{"title":"Is contact among social class groups associated with legitimation of inequality? An examination across 28 countries","authors":"Salvador Vargas Salfate, Chadly Stern","doi":"10.1111/bjso.12692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Is class-based contact associated with legitimation of inequality? Drawing from the idea that people adopt beliefs predominant in groups with whom they interact, we hypothesized that upper-class contact would correspond to greater legitimation of inequality, whereas lower-class contact would correspond to lesser legitimation of inequality among lower- and upper-class individuals. We also hypothesized that middle-class individuals might possess a more precarious identity, leading lower-class contact to correspond to higher legitimation of inequality. We tested hypotheses using a nationally representative sample from Chile (<i>N</i> = 4446; Study 1), and nationally representative samples from 28 countries (<i>N</i> = 43,811; Study 2). Support for hypotheses was mixed. Upper-class contact was often associated with greater legitimation of inequality, whereas lower-class contact was frequently related to lower legitimation of inequality. Patterns emerged among most social class groups, but there was also variation across groups. We discuss potential explanations for results along with theoretical implications for class-based contact.</p>","PeriodicalId":48304,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjso.12692","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12692","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Is class-based contact associated with legitimation of inequality? Drawing from the idea that people adopt beliefs predominant in groups with whom they interact, we hypothesized that upper-class contact would correspond to greater legitimation of inequality, whereas lower-class contact would correspond to lesser legitimation of inequality among lower- and upper-class individuals. We also hypothesized that middle-class individuals might possess a more precarious identity, leading lower-class contact to correspond to higher legitimation of inequality. We tested hypotheses using a nationally representative sample from Chile (N = 4446; Study 1), and nationally representative samples from 28 countries (N = 43,811; Study 2). Support for hypotheses was mixed. Upper-class contact was often associated with greater legitimation of inequality, whereas lower-class contact was frequently related to lower legitimation of inequality. Patterns emerged among most social class groups, but there was also variation across groups. We discuss potential explanations for results along with theoretical implications for class-based contact.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of Social Psychology publishes work from scholars based in all parts of the world, and manuscripts that present data on a wide range of populations inside and outside the UK. It publishes original papers in all areas of social psychology including: • social cognition • attitudes • group processes • social influence • intergroup relations • self and identity • nonverbal communication • social psychological aspects of personality, affect and emotion • language and discourse Submissions addressing these topics from a variety of approaches and methods, both quantitative and qualitative are welcomed. We publish papers of the following kinds: • empirical papers that address theoretical issues; • theoretical papers, including analyses of existing social psychological theories and presentations of theoretical innovations, extensions, or integrations; • review papers that provide an evaluation of work within a given area of social psychology and that present proposals for further research in that area; • methodological papers concerning issues that are particularly relevant to a wide range of social psychologists; • an invited agenda article as the first article in the first part of every volume. The editorial team aims to handle papers as efficiently as possible. In 2016, papers were triaged within less than a week, and the average turnaround time from receipt of the manuscript to first decision sent back to the authors was 47 days.