Intergroup Contact Theory

Recent developments and future directions

Loris Vezzali, Sofia Stathi, Loris Vezzali, Sofia Stathi

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781138182318
• eBook ISBN: 9781317295235
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Applied Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Intergroup contact theory has been one of the most influential theories in social psychology since it was first formulated by Gordon Allport in 1954. This volume highlights, via a critical lens, the most notable recent developments in the field, demonstrating its vitality and its capacity for reinvention and integration with a variety of seemingly distinct research areas.

In the last two decades, the research focus has been on the variables that explain why contact improves intergroup attitudes and when the contact-prejudice relationship is stronger. Current research highlights that contact is not a panacea for prejudice, but it can represent a useful tool that can contribute to the improvement of intergroup relations. The book includes coverage of a number of previously under-researched fields, which extend the full potential of contact theory within the personality, acculturation and developmental domains. The chapters also examine the methodological advances in the field and the applied implications.

The book offers a rich picture of the state of the field and future directions for research that will be invaluable to students and scholars working in social psychology and related disciplines. It aims to provide fertile ground for the development of new, exciting and dynamic research ideas in intergroup relations.

1
The Present and the Future of the Contact Hypothesis, and the Need for Integrating Research Fields

Loris Vezzali and Sofia Stathi

Key words: intergroup contact; contact hypothesis; integration of research fields; intergroup relations; prejudice reduction

There is no doubt that the contact hypothesis, proposed by Allport in his classic book The Nature of Prejudice (1954), has been remarkably influential in social psychology. The basic premise of the contact hypothesis is that contact between individuals who belong to different groups can foster the development of more positive out-group attitudes. Why is the issue of intergroup contact so popular in social psychology research? A possible answer is that prejudice and conflict remain intractable characteristics of the societies in which we live, despite attempts of politicians and policymakers to successfully implement social change. As such, contact and its effectiveness at improving out-group attitudes has been an appealing and enduring research topic for social scientists.

Probably, one of the reasons for the success of the contact hypothesis rests on its immediacy and simplicity. However, the actual finding that contact can reduce prejudice is not trivial. Before the formulation of the contact hypothesis, there was skepticism regarding the effectiveness of intergroup contact (Baker, 1934; Sumner, 1906), skepticism that some scholars still endorse (e.g. Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2005).

Initial studies provided mixed evidence for the benefits of intergroup contact. In fact, while some studies found that contact improved attitudes towards the out-group (e.g. Smith, 1943; Zeligs & Hendrickson, 1933), others did not reveal any significant effects (e.g. Horowitz, 1936; Sims & Patrick, 1936). A possible explanation for these divergent findings is that some of these initial studies were conducted in contexts that were—structurally—unfavorable to the development of positive intergroup relations. Subsequent research, conducted under more favorable conditions, provided good foundation for the development of the contact hypothesis, by showing that contact could indeed represent a key variable in the development of positive intergroup relations (Brophy, 1946; Stouffer, 1949).

Strong evidence for the effectiveness of intergroup contact was provided, for instance, by the famous studies by Deutsch and Collins (1951), which showed that following non-race-based assignment of apartments, stereotyping of Black people (among White housewives) was reduced compared to when the assignment of apartments was based on race; and by Sherif (1966), who showed that intergroup relations improved when contact between different teams was characterized by cooperation and common goals.

Williams (1947) proposed an initial formulation of contact theory, noting that contact would be more effective when relations between groups were characterized by equal status, same interests, cooperation and potential to develop more intimate friendships. Within this theoretical framework, Allport (1954) proposed his formulation of the contact hypothesis. Importantly, Allport was clearly aware that intergroup contact could also increase intergroup tension and prejudice in some situations. Therefore, he suggested that prejudice reduction would only occur when “optimal” conditions were present, and this is in our view the greatest merit of the contact hypothesis. In particular, he proposed that contact should reduce prejudice when groups meet under conditions of equal status, cooperate in order to achieve superordinate goals and when intergroup contact is supported by institutions and norms (see also Hodson & Hewstone, 2013b; Pettigrew, 1998).

After more than six decades of research, we now have consistent evidence that contact “works”. The meta-analysis by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006), including 713 independent samples from 515 studies, revealed that contact is negatively associated with prejudice, and more so when optimal conditions are present. According to the meta-analysis, contact has positive effects on out-group attitudes across several types of out-group targets (including racial groups, disabled individuals, older people, homosexual people) and is effective both among children and adults, irrespective of gender and geographical area. Notably, these effects extend beyond the contact situation and generalize to the out-group as a whole—and even to uninvolved out-groups (secondary transfer effect; see also Lolliot et al., 2013; Pettigrew, 2009).

Research on intergroup contact, especially over the last two decades, identified the mediators of contact effects, which are primarily represented by affective variables, thus showing why contact works (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). Research also uncovered several moderators, providing this way indications regarding when contact effects should be expected or likely to be stronger (Brown & Hewstone, 2005). Research culminated in various influential reviews of contact theory (e.g. Al Ramiah & Hewstone, 2013; Hewstone, 2009; Hewstone & Swart, 2011; Pettigrew, Tropp, Wagner, & Christ, 2011) and in prominent books that summarized an extremely wide corpus of studies (Dovidio, Glick, & Rudman, 2005; Hodson & Hewstone, 2013a; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011; Wagner, Tropp, Finchilescu, & Tredoux, 2008). Based on this wealth of knowledge on intergroup contact, it is highlighted that contact is not a panacea for prejudice, but it can represent a useful tool that, under some conditions, can contribute to the improvement of intergroup relations (Dixon et al., 2005; Hewstone, 2003; Hodson, Hewstone, & Swart, 2013).

From this very brief overview of the contact hypothesis, one may wonder if there is actually anything that remains to be studied in the field. Could it be that after more than 60 years of fruitful research on intergroup contact, there is nothing interesting left to explore? In other words, can research on intergroup contact still provide exciting avenues for researchers? We believe that it can, and this book aims to highlight some of the most exciting current directions in the field of intergroup contact. In fact, an analysis of research trends points to an increased interest in the field; after an initial surge of studies investigating intergroup contact, which peaked between the 1950s and 1960s, the interest of researchers declined up until the 1990s, before resurging in the 2000s and rapidly expanding in more recent years, from 2010 to present. We believe that one reason behind this renewed interest in contact is its recent developments, which uncover new theoretical as well as practical implications, and its integration with other research fields in psychology.

With these recent developments in mind, we were truly excited to have the opportunity to work on this book. Our aim has been to focus on intergroup contact theory and highlight, through a critical lens, its noteworthy recent developments, which build on theoretical, applied and methodological advances in social psychology, and are likely to shape significant future research avenues. In particular, the book takes into account recent developments in contact research by focusing on its integration with research areas that were often considered as separate fields. Integration between contact theory and other fields (outlined below), as well as an applied focus and methodological advances, can allow a more precise understanding of the complex current social reality. We wish to believe that with this book we will provide fertile ground for the development of new, dynamic and topical research ideas based on intergroup contact.

In the second chapter, Hodson, Turner and Choma discuss the integration of research on individual difference variables with intergroup contact literature, by considering the role that these individual difference variables have in shaping the effects of contact. Individual differences have generally been neglected when considering the literature on intergroup contact; however, there is a current trend of research that argues for their importance. The authors recognize this and consider a broad range of individual differences, from personality factors to social ideologies and cognitive abilities, and examine if and how they interact with contact to predict attitude improvement. Moreover, the authors take into account various populations, contexts and underlying processes before addressing the limitations of existing literature and proposing avenues for future research.

In the third chapter, González and Brown provide an integrated account of research that considers concepts from contact and acculturation literature, which have generally been detached. The authors offer a theoretical rationale as to why the contact and acculturation fields should be integrated and focus on their research program to support their arguments. Notably, they consider the relation between acculturation preferences and both direct and indirect contact experiences, by also examining with longitudinal methodologies the processes underlying the effects. Their conclusions are not limited to theoretical considerations, but also extend to policy implications that take into account both contact and acculturation findings.

In the fourth chapter, Saguy, Shchori-Eyal, Hasan-Aslih, Sobol and Dovidio review a current line of research that suggests that intergroup contact reinforces existing social inequalities and prevents social change. Their analysis reveals that, although this effect is especially likely among disadvantaged group members, it can extend to the advantaged group. In this latter case, evidence is more mixed and the authors aim to address the sometimes conflicting literature. They then present two new lines of relevant work, the first linking harmonious emotions, such as hope, to lower support for collective action, the second centering on the role of romantic relationships on feeding system justifying beliefs. By focusing on the complexity and consequences of intergroup harmony, this chapter provides important indications regarding the ironic consequences of positive contact and how they could be overcome.

In the fifth chapter, Abrams and Eller propose a new theoretical model that aims to integrate intergroup contact theory and intergroup threat theory. Although several studies have investigated the reciprocal associations between contact and threat, the two research domains have in fact been separate. The authors offer a highly innovative theoretical framework, which exposes the oversimplification of existing approaches that assume linear causal paths. They provide a more realistic account of how various types of positive and negative contact relate over time with different types of threat, by also considering the temporal frame for both contact and threats. After presenting their theoretical model and providing initial empirical evidence, the authors indicate possible avenues for future research.

In the sixth chapter, Graf and Paolini look into the effects of negative in addition to positive contact. The chapter begins by identifying reasons as to why the examination of negative contact has generally been neglected by research, while also presenting research on positivity and negativity in other psychology domains. The authors then discuss a model that advances the differential effects that contact— both positive and negative—has on category salience and out-group attitudes. The authors also present recent evidence supporting the basic tenets of the proposed model, using a wide variety of methodologies and designs, that demonstrate the prominence of negative over positive contact.

In the seventh chapter, Vezzali and Stathi provide an overview and a discussion of recent developments of the extended contact hypothesis, one of the most prominent indirect contact strategies for the reduction of prejudice. In the first part of the chapter, the authors review the original extended contact hypothesis by Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe and Ropp (1997), the theoretical accounts explaining it, the main mediating processes and evidence of its effectiveness. In the second part, the focus is on the most recent developments and, in particular, on the distinction between extended and vicarious contact, and on the importance of considering a social network perspective in the analysis of extended contact effects. Both these developments can constitute bases for more informed future research on prejudice reduction.

In the eigth chapter, Meleady and Crisp present evidence for imagined intergroup contact, a recently developed prejudice reduction indirect contact technique. After reviewing research showing that imagined contact impacts a range of intergroup outcomes, the authors consider the importance of taking research from the laboratory to the field, along with the related questions that need to be addressed. The chapter further identifies several new areas of investigation beyond intergroup relations, including applications to behavioral domains (from economics to innovation), in which imagined contact can provide a useful and effective tool.

In the ninth chapter, Cameron and Turner consider the integration of social and developmental research on intergroup contact, by reviewing evidence of the effectiveness of contact strategies among children. The chapter begins by summarizing research on the effects of contact on out-group attitudes, cross-group friendships, prosocial behavior and intergroup exclusion. The authors then discuss research on cross-group friendships among children before providing a review of interventions applying contact principles to educational settings. Finally, in addition to proposing the novel concept of “confidence in contact”, several indications of areas neglected by research are discussed, including the need for considering minority group members’ perspectives.

In the conclusion chapter, Dixon presents an analysis on the past, present and future of the contact hypothesis. In the first part of the chapter, he discusses the historical emergence and political significance of research on the contact hypothesis. He takes into account the context in which the contact hypothesis was first proposed and its role in providing scientific justification to institutional attempts to promote social change, for instance in the form of desegregation policies. The chapter then continues by highlighting how new research presented in this book has contributed to the development in the field. Finally, Dixon critically reflects on the state of contact research, also in light of recent developments, and proposes promising avenues for future research.

Importantly, all chapters include a section on future directions in the relevant area, which aims to stimulate the development of future research by discussing ideas about how contact theory can be developed further. This way, the chapters can provide a dynamic tool for scholars who are interested in not only seeing intergroup contact through traditional frameworks, but also seeking to understand how the field may shape in the future.

As we noted above, we now know that intergroup contact, as a prejudice reduction method, works, as well as when and why its effects occur. Nonetheless, the research field of intergroup contact continues to develop actively and excitingly. It finds new ways to reinvent itself and expand by integrating with other research areas. This book precisely aims to present recent developments that are likely to stimulate future research, by integrating contact with apparently distinct (although connected) research fields, and by using novel theoretical frameworks and rigorous...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• CONTENTS
• List of contributors
• 1 The present and the future of the contact hypothesis, and the need for integrating research fields
• 2 Individual differences in intergroup contact propensity and prejudice reduction
• 3 The influence of direct and extended contact on the development of acculturation preferences among majority members
• 4 The irony of harmony: past and new developments
• 5 A temporally integrated model of intergroup contact and threat (TIMICAT)
• 6 Investigating positive and negative intergroup contact: rectifying a long-standing positivity bias in the literature
• 7 The extended intergroup contact hypothesis: state of the art and future developments
• 8 A future focus for imagined contact: advances in and beyond intergroup relations
• 9 Intergroup contact among children
• 10 Concluding thoughts: the past, present and future of research on the contact hypothesis
• Index