in-group normative (in-group modal, out-group deviant) members. In Experiment 4, within-group differentiation reinforced in-group identification. These findings suggest that subjective group dynamics operate to bolster social identity when people judge modal and deviant in-group and out-group members. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Intergroup perception in naturally occurring groups of differential status: A social relations perspective.

This study investigated intergroup perception in well-acquainted groups. Also of interest were the effects of a naturally occurring status differential on these perceptions. The study is framed within the social relations model, which provided a measure of in-group bias as well as 3 innovative measures of out-group homogeneity. Results indicated that low-status groups consistently displayed out-group favoritism. High-status groups displayed in-group bias, but only on ratings of leadership ability. The results also provided consistent evidence of out-group homogeneity. In instances when group status moderated out-group homogeneity effects, members of the high-status groups perceived their in-group as more variable than the out-group, whereas members of the low-status groups tended to see the in-group and out-group as equally variable. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Attributional biases about the origins of attitudes: Externality, emotionality and rationality.

Pilot work and 3 studies investigated the ways people explain the origins of attitudes. Study 1 examined the use of 3 dimensions (externality, rationality, emotionality) to explain the origin of people's own, in-group, and out-group attitudes. Attributions for own attitudes were the least externally and emotionally based and the most rationally based. By comparison with the out-group, less externality, less emotionality, and more rationality also were attributed to in-group attitudes. Studies 2 and 3 examined the effects of intergroup threat on attributions for in- and out-group attitude positions. Under high threat, more externality and emotionality but less rationality were attributed to out-group attitudes than under low threat. Intergroup differentiation mediated the difference between out-group attributions under high and low threat. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A sociocultural stress, appraisal, and coping model of subjective burden and family attitudes toward patients with schizophrenia.

A sociocultural stress, appraisal, and coping model was developed to understand relatives' burden of care and negative affective attitudes toward patients with schizophrenia. Ninety-two African American and 79 White patients and a significant other (80% mothers) completed 2 10-min family problem-solving discussions. In addition, the Kreisman Rejection Scale and a global self-report rating of family burden were administered to relatives, and a self-report rating of substance use was administered to patients. Results indicated that subjective burden of care and patients' odd and unusual thinking during the family discussion each independently predicted relatives' attitudes toward patients, suggesting that negative attitudes are based in part on both patients' symptoms and perceived burden of care. African American relatives' perceived burden was also predicted by patients' substance abuse. Finally, White family members were significantly more likely than African Americans to feel burdened by and have rejecting attitudes toward their schizophrenic relative suggesting that cultural factors play an important role in determining both perceived burden and relatives' attitudes toward patients. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Role of Perceived Importance in Intergroup Contact.

Furthering G. W. Allport's (1954) 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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Who cares what the outgroup thinks? Testing an information search model of the importance individuals accord to an outgroup member's view of them during intergroup interaction.

Four studies examined whether the intensity of individuals' concern with evaluation is affected by whether they are engaged in intragroup or intergroup interaction. According to the authors' theoretical framework, the importance that individuals attach to another person's opinion is a function of how predictive that person's evaluation seems to be of their social standing and outcomes. Members of lower status groups are more invested in outgroup members' opinions with increasing perceived legitimacy of the group status difference because outgroup members are seen as better judges of the competencies necessary for success in society. Members of a higher status group are more invested in outgroup members' opinions with decreasing perceived legitimacy of the group status difference because outgroup members are seen as better judges of moral goodness. Results were generally consistent with these predictions and demonstrated that intergroup exchanges are sometimes characterized by heightened levels of the basic motivation to know one's social standing with others. Findings also revealed that the interactive effect of group status and perceived legitimacy extends to egocentric biases that contribute to tension and miscommunication in intergroup interaction. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations.

Reviews research regarding the effects of intergroup contact on ethnic relations. The investigations discussed include both intra- and cross-cultural studies involving contact between various ethnic groups. The principles and generalizations emerging from these studies are categorized under (1) opportunities for contact, (2) the principle of equal status, (3) contact with high-status representatives of a minority group, (4) cooperative and competitive factors, (5) casual vs. intimate contact, (6) institutional support, (7) personality factors, and (8) direction and intensity of initial attitude. The major generalization derived from the present review is that changes in ethnic relations do occur following intergroup contact, but the nature of this change is not necessarily in the anticipated direction; "favorable" conditions do tend to reduce prejudice, but "unfavorable" conditions may increase intergroup tension and prejudice. Ethnic attitudes may also change in their intensity, and they may be limited to specific areas of the ethnic attitude and not be generalized to other aspects of the intergroup relationships. Some practical applications are also considered. (2 p. ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Development of new group members' in-group and out-group stereotypes: Changes in perceived variability and ethnocentrism.

Changes in new members' in-group and out-group stereotypes were examined, distinguishing among three stereotype components: stereotypicality, dispersion, and ethnocentrism. Pledges in 4 sororities judged their in-group and out-groups 4 times during their 8-month induction. Overall, out-groups were judged more stereotypically than in-groups at every wave. Although out-groups were initially perceived as more dispersed than in-groups, decreased out-group dispersion resulted in a shift toward out-group homogeneity. Ethnocentrism was present at every wave but decreased because of decreased in-group positivity. The authors discuss implications of these results for existing explanations of stereotype development. It is suggested that other aspects of group socialization (R. L. Moreland & J. M. Levine, 1982) are needed to explain fully the development of intergroup perceptions for new group members. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reduction of intergroup discrimination through individuation of the out-group.

Several studies have found that the mere categorization of persons into groups is sufficient to promote intergroup discrimination. Out-group members may be convenient targets of bias because they are more deindividuated than in-group members. If so, then intergroup discrimination may be lessened through individuation of the out-group. In the 1st experiment, 72 undergraduates were divided into groups and were informed that the out-group was either unanimous in its behavior or that one member dissented from the majority. Typical levels of intergroup bias were found in the unanimous condition, but Ss did not discriminate against the out-group when an out-group member dissented. These findings were corroborated and extended in 2 subsequent experiments with 225 Ss. Ss requested assistance from an out-group that had previously frustrated them. Assistance from the out-group was found to be more effective in reducing intergroup bias when the out-group responded as individuals than when it responded as a group. Overall, results indicate that intergroup bias is related to the manner in which persons cognitively structure the out-group. Ss discriminated when the out-group was perceived to be a single entity but behaved more fairly when the out-group was more individuated. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)