In a longitudinal two-wave study we examined the effects of positive and negative intergroup contact on outgroup attitudes in participants who perceived positive, negative, or ambivalent group stereotypes. We focused on stereotype-consistent contact, occurring when the valence of participants’ contact matches the valence of the perceived group stereotype (e.g., negative–negative), and on stereotype-inconsistent contact, occurring when the valence of contact contradicts the valence of the group stereotype (e.g., positive–negative). In relations of the Czech majority (N = 890) with two distinctly stereotyped minorities, the Roma and the Vietnamese, stereotype-inconsistent contact predicted changes in attitudes better than stereotype-consistent contact. In the case of negatively stereotyped groups, positive intergroup contact is a viable way to improve attitudes. For positively stereotyped groups, negative contact can worsen attitudes, while positive contact does not have any attitude-improving effect. Interventions aimed at improving outgroup attitudes need to be applied with caution, considering the valence of group stereotypes.
AbersonC. L. (2015). Positive intergroup contact, negative intergroup contact, and threat as predictors of cognitive and affective dimensions of prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 743–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214556699
2.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
3.
AndersonN. H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 78, 171–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030834
4.
Anonymous. (2014). Details omitted for double-blind reviewing.
5.
ÁrnadóttirK.LolliotS.BrownR.HewstoneM. (2018). Positive and negative intergroup contact: Interaction not asymmetry. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 784–800. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2365
6.
BarghJ. A.ChenM.BurrowsL. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230
7.
BarlowF. K.PaoliniS.PedersenA.HornseyM. J.RadkeH. R. M.HarwoodJ.RubinM.SibleyC. G. (2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1629–1643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212457953
8.
BekhuisH.RuiterS.CoendersM. (2013). Xenophobia among youngsters: The effect of inter-ethnic contact. European Sociological Review, 29, 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcr057
BikmenN. (2011). Asymmetrical effects of contact between minority groups: Asian and Black students in a small college. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 186–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023230
BrownR.EllerA.LeedsS.StaceK. (2007). Intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 692–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.384
13.
BrownR.HewstoneM. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5
ClarkA. E.KashimaY. (2007). Stereotypes help people connect with others in the community: A situated functional analysis of the stereotype consistency bias in communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1028–1039. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1028
16.
CottrellC. A.NeubergS. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: A sociofunctional threat-based approach to “prejudice”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 770–789. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.770
17.
CrandallC. S.EshlemanA.O’BrienL. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.359
18.
CsepeliG.SimonD. (2004). Construction of Roma identity in Eastern and Central Europe: Perception and self-identification. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30, 129–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183032000170204
19.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631
20.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 61–149). Elsevier.
21.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.KwanV. S. Y.GlickP.DemoulinS.LeyensJ.-P.BondM. H.CroizetJ.-C.EllemersN.SleebosE.HtunT. T.KimH.-J.MaioG.PerryJ.PetkovaK.TodorovV.Rodríguez-BailónR.MoralesE.MoyaM.. . . ZieglerR. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X314935
22.
DasguptaN.GreenwaldA. G. (2001). On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 800–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.800
23.
DijksterhuisA.van KnippenbergA. (1995). Memory for stereotype-consistent and stereotype-inconsistent information as a function of processing pace. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 689–693. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250607
ErberR.FiskeS. T. (1984). Outcome dependency and attention to inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 709–726. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.4.709
26.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
27.
FinkelS. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. SAGE.
28.
FiskeS. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.6.889
29.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
30.
FiskeS. T.LinM. H.NeubergS. L. (1999). The continuum model: Ten years later. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 231–254). Guilford Press.
31.
FiskeS. T.NeubergS. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60317-2
32.
GocłowskaM. A.CrispR. J. (2013). On counter-stereotypes and creative cognition: When interventions for reducing prejudice can boost divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.001
33.
GoodrichB.GabryJ.AliI.BrillemanS. (2018). rstanarm: Bayesian applied regression modeling via Stan (R package Version 2.17.4) [Computer software]. http://mc-stan.org/
34.
GrafS.PaoliniS. (2017). Investigating positive and negative intergroup contact. In VezzaliL.StathiS. (Eds.), Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 92–113). Taylor & Francis.
35.
GrafS.PaoliniS.RubinM. (2014). Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 536–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2052
36.
HaddockG.ZannaM. P.EssesV. M. (1993). Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1105–1118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1105
37.
HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J.RuvoloC. M. (1990). Stereotype-based expectancies: Effects on information processing and social behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 35–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb01922.x
38.
HardinC. D.ConleyT. D. (2001). A relational approach to cognition: Shared experience and relationship affirmation in social cognition. In MoskowitzG. B. (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition (pp. 3–17). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39.
HaywardL. E.TroppL. R.HornseyM. J.BarlowF. K. (2017). Toward a comprehensive understanding of intergroup contact: Descriptions and mediators of positive and negative contact among majority and minority groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216685291
HodsonG.TurnerR. N.ChomaB. L. (2017). Individual differences in intergroup contact propensity and prejudice reduction. In VezzaliL.StathiS. (Eds.), Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 8–30). Routledge.
42.
KelmanH. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200275800200106
43.
KundaZ.SinclairL. (1999). Motivated reasoning with stereotypes: Activation, application, and inhibition. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1001_2
44.
LinM. H.KwanV. S. Y.CheungA.FiskeS. T. (2005). Stereotype content model explains prejudice for an envied outgroup: Scale of Anti-Asian American Stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271320
45.
MacraeC. N.HewstoneM.GriffithsR. J. (1993). Processing load and memory for stereotype-based information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420230107
46.
MunniksmaA.StarkT. H.VerkuytenM.FlacheA.VeenstraR. (2013). Extended intergroup friendships within social settings: The moderating role of initial outgroup attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 752–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213486207
47.
MunroG. D.DittoP. H. (1997). Biased assimilation, attitude polarization, and affect in reactions to stereotype-relevant scientific information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 636–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297236007
PaluckE. L.GreenS. A.GreenD. P. (2018). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25
50.
PaoliniS.McIntyreK. (2019). Bad is stronger than good for stigmatized, but not admired outgroups: Meta-analytical tests of intergroup valence asymmetry in individual-to-group generalization experiments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23, 3–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317753504
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
53.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2013). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. Psychology Press.
54.
RichardsZ.HewstoneM. (2001). Subtyping and subgrouping: Processes for the prevention and promotion of stereotype change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 52–73. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_4
55.
RoweL.GoodmanS. (2014). “A stinking filthy race of people inbred with criminality”: A discourse analysis of prejudicial talk about Gypsies in discussion forums. Romani Studies, 24, 25–42. https://doi.org/10.3828/rs.2014.2
56.
SeibtB.FörsterJ. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance: How self-stereotypes influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.1.38
57.
ShermanJ. W.FrostL. A. (2000). On the encoding of stereotype-relevant information under cognitive load. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200261003
58.
StangorC.McMillanD. (1992). Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-incongruent information: A review of the social and social developmental literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 42–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.42
59.
StathiS.VezzaliL.Di BernardoG. A.TroppL. (2020). Do they want contact with us? The role of intergroup contact metaperceptions on positive contact and attitudes. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/10.1002/casp.2452
SwartH.HewstoneM.ChristO.VociA. (2011). Affective mediators of intergroup contact: A three-wave longitudinal study in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1221–1238. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024450
62.
TroppL. R.PettigrewT. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16, 951–957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01643.x
63.
VehtariA.GabryJ.YaoY.GelmanA. (2019). loo: Efficient leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC for Bayesian models (R package Version 2.1.0) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=loo
64.
WigboldusD. H. J.DijksterhuisA.van KnippenbergA. (2003). When stereotypes get in the way: Stereotypes obstruct stereotype-inconsistent trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 470–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.470
65.
ZingoraT. (2014). Roma and Vietnamese through the eyes of majority group: The role of threat in the relationship between intergroup contact and attitudes (Unpublished master’s thesis). Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
66.
ZingoraT.GrafS. (2019). Marry who you love: Intergroup contact with gay people and another stigmatized minority is related to voting on the restriction of gay rights through threat. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49, 684–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12627
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
