The secondary transfer effect proposes that contact with an outgroup impacts attitudes towards another, secondary outgroup. For positive contact, three pathways have been identified for the effect: attitude generalization, multiculturalism, and ingroup reappraisal (deprovincialization hypothesis, operationalized here as national pride). Research on negative secondary transfer effects is still scarce. Using data from a German nationally representative survey, we investigated negative secondary transfer effects from foreigners to refugees. The three pathways were compared while considering positive and refugee contact. Negative and positive secondary transfer effects both occurred (partially) mediated via attitude generalization and multiculturalism but not via national pride. We conclude there might be a risk of generalizing prejudice from unrelated negative experiences via these two mechanisms. Research on forced migration and intergroup contact should further explore them with the ultimate goal of preventing negative secondary transfer effects. Longitudinal or experimental research is needed to address causality, ideally involving various outgroups.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
2.
AndrewsN. P.YogeeswaranK.WalkerM. J.HewstoneM. (2018). Effect of valenced vicarious online contact on out-group prejudice and perceived out-group variability: A study of online poker. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48, 571–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12548
3.
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
4.
BarlowF. K.PaoliniS.PedersenA.HornseyM. J.RadkeH. R. M.HarwoodJ.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
5.
BrylkaA.Jasinskaja-LahtiI.MähönenT. A. (2016). The majority influence on interminority attitudes: The secondary transfer effect on interminority attitudes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 50, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.12.007
ByrneB. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315757421
8.
CowlingM. M.AndersonJ. R.FergusonR. (2019). Prejudice-relevant correlates of attitudes towards refugees: A meta-analysis. Journal of Refugee Studies, 32, 502–524. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fey062
9.
EbbelerC. (2020). Lateral attitude change in social groups. The role of group similarity and individual differences [Doctoral dissertation]. Rhenish Friedrich Wilhelm University of Bonn. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hbz:5-63557
10.
GESIS – Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften. (2017). Allgemeine Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften ALLBUS 2016. [German General Social Survey 2016] (GESIS Datenarchiv, Köln. ZA5250 Datenfile Version 2.1.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12796
11.
GESIS – Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften. (2018). Allgemeine Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften ALLBUS 2016 – Zusatzdatensatz offene Frage “Ausländer.” [German General Social Survey 2016 Supplementary Data Set Open Question ‘Foreigners’] (GESIS Datenarchiv, Köln. ZA5254 Datenfile Version 1.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13035)
12.
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
13.
HarwoodJ.PaoliniS.JoyceN.RubinM.ArroyoA. (2011). Secondary transfer effects from imagined contact: Group similarity affects the generalization gradient. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X524263
HodsonG.CrispR. J.MeleadyR.EarleM. (2018). Intergroup contact as an agent of cognitive liberalization. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 523–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617752324
HövermannA.MessnerS. F.ZickA. (2015). Anomie, marketization, and prejudice toward purportedly unprofitable groups: Elaborating a theoretical approach on anomie-driven prejudices. Acta Sociologica, 58, 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699315587988
18.
Jasinskaja-LahtiI.VezzaliL.RantaM.PacilliM. G.GiacomantonioM.PagliaroS. (2020). Conditional secondary transfer effect: The moderating role of moral credentials and prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220940401
19.
JoyceN.HarwoodJ. (2014). Improving intergroup attitudes through televised vicarious intergroup contact: Social cognitive processing of ingroup and outgroup information. Communication Research, 41, 627–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212447944
20.
KotzurP. F.WagnerU. (2021). The dynamic relationship between contact opportunities, positive and negative intergroup contact, and prejudice: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120, 418–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000258
21.
LissitsaS.KushnirovichN. (2018). Secondary transfer effect of positive and negative online contact between groups involved in high-intensity conflict. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 67, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.10.001
22.
LissitsaS.KushnirovichN. (2020). Is negative the new positive? Secondary transfer effect of exposure to LGBT portrayals in TV entertainment programs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 50, 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12644
23.
LolliotS.SchmidK.HewstoneM.Al RamiahA.TauschN.SwartH. (2013). Generalized effects of intergroup contact: The secondary transfer effect. In HodsonG.HewstoneM. (Eds.), Advances in intergroup contact (pp. 81–112). Psychology Press.
24.
MähönenT. A.Jasinskaja-LahtiI. (2016). Ramifications of positive and negative contact experiences among remigrants from Russia to Finland. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22, 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000059
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2017). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide (Version 8). Muthén & Muthén.
27.
NevittJ.HancockG. R. (2001). Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation modeling. Structural equation modeling, 8(3), 353–377. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_2
28.
PaoliniS.HarwoodJ.RubinM. (2010). Negative intergroup contact makes group memberships salient: Explaining why intergroup conflict endures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1723–1738. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210388667
29.
PettigrewT. F. (2009). Secondary transfer effect of contact: Do intergroup contact effects spread to noncontacted outgroups?Social Psychology, 40, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335.40.2.55
30.
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
31.
RennerW.ThomasA.MikulajovaM.NewmanD. (2017). Threat perception and modern racism as possible predictors of attitudes towards asylum seekers: Comparative findings from Austria, Germany, and Slovakia. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 7. https://doi.org/10.18533/ijbsr.v7i12.1081
32.
SparkmanD. (2020). Multicultural experiences and the secondary transfer effect of intercultural attitudes. Social Psychology, 51, 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000414
33.
TauschN.HewstoneM.KenworthyJ.PsaltisC.SchmidK.PopanJ.CairnsE.HughesJ. (2010). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: Alternative accounts and underlying processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 282–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018553
34.
ThomsenJ. P. F.RafiqiA. (2017). When does superficial inter-group contact reduce antiforeigner sentiment? Negative contact as an essential condition. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 59, 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715217744598
35.
ThomsenJ. P. F.RafiqiA. (2019). Intergroup contact and its right-wing ideological constraint. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45, 2739–2757. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1493915
36.
ÜnverH.CakalH.GulerM.TroppL. (2021). Support for rights of Syrian refugees in Turkey: The role of secondary transfer effects in intergroup contact. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2562
37.
Van der LindenM.HoogheM.de VroomeT.van LaarC. (2017). Extending trust to immigrants: Generalized trust, cross-group friendship and anti-immigrant sentiments in 21 European societies. PLoS One, 12, Article e0177369. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177369
38.
VerkuytenM.ThijsJ.BekhuisH. (2010). Intergroup contact and ingroup reappraisal: Examining the deprovincialization thesis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73, 398–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272510389015
39.
VezzaliL.Di BernardoG. A.CoccoV. M.StathiS.CapozzaD. (2021). Reducing prejudice in the society at large: A review of the secondary transfer effect and directions for future research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15, Article e12583. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12583
40.
WagnerU.BeckerJ. C.ChristO.PettigrewT. F.SchmidtP. (2012). A longitudinal test of the relation between German nationalism, patriotism, and outgroup derogation. European Sociological Review, 28, 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcq066
41.
WasmerM.BaumannH. (2018). German general social survey 2016 (English translation of the German “ALLBUS” Questionnaire). GESIS – Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften. https://www.gesis.org/allbus/inhalte-suche/frageboegen
42.
ZickA.KüpperB.HövermannA. (2011). Intolerance, prejudice and discrimination. A European report. Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation.
43.
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.
