How prototypical are we compared to them? The role of the group relative prototypicality in explaining the path from intergroup contact to collective action
Veronica Margherita Cocco, Sofia Stathi, Alice Lucarini, Saeed Keshavarzi, Ali Ruhani, Fateme Ebrahimi, Loris Vezzali
{"title":"How prototypical are we compared to them? The role of the group relative prototypicality in explaining the path from intergroup contact to collective action","authors":"Veronica Margherita Cocco, Sofia Stathi, Alice Lucarini, Saeed Keshavarzi, Ali Ruhani, Fateme Ebrahimi, Loris Vezzali","doi":"10.1111/bjso.12858","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In two cross-sectional and two experimental studies across both advantaged and disadvantaged group members (<i>N</i><sub><i>total</i></sub> = 1980 from two national contexts, UK and Italy), we explored if perceptions of group relative prototypicality may explain the association of positive and negative contact with collective action. Specifically, across studies, we investigated subgroup relative prototypicality with respect to four different common identities (national, supranational, based on humanity, humanity values). In Studies 1–2, among advantaged group members, positive contact was positively associated with collective action intentions via greater relative prototypicality of disadvantaged groups; in Study 2, we also found that negative contact was negatively associated with collective action intentions via decreased relative prototypicality of disadvantaged groups. By contrast, among disadvantaged group members, relative prototypicality did not exert any mediation effects. Experimental Studies 3–4 using advantaged group member participants generally provided causal evidence that positive (imagined) contact increases relative prototypicality of the disadvantaged group (Study 3), and that relative prototypicality increases collective action (Study 4).</p>","PeriodicalId":48304,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Social Psychology","volume":"64 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","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.12858","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
In two cross-sectional and two experimental studies across both advantaged and disadvantaged group members (Ntotal = 1980 from two national contexts, UK and Italy), we explored if perceptions of group relative prototypicality may explain the association of positive and negative contact with collective action. Specifically, across studies, we investigated subgroup relative prototypicality with respect to four different common identities (national, supranational, based on humanity, humanity values). In Studies 1–2, among advantaged group members, positive contact was positively associated with collective action intentions via greater relative prototypicality of disadvantaged groups; in Study 2, we also found that negative contact was negatively associated with collective action intentions via decreased relative prototypicality of disadvantaged groups. By contrast, among disadvantaged group members, relative prototypicality did not exert any mediation effects. Experimental Studies 3–4 using advantaged group member participants generally provided causal evidence that positive (imagined) contact increases relative prototypicality of the disadvantaged group (Study 3), and that relative prototypicality increases collective action (Study 4).
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.