The Upside Flashcards
(36 cards)
What is the contact hypothesis?
ALLPORT 1954
- hypothesis suggest that contact between groups can reduce prejudice under certain conditions.
What are the four aspects of the contact hypothesis?
Equal status: The groups must interact on an equal footing.
Cooperation: The groups must work together towards a common goal.
Personal relationships: Opportunities for direct, personal interactions can foster positive attitudes.
Institutional support: Policies and practices should promote positive Intergroup contact.
Tell me about Pettigrew and Tropp (2006)
Conducted a meta-analysis of 515 studies involving 250,089 participants and found that intergroup contact can reduce prejudice (effect size of r = .23).
*The prejudice reduction was larger under Allport’s optimal contact conditions. *
What are the challenges and models for contact settings?
Decategorised Contact Model (Brewer & Miller, 1984)
Reduce group category salience to view individuals as unique, lowering intergroup prejudice.
Challenge: Generalizing positive experiences to the broader outgroup.
Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000)
Dissolve group boundaries to form a new, inclusive ingroup.
Mutual Intergroup Differentiation Model (Brown & Hewstone, 2005)
Retain group categories but foster positive attitudes in non-threatening settings.
Dual-Identity Model (Gaertner et al., 1999)
Emphasize both common ingroup and subgroup memberships, useful in majority-minority contexts.
Tell me about Decategorised Contact Model (Brewer and Miller., 1984)
= proposes reducing the salience of group categories during contact to encourage viewing individuals as unique, reducing intergroup prejudice.
= The challenge is generalising positive contact experiences to the broader outgroup.
Tell me about Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner & Dovidio., 2000):
Encourages dissolving group boundaries to create a new, inclusive ingroup.
Tell me about Mutual Intergroup Differentiation Model (Brown & Hewstone., 2005):
Retains group categories but provides non-threatening settings and encourages positive attitudes towards outgroup members.
Tell me about Dual-Identity Model (Gaertner et al., 1999):
Emphasises the importance of both common ingroup and subgroup memberships, beneficial for majority-minority settings.
What are the 4 different intergroup contact settings ?
- No groups
- one group
- two groups
- 2 in 1 groups
Tell me about a ‘no groups’ intergroup contact setting?
Participants interact as individuals without any group affiliation.
Aim: To observe interactions without any group biases or dynamics influencing behavior.
Tell me about a ‘one group’ intergroup contact setting?
Participants are all considered as part of a single, unified group.
Aim: To foster a sense of common identity and observe its impact on cooperation and social cohesion.
Tell me about a ‘two groups’ intergroup contact setting?
Participants are divided into two distinct groups.
Aim: To study intergroup dynamics, competition, cooperation, and potential biases.
Tell me about a ‘two-in-one groups’ intergroup contact setting?
Participants are divided into two subgroups but are made to feel part of a larger, overarching group.
Aim: To examine how a superordinate identity can reduce intergroup conflict and promote cooperation.
What are the experimental findings of intergroup contact settings?
2 studies
Gaertner et al. (1999)
Two groups vs one group
Cooperation vs no
interdependence
Ingroup bias reduced both by
one group representation and
by cooperation
Gonzalez & Brown (2006)
Individual vs one group vs dual
identity
Majority vs minority groups
Contact effective, but
Generalised ingroup bias only
reduced for minorities under dual
identity
Tell me about Gaertner et al. (1999)
Two groups vs one group
Cooperation vs no
interdependence
Ingroup bias reduced both by
one group representation and
by cooperation
Tell me about Gonzalez & Brown (2006)
Individual vs one group vs dual
identity
Majority vs minority groups
Contact effective, but
Generalised ingroup bias only
reduced for minorities under dual
identity
What does the lecture say about Intergroup contact in the field ?
Disadvantage of survey research in the field: correlational evidence
Does contact reduce prejudice?
Or does prejudice reduce contact?
Longitudinal studies help to establish temporal precedence: better
indicator for causality
Challenges
Attrition!
Need to keep ptn in the study for “long enough”
Need to be able to match data across time points
Intergroup contact in the fielf : Studies
2 studies
Example study 1: Binder et al. (2009)
1380 school students from 3 countries
Compared attitudes among ethnic majority and minority members
Two contact and prejudice measurements, 6 months apart
Effects over time in both directions (c p & p c)
Contact did not work for minority members!
Possible reason: contact did not reduce intergroup anxiety for minority
members
Example study 2: Swart et al. (2011)
South African context: apartheid labels still persist
331 “Coloured” junior high school students and their attitudes towards “Whites”
Three contact and prejudice measurements, 6 months apart
Effects over time in both directions
Complex effects work best in the direction from contact to prejudice
E.g., contact increased empathy, which in turn improved attitudes and decreased
hostile tendencies.
Tell me about Binder et al. (2009)
1380 school students from 3 countries
Compared attitudes among ethnic majority and minority members
Two contact and prejudice measurements, 6 months apart
Effects over time in both directions (c p & p c)
Contact did not work for minority members!
Possible reason: contact did not reduce intergroup anxiety for minority
members
Tell me about Swart et al. (2011)
South African context: apartheid labels still persist
331 “Coloured” junior high school students and their attitudes towards “Whites”
Three contact and prejudice measurements, 6 months apart
Effects over time in both directions
Complex effects work best in the direction from contact to prejudice
E.g., contact increased empathy, which in turn improved attitudes and decreased
hostile tendencies.
Tell me about Interventions in the Classroom?
study given
E.g. Cameron & Rutland (2006)
Aim: improve non-disabled children’s attitudes towards disabled children
“Extended contact hypothesis”
Story-telling intervention designed for primary school
Stories are about cross-group friendships with group discussion afterwards
Small-scale intervention to last for 6 weeks
Tell me about Helping Behaviour : Bystander Intervention
(1) Diffusion of responsibility: someone else will do it
(2) Audience inhibition: fear of social blunders
(3) Social influence: what are the others doing?
These effects add up to result in “bystander apathy”: Latané
& Darley (1976
What are the factors that result in bystander apathy ?
Latane & Darley (1976)
(1) Diffusion of responsibility: someone else will do it
(2) Audience inhibition: fear of social blunders
(3) Social influence: what are the others doing?
Tell me about Latane & Darley (1976)
Design: 2x2 + control
Elaborate cover story:
Experimenter is seen
on screen having an
accident
Ptn is sitting in a
cubicle with a camera
and a monitor
Actual manipulation:
camera on/off &
monitor on/off
In the graph: 2
conditions collapsed
into 1
(on+off = off+on)
