Reaching across social divides deliberately: Theoretical, political, and practical implications of intergroup contact volition for intergroup relations

IF 4.8 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Social and Personality Psychology Compass Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.1111/spc3.12988
Stefania Paolini, Jake Harwood, Mark Rubin, Jonathan Huck, Kevin Dunn, John Dixon
{"title":"Reaching across social divides deliberately: Theoretical, political, and practical implications of intergroup contact volition for intergroup relations","authors":"Stefania Paolini, Jake Harwood, Mark Rubin, Jonathan Huck, Kevin Dunn, John Dixon","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The benefits of positive intergroup contact for intergroup attitudes are well‐established. Yet individual and group self‐segregation practices demonstrate that opportunities for intergroup contact are not sufficient for contact uptake; and persistent institutionalized segregation reinforces and compounds this problem. Hence, we need to understand what drives people towards and away from intergroup contact and what consequences the capacity to deliberately engage or avoid contact has for individuals, groups, and communities. This paper formally introduces the concept of <jats:italic>intergroup contact volition</jats:italic>: our perceived personal control over intergroup contact engagement and avoidance. We demonstrate this concept's theoretical, political, and practical significance by highlighting its embeddedness in both old and recent literature. We document debates around volition in early intergroup contact research and note a prolonged neglect since. After discussing reasons for that neglect, we present a detailed analysis of the concept, outlining how the idea of volition itself is contested and political, as well as the ways it intersects with broader societal power and status dynamics. We then outline pathways for future research, including investigations of when taking volition away (making contact mandated) might be helpful, intersections between psychological and human geography perspectives on volition, and connections between volition and system justification. We argue that contact volition is intimately and ultimately linked to issues of social change: support of, versus resistance to, policies promoting intergroup integration. As a result, an enhanced understanding of volition is critical to developing intergroup contact research and practice into outcomes that maximize social justice.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12988","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

The benefits of positive intergroup contact for intergroup attitudes are well‐established. Yet individual and group self‐segregation practices demonstrate that opportunities for intergroup contact are not sufficient for contact uptake; and persistent institutionalized segregation reinforces and compounds this problem. Hence, we need to understand what drives people towards and away from intergroup contact and what consequences the capacity to deliberately engage or avoid contact has for individuals, groups, and communities. This paper formally introduces the concept of intergroup contact volition: our perceived personal control over intergroup contact engagement and avoidance. We demonstrate this concept's theoretical, political, and practical significance by highlighting its embeddedness in both old and recent literature. We document debates around volition in early intergroup contact research and note a prolonged neglect since. After discussing reasons for that neglect, we present a detailed analysis of the concept, outlining how the idea of volition itself is contested and political, as well as the ways it intersects with broader societal power and status dynamics. We then outline pathways for future research, including investigations of when taking volition away (making contact mandated) might be helpful, intersections between psychological and human geography perspectives on volition, and connections between volition and system justification. We argue that contact volition is intimately and ultimately linked to issues of social change: support of, versus resistance to, policies promoting intergroup integration. As a result, an enhanced understanding of volition is critical to developing intergroup contact research and practice into outcomes that maximize social justice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有意跨越社会鸿沟:群体间接触意愿对群体间关系的理论、政治和实践影响
积极的群体间接触对群体间态度的益处是有目共睹的。然而,个人和群体的自我隔离做法表明,群体间接触的机会不足以促进接触;而持续的制度化隔离则强化和加剧了这一问题。因此,我们需要了解是什么驱使人们走向或远离群体间接触,以及刻意参与或避免接触的能力会给个人、群体和社区带来什么后果。本文正式提出了群体间接触意志的概念:我们对群体间接触的参与和回避的个人控制感知。我们强调了这一概念在新旧文献中的嵌入性,以此证明其理论、政治和实践意义。我们记录了早期群际接触研究中围绕 "意志 "展开的争论,并注意到此后对这一概念的长期忽视。在讨论了这种忽视的原因之后,我们对这一概念进行了详细分析,概述了意志这一概念本身是如何具有争议性和政治性的,以及它是如何与更广泛的社会权力和地位动态相交织的。然后,我们概述了未来研究的路径,包括调查何时剥夺自愿(强制接触)可能会有帮助,心理学和人文地理学关于自愿的观点之间的交叉,以及自愿和系统合理性之间的联系。我们认为,接触意愿最终与社会变革问题密切相关:对促进群体间融合政策的支持与抵制。因此,加强对意志的理解对于将群体间接触研究和实践发展为最大限度地实现社会公正的成果至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
Social and Personality Psychology Compass Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
2.20%
发文量
59
期刊最新文献
The role of White identity in anti‐racist allyship On the experience of goals: Differentiating goal‐generic value from goal‐specific value The unseen pillar of behavior: A review of maintenance goals Spiritual capital and spiritual entrepreneurship: The new spiritualities and the processes of subjectivation Carving to excise, carving to create: Conversations on creating and sustaining safe spaces in higher education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1