White fears and native apprehensions: An integrated threat theory approach to intergroup attitudes.

Motivational and cognitive factors have been used to explain negative attitudes toward out-group members. According to the integrated threat theory of prejudice, negative intergroup attitudes are predicted by proximal factors consisting of perceived threats from out-group members; these threats, in turn, are predicted by distal factors such as perceived differences in group status or negative out-group contact. In the present study, White and First Nation people (adolescents and adults) completed measures assessing distal and proximal variables and attitudes toward members of the other ethnic group. Path analyses indicate that realistic and symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes predicted negative out-group attitudes. Many of these threats, and in some cases ethnic attitudes, were associated with negative intergroup contact, strength of in-group identity, perceptions of intergroup conflict, and perceived status inequality. Theoretical and applied implications of these findings are discussed. (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)     

Imagining intergroup contact enables member-to-group generalization.

Intergroup contact improves intergroup relations. In some cases, however, actual contact is impractical and here imagining intergroup contact (Crisp & Turner, 2009) may represent a viable alternative. While initial findings have been promising, imagined contact research has yet to confirm whether it enables a critical process involved in successful intergroup contact: member-to-group generalization. We tested the hypothesis that imagined contact, and specific enhancements to the technique, are enabling in the form of generalized contact self-efficacy. In Experiment 1 participants who imagined a positively toned encounter with a single outgroup member subsequently felt more confident about future interactions with the outgroup in general. Furthermore, imagining contact was maximally effective at achieving generalization when group versus individuating information was salient (Experiment 2) and when the imagined interaction involved an outgrouper who was typical versus atypical (Experiment 3). These findings contribute to growing support for the notion that imagined contact represents a flexible, effective tool for improving intergroup relations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions?: Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact.

The contact hypothesis states that, under the right conditions, contact between members of different groups leads to more positive intergroup relations. The authors track recent trends in contact theory to the emergence of extended, or indirect, forms of contact. These advances lead to an intriguing proposition: that simply imagining intergroup interactions can produce more positive perceptions of outgroups. The authors discuss empirical research supporting the imagined contact proposition and find it to be an approach that is at once deceptively simple and remarkably effective. Encouraging people to mentally simulate a positive intergroup encounter leads to improved outgroup attitudes and reduced stereotyping. It curtails intergroup anxiety and extends the attribution of perceivers’ positive traits to others. The authors describe the advantages and disadvantages of imagined contact compared to conventional strategies, outline an agenda for future research, and discuss applications for policymakers and educators in their efforts to encourage more positive intergroup relations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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)     

Reasons for skepticism about the efficacy of simulated social contact interventions.

Comments on Crisp and Turner (May–June 2009), who argued that imagining intergroup interactions reduces intergroup prejudice. They argued that the procedure is remarkably effective, with “significant potential application for policymakers and educators seeking to promote tolerance for social diversity” (p. 238). We believe that such interventions, although appealing to many individuals, are problematic and that the authors’ conclusions are overly optimistic. We believe that simulated contact interventions are highly unlikely to produce meaningful attitude change. In sum, we are deeply skeptical about the ability of imagined contact interventions to reduce prejudice. A single, brief, imaginary encounter with an outgroup member is unlikely to reverse or erase the psychological mechanisms that create prejudice. (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)     

Beyond the Optimal Contact Strategy: A Reality Check for the Contact Hypothesis.

The contact hypothesis proposes that interaction between members of different groups reduces intergroup prejudice if--and only if--certain optimal conditions are present. For over 50 years, research using this framework has explored the boundary conditions for ideal contact and has guided interventions to promote desegregation. Although supporting the contact hypothesis in principle, the authors critique some research practices that have come to dominate the field: (a) the prioritizing of the study of interactions occurring under rarefied conditions, (b) the reformulation of lay understandings of contact in terms of a generic typology of ideal dimensions, and (c) the use of shifts in personal prejudice as the primary measure of outcome. The authors argue that these practices have limited the contact hypothesis both as an explanation of the intergroup dynamics of desegregation and as a framework for promoting social psychological change. In so arguing, the authors look toward a complementary program of research on contact and desegregation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Have confidence in contact.

In an article in the May–June 2009 American Psychologist, we discussed a new approach to reducing prejudice and encouraging more positive intergroup relations (Crisp & Turner, 2009). We named the approach imagined intergroup contact and defined it as “the mental simulation of a social interaction with a member or members of an outgroup category” (Crisp & Turner, 2009, p. 234). Our proposition is that simply imagining contact with outgroup members can produce more positive perceptions of outgroups. In his commentary, Honeycutt noted that our “article is excellent in its premise” (p. 129), but he was critical of our decision not to discuss his own work in imagined interactions (IIs). Imagined contact is not a magic cure, and it is not a one-shot solution to the problem of prejudice. But as a first step on the road to reduced prejudice and more positive intergroup relations, it may just turn out to be invaluable. (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)     

With a little help from my cross-group friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship.

The authors induced cross-group friendship between Latinos/as and Whites to test the effects of cross-group friendship on anxiety in intergroup contexts. Cross-group friendship led to decreases in cortisol reactivity (a hormonal correlate of stress; W. R. Lovallo & T. L. Thomas, 2000) over 3 friendship meetings among participants high in race-based rejection sensitivity (R. Mendoza-Denton, G. Downey, V. J. Purdie, A. Davis, & J. Pietrzak, 2002) and participants high in implicit prejudice (A. G. Greenwald, B. A. Nosek, & M. R. Banaji, 2003). Cross-group partners' prior intergroup contact moderated the relationship between race-based rejection sensitivity and cortisol reactivity. Following the manipulation, participants kept daily diaries of their experiences in an ethnically diverse setting. Implicitly prejudiced participants initiated more intergroup interactions during the diary period after making a cross-group friend. Participants who had made a cross-group friend reported lower anxious mood during the diary period, which compensated for greater anxious mood among participants high in race-based rejection sensitivity. These findings provide experimental evidence that cross-group friendship is beneficial for people who are likely to experience anxiety in intergroup contexts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Expect the unexpected: Failure to anticipate similarities leads to an intergroup forecasting error.

People often expect interactions with outgroup members to go poorly, but little research examines the accuracy of these expectations, reasons why expectations might be negatively biased, and ways to bring expectations in line with experiences. The authors found that intergroup interactions were more positive than people expected them to be (Pilot Study, Study 1). One reason for this intergroup forecasting error is that people focus on their dissimilarities with outgroup members (Study 1). When the authors focused White participants' attention on the ways they were similar to a Black participant, their intergroup expectations changed to match their positive experiences (Studies 2 & 3). Regardless of focus, Whites expected to have pleasant intragroup interactions, and they were accurate (Study 4). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The loyal member effect: On the preference for ingroup members who engage in exclusive relations with the ingroup.

The goal of this article was to investigate an indirect form of intergroup differentiation in children in the context of racial attitudes: the preference for ingroup members who interact positively with other ingroup members rather than with outgroup members. Study 1 confirmed this general hypothesis with preschool and 1st-grade children, demonstrating that respondents preferred the ingroup member who played only with other ingroup members, evaluated this child more positively, and felt more similar to him or her. Studies 2 and 3 tested the boundary conditions of the phenomenon. Study 4 analyzed developmental changes demonstrating that the effect is no longer observed among 9- to 11-year-old children. Overall, these studies suggest that engaging in positive interactions with the outgroup might have its costs in terms of a relative devaluation and rejection by one's peers. Results are discussed by stressing the importance of intragroup processes for the regulation of intergroup relations among very young children. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Children's perceptions of friendships as supportive relationships.

Assessed 122 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th graders' perceptions of the social support provided by friends. During individual interviews, Ss were asked about the frequency of emotional support or intimate self-disclosure, tangible support or prosocial behavior, and other types of support provided by a particular friend. Ss were also asked about the frequency of conflicts with the friend and the frequency of supportive interactions and conflicts with a classmate who was only an acquaintance. Factor analyses revealed an increase with grade in the differentiation between the support and conflict dimensions of friendship and acquaintanceship. At all grades, Ss perceived friends as more supportive than acquaintances, but explanations for the lack of support from acquaintances changed with grade. Sixth graders often gave personal attributions (e.g., saying that the acquaintances were selfish or hostile). Eighth graders favored more situational attributions (e.g., saying that they had few supportive interactions with acquaintances because they rarely came in contact with them). The potential value of perceived-support measures in research on the consequences of friendship is discussed. (27 ref) (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)     

Understanding the impact of cross-group friendship on interactions with novel outgroup members.

We examined the cognitive processes that might account for the impact of cross-group friendship on novel intergroup situations. Study 1 demonstrated that closeness with outgroup members predicts an association of the outgroup with the self, both in terms of the group itself and the personality traits stereotypically associated with the group. In Studies 2 and 3, we manipulated the accessibility of either a same-group friendship or cross-group friendship. Participants who described a cross-group friend exhibited a greater association of the friend's ethnicity with the self, and this association mediated the effects of friendship accessibility on positive expectations for intergroup contact (Study 2) and adaptive hormonal responses during a real interaction with a novel outgroup member (Study 3). These findings imply that cross-group friendship improves novel intergroup experiences to the degree that outgroups become associated with the self. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reducing explicit and implicit outgroup prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety.

In 4 studies, the authors investigated mediators of the effect of cross-group friendship. In Study 1, cross-group friendship among White elementary school children predicted more positive explicit outgroup attitude toward South Asians, mediated by self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. In Study 2, cross-group friendship and extended contact among White and South Asian high school students positively predicted explicit outgroup attitude, mediated by self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Study 3 replicated these findings in a larger independent sample. In all 3 studies, exposure to the outgroup positively predicted implicit outgroup attitude. Study 4 further showed that self-disclosure improved explicit outgroup attitude via empathy, importance of contact, and intergroup trust. The authors discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings, which argue for the inclusion of self-disclosure as a key component of social interventions to reduce prejudice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: Alternative accounts and underlying processes.

Although intergroup contact is one of the most prominent interventions to reduce prejudice, the generalization of contact effects is still a contentious issue. This research further examined the rarely studied secondary transfer effect (STE; Pettigrew, 2009), by which contact with a primary outgroup reduces prejudice toward secondary groups that are not directly involved in the contact. Across 3 cross-sectional studies conducted in Cyprus (N = 1,653), Northern Ireland (N = 1,973), and Texas (N = 275) and 1 longitudinal study conducted in Northern Ireland (N = 411), the present research sought to systematically rule out alternative accounts of the STE and to investigate 2 potential mediating mechanisms (ingroup reappraisal and attitude generalization). Results indicated that, consistent with the STE, contact with a primary outgroup predicts attitudes toward secondary outgroups, over and above contact with the secondary outgroup, socially desirable responding, and prior attitudes. Mediation analyses found strong evidence for attitude generalization but only limited evidence for ingroup reappraisal as an underlying process. Two out of 3 tests of a reverse model, where contact with the secondary outgroup predicts attitudes toward the primary outgroup, provide further evidence for an indirect effect through attitude generalization. Theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed, and directions for future research are identified. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Back in the real world.

Comments on Crisp and Turner’s (May–June 2009) research on “imagined intergroup contact” (p. 231). Its goals of reducing prejudice are laudable, especially with a motivation to “prepare people to engage outgroups with an open mind” (p. 231). The method is relatively simple, easy, and inexpensive to use. Consequently, it has a great deal of flexibility and can be fairly easily implemented almost anywhere. It also reflects the widespread tendency of mainstream social psychology to focus almost entirely on individualistic intrapsychic phenomena. (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)