Intergroup Contact

Definition of Intergroup Contact

Intergroup contact refers to interactions between individuals from different social groups, which can include racial, ethnic, or religious groups.
Can be vary brief conversations or more intimate friendships.

Intergroup Contact Theory (Contact Hypothesis)

Contact theory suggests that intergroup contact can potentially reduce prejudice and improve relations between different social groups.

Historical Context of Contact Theory

Contact theory arose from psychological evidence indicating the negative effects of segregated schooling. 1950s-60’s. (African American and white American divide)
Key inquiry: Can a positive interaction with an individual influence the overall perception of the entire out-group?

Criteria for Positive Intergroup Contact (Allport, 1954)

1. Social Norms: There should be support from authorities in favour of intergroup contact.
2. High Acquaintance Potential: Opportunities should be provided for intimate and meaningful interactions. - not superficial.
3. Equal Status: Participants in the contact must be on an equal footing.
4. Cooperative Interdependence: Intergroup collaboration should be necessary and encouraged - avoid competition.
- The Robbers Cave experiment,- Sherif 1950s, studied intergroup conflict and cooperation among 22 boys in Oklahoma. Initially separated into two groups, they developed group identities. Introducing competitive tasks led to hostility between groups. Later, cooperative tasks reduced this conflict, highlighting the role of shared goals in resolving group tensions.

Mechanisms of How Contact Works (Four Processes of Change, Pettigrew, 1998)

Learning About the Out-group
- Rothbart & John (1985) noted that stereotype-disconfirming behaviour occurs under certain conditions:
  - The behaviour of out group must contrast with stereotypes and be strongly linked to the individual’s identity.
  - The contact must occur frequently across various contexts.
  - The out-group members involved should be perceived as typical representatives of their group.
Behaviour Change
- Contact serves as a benign form of behaviour modification that can lead to changes in attitudes.
- The cognitive dissonance between existing prejudices and new behaviours can compel individuals to revise their attitudes (Aronson & Patnoe 1997).
- Frequent and varied contact encourages this process (Jackman & Crane 1986).
Generating Affective Ties
- Anxiety often hinders willingness to engage with out-group members (Levin & Hogg, 2010). Key fears include:
  - Fear of negative evaluation by out-group members.
  - Fear of negative evaluation from one’s in-group for associating with out-group members.
  - Concerns about negative psychological or behavioural outcomes (e.g., discomfort or perception of danger of others).
- Intergroup anxiety leads to avoidance of contact, reinforcing negative behaviours. - Stephan & Stephan 1985 - anxiety can lead to a narrowed focus of attention and simplified stereotyping.
- Positive interactions can disrupt this cycle by fostering mutual self-disclosure, empathy, and friendships.
  - Pettigrew & Tropp (2000) estimated that around 29% of the effect of contact is mediated through a reduction of anxiety.
In-group Reappraisal
- Increased contact with out-groups has been associated with a reduction in in-group pride (Pettigrew, 1997).
- Contact can lead to the redefinition of in-group norms and boundaries.

Psychological Factors Undermining the Impact of Contact

Cognitive Processes Resulting in Stereotype Inertia
- our brains often resist changing stereotypes, even when we encounter new information that challenges stereotypes, we would explain this as an ‘exception’
  - Attributions (e.g., the exception that proves the rule) (Johnston & Hewstone, 1992).
  - Singular stereotype-disconfirming experiences lead to more stereotyping, however if you encounter many different people who act in ways that challenge the stereotype, more likely to change your attitude and stereotype about entire group.
  - 2. Informal Segregation
- Interaction is often challenging to arrange; simple contact does not enhance intergroup relations as shown by Sherif (1966).
- Example: Group members may avoid contact during shared meals, leading to further conflict rather than resolution.
- Notable findings from Sherif: Contact better facilitated through goal interdependence, which fosters engagement.
- Case Studies:
  - Beaches in post-apartheid South Africa revealed homogeneous spaces where interactions were largely intra-racial (Dixon & Durrheim, 2003).
  - Study in an English university cafeteria showed over 50% of customers needed to relocate to create an integrated environment (Clack et al., 2005).

Contact Interactions and Place-related Identities

People invest identity into places, perceiving them as significant rather than neutral.
white south African interviewees report attachment to beach, which was associated with relaxation, laid back, freedom for kids to play. But desegregation can be viewed as identity-threatening as associated with loss of a cherished environment, to fear and hyper vigilance - Dixon & Durrheim, 2003

Salience of Group Memberships in Contact Encounters

The categorization of self and others during interactions is critical: salience can be manipulated through three strategies:

Decategorisation: Diminishing the significance of group identities during contact.
Re-categorisation: Emphasizing a new common superordinate group identity. - us and them becomes ‘we’
Dual Identity: Recognizing both original and new identities can facilitate contact.

Decategorisation allows for generalization of attitudes for successful intergroup relations; however, this requires some category salience (Brewer & Miller, 1984).
Re-categorisation (Gaertner et al., 1989) suggests shifting from ‘us & them’ to ‘we’. Contact based on a shared identity improves outcomes but may threaten subordinate identities (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000).
Contact should promote positive distinctiveness within cooperative settings (Hewstone & Brown, 1986).

Summary: Challenges in Effective Contact

Cognitive processes complicate the acceptance of stereotype-disconfirming information (e.g., subtyping).
Social processes like informal segregation and identity threat undermining fruitful contact must be acknowledged.
Complexities arise when considering how group memberships are salient during interactions, especially regarding acknowledgment of minority and common superordinate identities.

Minority Perspectives on Contact

Research shows different experiences for minorities during interactions compared to majority groups (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).
Study by Shelton (2003): Explored minorities' anticipation of prejudice during interactions.

Contact and Social Change from Minority Perspectives

A study designed by Dixon et al (2007) indicated that positive interactions with whites decreased Black South Africans' support for social policies aimed at addressing inequality.
Reflects a philosophical concern: focusing primarily on individual prejudice may overlook broader intergroup relations and risks reinforcing systemic discrimination.

Study Example: Design and Results - Saguy et al 2009

Group Allocation:
- Participants organized into groups of three with identifiers (t-shirts) signifying two conditions: High power versus Low power.
Group Tasks:
- Discussion topics focused either on inter-group commonalities or differences.
Findings:
- Those in the commonality condition displayed more favorable inter-group attitudes and were less concerned with inequalities.
- Disadvantaged groups hoped for fairness post-discussion, but often felt disappointed by continued biases from higher power group members.

Community Psychology Perspectives on Contact Theory

Consider different analytical levels: individual, community interactions, and societal structural dynamics as they interplay.
Investigate how Contact Theory engages with individual experiences, community dynamics, and shifts in social structures effectively.