Intergroup Contact Flashcards
What is a definition of the contact hypothesis?
If you bring groups together, they will learn about each other, and lead to positive attitude change.
What can change?
Hewstone (2003) - attitudes toward out-group (more positive, or at least less negative), perception of variability of out-group (more heterogeneous (varied) or at least less homogenous), increased forgiveness for past misdeeds, increased trust between in-group and out-group, and decreased anxiety that in-group might have about interactions with the out-group.
What did Allport (1954) suggest about contact hypothesis?
Says contact can lead to an increase in prejudice as well as its reduction. The outcome of contact will be favourable when the participants are of equal status, pursuing common goals, cooperatively, and backed by social and institutional support.
Example of contact hypothesis (Desforges et al 1991)
Learning strategy study with mental health patient confederate. Either worked alone of cooperatively. When working cooperatively, their attitude toward the group as a whole increased - get a generalisation of improved attitude.
What did Cook add to Allport’s suggestion about contact hypothesis?
Endorsed 2 other factors that were essential for positive outcomes of intergroup contact: outcome member should disconfirm stereotype, and contact need to have high acquaintance potential (get to know the person). These conditions maximise the likelihood that similarities in values and beliefs will be perceived, and will provide a basis for interpersonal attraction.
What is more contemporary evidence following the contact hypothesis?
Suggest contact hypothesis has become overly specific and has lost explanatory power (the longer the list, the harder it is to satisfy). While Allport’s four conditions facilitate, are they essential? Maybe have to reverse hypothesis - contact will usually produce positive affects. However, evidence is good for Allport’s main four conditions, but the literature overall now claims they are not essential.
What did Pettigrew and Tropp (2000) find as an update to the contact hypothesis?
Meta-analysis confirms it generally works: inverse correlation between contact and prejudice, negative conditions to be avoided are contact that is not frequent enough, contact that is threatening/anxiety provoking. However positive conclusion depends on target group. Overall contact groups are successful, but this varies depending on the group (e.g. good for gay/lesbian, bad for mental illness).
What is the intervention for the contact hypothesis concerned with causality?
Not much longitudinal research, but enough evidence to suggest that relationship runs from contact to improved attitude rather than vice versa.
How does contact work? (Pettigrew, 1998)
Points to four mechanisms:
1. Learning about the out-group.
2. Behaviour driven attitude change - cognitive dissonance, if engage in positive interaction this may lead to attitude change.
3. In-group reappraisal - rather than changing what think about out-group, think about changing relationship with in-group.
4. Generating affective ties - friendship.
Also (Dovidio et al):
5. Reducing anxiety
6. Empathy/perspective taking - being able to see things from the point of view of the out-group.
7. Changing social norms - contact intervention can change your view of out-group, shift the relationship.
What is the Extended Contact Effect? (Wright et al., 1997).
Not always necessary for the person themselves to experience with out-group member - witnessing rewarding cross-group friendships can improve intergroup attitudes.
What is social identity theory?
Argues we have individual personal identities. When think of selves in social-group members, stimulates thoughts of similarities and differences. Think of in-group positively, try to make in-group look better and out-group look worse. In-group and out-group stereotypes serve important identity functions. Threats to status or distinctiveness may be problematic.
What are limitations of the Contact Hypothesis: From SIT (Hewstone and Brown, 1986)?
- Assumption that greater knowledge reduces prejudice - Finding out about more similarities is good, but what about differences? Jaspars et al - when have lots of contact, differences become apparently.
- Interpersonal vs. intergroup contact - similarities between individuals may be positive, but between groups may be negative because results in need to reestablish a difference.
- Generalisation of attitude change - can you generalise beyond the situation of contact?
What are limitations of the contact hypothesis from social cognition (1)?
In contact situations, group membership likely to be salient, stereotypes will be activated. Suggests single contact might not be enough.
What are limitations of the contact hypothesis from social cognition (2)?
Assumption that more knowledge will improve attitudes - issue of generalisation from the individual to the group as a whole, sub-typing may occur (not result in crucial generalisation). These issues lead to the suggestion that group memberships should be de-emphasised.
What are possible solutions to different kind of recommendations?
- Decategorisation (Brewer and Miller) - get rid of the categories, process of personalisation. Only once this has happened can you introduce the idea of them belonging to a category.
- Mutual Intergroup Differentiation (Hewstone and Brown) - ignoring categories deprives groups of their social identities. Suggested “comparative interdependence” - each group view self positively and holds positive stereotypes of the out-group.
- Recategorisation (Gaertner et al) - rather than removing categories, introduce over-arching categories that include in-group & out-group. However, might not always be a subordinate category to draw upon in real life.
- Hornsey and Hogg - balance of super-ordinate identity and subgroup distinctiveness may be best. Blend two approaches.
