Sequential models of intergroup contact and social categorization: An experimental field test of integrated models

IF 4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Group Processes & Intergroup Relations Pub Date : 2022-06-27 DOI:10.1177/13684302221104921
L. Vezzali, E. Trifiletti, Ralf Wölfer, G. A. di Bernardo, S. Stathi, V. Cocco, A. Cadamuro, S. E. Shamloo, M. Hewstone
{"title":"Sequential models of intergroup contact and social categorization: An experimental field test of integrated models","authors":"L. Vezzali, E. Trifiletti, Ralf Wölfer, G. A. di Bernardo, S. Stathi, V. Cocco, A. Cadamuro, S. E. Shamloo, M. Hewstone","doi":"10.1177/13684302221104921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research has proposed different models of how contact situations should be structured to maximize contact effects, focusing in particular on the role of categorization during contact. We conducted two experimental field interventions (Ns = 247 and 247) to test models that integrate different levels of categorization. Each of the tested models was contrasted against a no-intervention control condition. In both studies, we assessed effects shortly after the intervention (1 week later; i.e., posttest) and then after approximately 6 months (i.e., follow-up). In the first study, results generally supported the model where categorization precedes decategorization, showing effects on major dependent measures highlighted in research on intergroup contact: quantity and quality of contact, cross-group friendships, intergroup anxiety (marginal effect at follow-up), outgroup attitudes (only at follow-up). Evidence for follow-up effects for this model was, however, weaker in Study 2, where the delayed effects of the intervention emerged only indirectly, via changes in contact quality, outgroup attitudes, and approach behavioral intentions at posttest. Comparisons of the other two models (decategorization then categorization; and simultaneous categorization and decategorization) with the control condition (only in Study 1) provided weaker and inconsistent results.","PeriodicalId":48099,"journal":{"name":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","volume":"26 1","pages":"1181 - 1204"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221104921","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: 2

Abstract

Research has proposed different models of how contact situations should be structured to maximize contact effects, focusing in particular on the role of categorization during contact. We conducted two experimental field interventions (Ns = 247 and 247) to test models that integrate different levels of categorization. Each of the tested models was contrasted against a no-intervention control condition. In both studies, we assessed effects shortly after the intervention (1 week later; i.e., posttest) and then after approximately 6 months (i.e., follow-up). In the first study, results generally supported the model where categorization precedes decategorization, showing effects on major dependent measures highlighted in research on intergroup contact: quantity and quality of contact, cross-group friendships, intergroup anxiety (marginal effect at follow-up), outgroup attitudes (only at follow-up). Evidence for follow-up effects for this model was, however, weaker in Study 2, where the delayed effects of the intervention emerged only indirectly, via changes in contact quality, outgroup attitudes, and approach behavioral intentions at posttest. Comparisons of the other two models (decategorization then categorization; and simultaneous categorization and decategorization) with the control condition (only in Study 1) provided weaker and inconsistent results.
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
群体间接触和社会分类的序列模型:综合模型的实验场检验
研究提出了如何构建接触情境以最大限度地发挥接触效果的不同模型,特别关注分类在接触过程中的作用。我们进行了两项实验性现场干预(Ns=247和247),以测试整合不同分类水平的模型。将每个测试模型与无干预控制条件进行对比。在这两项研究中,我们在干预后不久(1周后,即后测)和大约6个月后(即随访)评估了效果。在第一项研究中,结果普遍支持分类先于非分类的模型,显示了对群体间接触研究中强调的主要依赖性指标的影响:接触的数量和质量、跨群体友谊、群体间焦虑(随访时的边际效应)、群外态度(仅随访时)。然而,该模型后续效果的证据在研究2中较弱,在研究2中,干预的延迟效应仅通过接触质量、外群体态度和后测时接近行为意图的变化间接出现。将其他两个模型(先去类别化,然后再分类;同时进行分类和去类别化)与对照条件(仅在研究1中)进行比较,结果较弱且不一致。
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
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
76
期刊介绍: Group Processes & Intergroup Relations is a scientific social psychology journal dedicated to research on social psychological processes within and between groups. It provides a forum for and is aimed at researchers and students in social psychology and related disciples (e.g., organizational and management sciences, political science, sociology, language and communication, cross cultural psychology, international relations) that have a scientific interest in the social psychology of human groups. The journal has an extensive editorial team that includes many if not most of the leading scholars in social psychology of group processes and intergroup relations from around the world.
期刊最新文献
Judgments toward displays of national (dis)loyalty in members of nations other than one’s own: Universalistic and parochial perspectives Two Paths to Violence: Individual versus Group Emotions during Conflict Escalation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories “Ins and outs”: Ethnic identity, the need to belong, and responses to inclusion and exclusion in inclusive common ingroups Divergent views of party positions: How ideology and own issue position shape party perception through convergence and divergence processes Corrigendum to “Tackling loneliness together: A three-tier social identity framework for social prescribing”
×
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