Additive and multiplicative effects of different forms of positive and negative indirect intergroup contact in predicting intergroup attitudes

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL International Journal of Intercultural Relations Pub Date : 2024-11-30 DOI:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2024.102110
Tobias H. Stark , Tom Nijs , Julia Köbrich
{"title":"Additive and multiplicative effects of different forms of positive and negative indirect intergroup contact in predicting intergroup attitudes","authors":"Tobias H. Stark ,&nbsp;Tom Nijs ,&nbsp;Julia Köbrich","doi":"10.1016/j.ijintrel.2024.102110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Numerous studies found that different forms of positive <em>indirect</em> intergroup contact relate to people’s intergroup attitudes. Much less work has explored whether <em>negative</em> forms of indirect contact predict intergroup attitudes and even less evidence exists on the co-occurrence of direct and indirect forms of intergroup contact and, thus, the expected joint impact of a combination of interventions. We explore the additive effects of four types of indirect contact in predicting intergroup attitudes: extended contact, vicarious contact, mass-mediated contact, and virtual vicarious contact through social media. We also explore whether the effects of indirect contact are stronger when people have less direct contact. For each type, we measure positive and negative contact experiences. Data come from two studies (N<sub>1</sub> = 785; N<sub>2</sub> = 858) asking native Dutch respondents about indirect contact experiences with members of immigrant communities. We find that observing positive intergroup interactions in real life, on mass media, and, to a weaker extent, on social media has additive positive associations with intergroup attitudes. Positive extended contact has only an added effect in Study 1. Of the negative indirect forms of contact, only negative vicarious contact predicts outgroup attitudes. No consistent multiplicative effects appeared across the studies, suggesting that indirect contact effects are not stronger for those with less direct contact. We conclude that observing contact (vicarious contact) may be more impactful than merely knowing of it (extended contact).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48216,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Intercultural Relations","volume":"104 ","pages":"Article 102110"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Intercultural Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147176724001792","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Numerous studies found that different forms of positive indirect intergroup contact relate to people’s intergroup attitudes. Much less work has explored whether negative forms of indirect contact predict intergroup attitudes and even less evidence exists on the co-occurrence of direct and indirect forms of intergroup contact and, thus, the expected joint impact of a combination of interventions. We explore the additive effects of four types of indirect contact in predicting intergroup attitudes: extended contact, vicarious contact, mass-mediated contact, and virtual vicarious contact through social media. We also explore whether the effects of indirect contact are stronger when people have less direct contact. For each type, we measure positive and negative contact experiences. Data come from two studies (N1 = 785; N2 = 858) asking native Dutch respondents about indirect contact experiences with members of immigrant communities. We find that observing positive intergroup interactions in real life, on mass media, and, to a weaker extent, on social media has additive positive associations with intergroup attitudes. Positive extended contact has only an added effect in Study 1. Of the negative indirect forms of contact, only negative vicarious contact predicts outgroup attitudes. No consistent multiplicative effects appeared across the studies, suggesting that indirect contact effects are not stronger for those with less direct contact. We conclude that observing contact (vicarious contact) may be more impactful than merely knowing of it (extended contact).
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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
122
期刊介绍: IJIR is dedicated to advancing knowledge and understanding of theory, practice, and research in intergroup relations. The contents encompass theoretical developments, field-based evaluations of training techniques, empirical discussions of cultural similarities and differences, and critical descriptions of new training approaches. Papers selected for publication in IJIR are judged to increase our understanding of intergroup tensions and harmony. Issue-oriented and cross-discipline discussion is encouraged. The highest priority is given to manuscripts that join theory, practice, and field research design. By theory, we mean conceptual schemes focused on the nature of cultural differences and similarities.
期刊最新文献
Threats to resources and cultural values: Functional pathways to positive and negative intergroup emotions Additive and multiplicative effects of different forms of positive and negative indirect intergroup contact in predicting intergroup attitudes Israeli scientists in an American looking glass: Habitus, self-awareness and identity formation A blind spot in intergroup contact: A systematic review on predictors and outcomes of inter-minority contact experiences Acculturation in lockdown: The effects of heritage and settlement COVID-19 concern and support on well-being
×
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