Imagined contact hypothesis

Last updated

The imagined contact hypothesis is an extension of the contact hypothesis, a theoretical proposition centred on the psychology of prejudice and prejudice reduction. It was originally developed by Richard J. Crisp and Rhiannon N. Turner and proposes that the mental simulation, or imagining, of a positive social interaction with an outgroup member can lead to increased positive attitudes, greater desire for social contact, and improved group dynamics. [1] Empirical evidence supporting the imagined contact hypothesis demonstrates its effectiveness at improving explicit and implicit attitudes towards and intergroup relations with a wide variety of stigmatized groups including religious minorities, [2] the mentally ill, [3] ethnic minorities, [4] sexual minorities, [1] and obese individuals. [5] Researchers have identified a number of factors that influence the effectiveness of the imagined contact hypothesis including vividness of the imagery [4] and how typical the imagined outgroup individual is. [6] While some researchers question the effectiveness of the imagined contact hypothesis, [7] empirical evidence does suggest it is effective at improving attitudes towards outgroups. [1]

Contents

Theoretical background

The imagined contact hypothesis is derived from Gordon Allport's contact hypothesis, which states that contact between groups is an effective means of reducing prejudice and intergroup conflict. [8] In Allport's seminal work The Nature of Prejudice he suggested that contact at the "fantasy level" [9] may also be an effective means of reducing prejudice. Crisp and Turner cite Allport's work as a strong influence on their imagined contact hypothesis. [10] In addition, the imagined contact hypothesis is linked to the extended contact hypothesis which states intergroup attitudes may be improved simply by learning that other in-group members have out-group friends; the imagined contact hypothesis is also similar in terms of the hypothesized cognitive processes described in the parasocial contact hypothesis. [11]

The imagined contact hypothesis is also influenced by cognitive psychology, particularly work on mental imagery which suggesting that imagining scenarios can induce emotion and motivation similar to real-life [12] and is important to directing goal related behavior. [13] Research from stereotypes also indicates that imagining a counter-stereotypical person, such as an assertive woman, reduces activation of implicit stereotypes. [14] This research all supports the core proposition of the imagined contact hypothesis, that imaging an interaction with an outgroup member can improve attitudes and behaviors towards the outgroup as a whole. [15]

Overview

The imagined contact hypothesis proposes that imagining a positive social interaction with an outgroup member, will lead to a variety of beneficial outcomes, namely an increase in positive attitudes towards the outgroup and greater intention to engage with outgroup members. [10] This paradigm is viewed as particularly useful for improving intergroup relations when intergroup contact may be difficult or impossible (e.g., war or settings where few minorities exist). [15] Notably, the imagined contact hypothesis is not meant to replace intergroup contact but instead be a first step to establishing better relations. [15] Overall, a meta-analysis of over 70 studies demonstrated a small effect size (d+ = 0.35) for imagining a positive interaction with an outgroup member improving outcomes across attitudes, emotions (i.e., feelings of anxiety), behaviors (i.e., self-disclosure to outgroup members, number of outgroup friends) and intentions (i.e., future desire to contact or engage with outgroup members). [16]

The general experimental paradigm used to test the effects of the imagined contact hypothesis utilizes two sets of instructions. In the basic paradigm, participants are placed via random assignment in either a control or an experimental condition. In the control condition participants are instructed:

"We would like you to take a minute to imagine an outdoor scene. Try to imagine aspects of the scene (e.g., it is a beach, a forest, are there trees, hills, what's on the horizon." [17]

Alternative variations include imagining positive social interactions with another non-outgroup individual. [18]

In the imagined contact condition instructions state:

"We would like you to take a minute to imagine yourself meeting [an outgroup] stranger for the first time. Imagine that the interaction is positive, relaxed and comfortable." [19]

In both conditions, participants are usually given a short time (one to five minutes) to imagine the scenario and then are asked to write a brief description of what they imagined in order to elaborate on the mental imagery.

For the imagined contact condition it is important that the interaction be positive and involve a social element. [15] Indeed, if participants are not directly instructed to imagine a positive interaction there is concern that they may spontaneously imagine a negative interaction, leading to more negative outcomes. [10] The interaction must also involve a social element in order to create a mental script for the participant. Indeed, research indicates that imagining contact versus simply imagining the outgroup member is important to obtain the positive benefits associated with the imagined contact hypothesis. [2]

Effects and outcomes

Explicit attitudes

In the first test of the imagined contact hypothesis researchers demonstrated that imagining a positive social interaction with an older adult led to greater desire to interact with an older versus younger adults and improved evaluations of gay men. [20] Since this initial test, the imagined contact hypothesis has been associated with improved explicit attitudes towards outgroups such as: religious groups (i.e., Muslims), [21] undocumented immigrants, [22] mentally ill, [3] ethnic minorities [18] and the obese. [5]

Implicit attitudes

The imagined contact hypothesis paradigm is also effective at improving implicit attitudes towards outgroups. For instance, Turner and Crisp had college-aged participants imagine either a positive social interaction with an older adult or imagine an outdoor scene. They then measured participants implicit attitudes using an Implicit Association Test (IAT). Their results showed that following an imagined interaction with an older adult, college-aged participants were faster to associate positive traits with the "old" category (e.g., stereotypically old names - Arthur, Mildred) compared to participants who imagined an outdoor scene. [23] This pattern of results was replicated with non-Muslim's implicit attitudes towards Muslims using the IAT. [23] Furthermore, the effects of imagined contact on implicit attitudes extend to school aged children, with researchers demonstrating that implicit attitudes towards immigrants improved for children following an imagined contact scenario compared to a control scenario. [24] It has been argued that these demonstrations of implicit attitude change with the imagined contact hypothesis rule out alternative explanations such as the possibility that demand characteristics influence participants' explicit attitudes because implicit attitudes are harder to control. [10]

Behavioral intentions

The effects of the imagined contact hypothesis extend beyond increasing explicit and implicit attitudes to impact behavioral intentions such as engaging with outgroup members. Researchers showed that having non-Muslim British undergraduate students imagine contact with an outgroup Muslim lead to greater intentions (measured via a Likert scale survey) to engage with Muslims in the future, compared to a control condition. [21] This work has been replicated using a variety of outgroup targets such as ethnic minorities in Cyprus, [4] gay men [1] and asylum seekers. [25] In the cases described, behavioral intention to engage was measured via survey items such as how much do you want to "avoid" or "talk to" an outgroup member. This work has also been replicated in school-aged children. [26] Beyond simply intentions to engage, the imagined contact paradigm also influences social distancing. For example, one study showed that undergraduate participants who first imagined a positive interaction with an obese individual subsequently positioned chairs closer together when they thought they would be interacting and discussing society's perception of obesity with an obese individual. [5]

Factors influencing effectiveness

Elaborated imagined contact

Husnu and Crisp [21] demonstrated that greater elaboration of the imagined social interaction improved outcomes above and beyond those associated with the traditional imagined contact hypothesis paradigm. Specifically they found that by guiding Non-Muslim undergraduates to imagine contextual factors within the imagined interaction such as when and where the interaction took place improved future intentions to interact with Muslims over and above traditional instructions. Additional research also indicated elaboration increases participants estimated likelihood of befriending elderly individuals. [27] In one of their studies Husnu and Crisp identified that the relationship between elaboration and improved outcomes was mediated by participant's vividness of the imagined scenario. [21] Specifically participants who elaborated on their imagined social interaction reported greater vividness of the social interaction, which subsequently improved outcomes.

Typicality of the imagined individual

Researchers have also investigated how factors about the imagined individual impact outcome measures. Stathi, Crisp, & Hogg had participants imagine either a stereotypical or non-stereotypical individual. Specifically they asked participants to either "imagine meeting a British Muslim stranger for the first time...[who] dresses in a traditional way, avoids alcohol, reads the Koran, and prays five times a day" or "imagine meeting a British Muslim stranger...[who] dresses in "western" clothes, drinks alcohol, eats pork, and does not pray regularly". [6] Their results indicated that imagining a stereotypical individual lead to greater feelings of contact-efficacy, that is how well a future interaction will go. This finding aligns with research on intergroup relations which shows that typicality of members leads to greater generalization effects compared to atypical group members. [28]

Individual differences

There are many individual level differences that also moderate the effectiveness of imagined contact. For instance, Husnu and Crisp asked participants the extent to which they have contact with British Muslims and found greater real-life contact was associated with higher intentions to engage with Muslims following an imagined contact paradigm. [21] Individuals who feel greater intergroup anxiety also report more difficulty in imaging a positive social interaction with an outgroup member, however, this did not ultimately affect the quality of an interaction with an outgroup member following the imagined contact manipulation. [29] Participants' amount of ingroup identification also impacts the effectiveness of imagining outgroup contact. Individuals who rate they are lower in their ingroup identification show stronger positive outgroup evaluations following imagining contact. [18]

Psychological processes of imagined contact

Two key psychological processes, anxiety and trust, have been identified as potential mechanisms for why imaging outgroup contact is effective for improving intergroup relations. Anxiety often characterizes and is engendered by intergroup encounters. [30] For instance, intergroup contact between African-Americans and European-Americans frequently produces higher levels of intergroup anxiety compared to same-race interactions. [31] Researchers however show that imaging a positive intergroup interaction leads to reductions in anxiety, with anxiety being a mediator between the relationship of imagined contact and improved intergroup attitudes. [2] [21]

Trust is another important mediator between imagined contact and positive intergroup outcomes. In one study, imagining contact with a gay man produced higher levels of trust towards gay men in general which mediated the relationship between imagined contact and positive intergroup attitudes. [32] In the same study, these researchers showed unique contributions of anxiety and trust, with imagined contact increasing intergroup trust leading to lower intentions to avoid the outgroup, and decreasing intergroup anxiety thus increasing approach related behaviors. [32]

Criticisms

While multiple studies have demonstrated the overall positive effects of imagining contact on intergroup attitudes and intergroup behavior, [16] there is some debate about the theoretical importance and application of the imagined contact hypothesis. Some researchers criticized the imagined contact hypothesis as too rooted in the microlevel and laboratory setting, with it unable to address macrolevel social problems of intergroup conflict such as genocide and mass murder. [7] Furthermore, there is criticism that imagining contact is not effective for minorities regarding attitudes and behavioral intentions towards majority group members, particularly if the minority group has experienced high levels of oppression and violence at the hands of the majority group. [7] [18] Lastly, some have critiqued the small effects, potential for demand characteristics to influence results, and short duration of effects. [33]

Crisp and Turner responded to a number of these criticism by acknowledging the limitations of the imagined contact hypothesis and their methodological approach as experimental psychologists. [34] Yet, they argued that experimental evidence is a vital step to understanding and developing empirically tested prejudice reduction strategies. They also argued that evidence of the imagined contact hypothesis improving implicit attitudes [23] [24] counters the possibility of demand characteristics influencing results. Finally, they agreed that a single session in the laboratory may not be enough to improve intergroup attitudes and conflict however suggested that imagining contact represented a first step in a continuum of contact interventions.

Related Research Articles

Prejudice Attitudes based on preconceived categories

Prejudice can be an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership. The word is often used to refer to a preconceived evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived political affiliation, sex, gender, gender identity, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, culture, complexion, beauty, height, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other personal characteristics.

The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.

In-group and out-group Sociological notions

In sociology and social psychology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. People may for example identify with their peer group, family, community, sports team, political party, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or nation. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.

In sociology, allophilia is having a positive attitude towards outgroup members. The outgroup members can be anyone who possesses characteristics that are different from one's own, such as people of different races, religions, cultures, etc. It is a framework for understanding effective intergroup leadership and is conceptualized as a measurable state of mind with tangible consequences.

In psychology and other social sciences, the contact hypothesis suggests that intergroup contact under appropriate conditions can effectively reduce prejudice between majority and minority group members. Following WWII and the desegregation of the military and other public institutions, policymakers and social scientists had turned an eye towards the policy implications of interracial contact. Of them, social psychologist Gordon Allport united early research in this vein under intergroup contact theory.

Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.

Realistic conflict theory (RCT), also known as realistic group conflict theory (RGCT), is a social psychological model of intergroup conflict. The theory explains how intergroup hostility can arise as a result of conflicting goals and competition over limited resources, and it also offers an explanation for the feelings of prejudice and discrimination toward the outgroup that accompany the intergroup hostility. Groups may be in competition for a real or perceived scarcity of resources such as money, political power, military protection, or social status.

Aversive racism is a theory proposed by Samuel L. Gaertner & John F. Dovidio (1986), according to which negative evaluations of racial/ethnic minorities are realized by a persistent avoidance of interaction with other racial and ethnic groups. As opposed to traditional, overt racism, which is characterized by overt hatred for and discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities, aversive racism is characterized by more complex, ambivalent expressions and attitudes nonetheless with prejudicial views towards other races. Aversive racism arises from unconscious personal beliefs taught during childhood. Subtle racist behaviors are usually targeted towards African Americans. Workplace discrimination is one of the best examples of aversive racism. Biased beliefs on how minorities act and think affect how individuals interact with minority members.

Stereotype Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are sometimes overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information, but can sometimes be accurate.

In social identity theory, an implicit bias or implicit stereotype, is the pre-reflective attribution of particular qualities by an individual to a member of some social out group.

Self-expansion theory was proposed by Arthur Aron, which is always used to examine the relationship maintenance including family, friendship, and romantic. In this model, Aron believed that humans have an initial motivation to incorporate others’ resources into themselves to help establish a mutual identity, improve self-efficacy, and enhance the sense of self.

Intergroup anxiety is the social phenomenon identified by Walter and Cookie Stephan in 1985 that describes the ambiguous feelings of discomfort or anxiety when interacting with members of other groups. Such emotions also constitute intergroup anxiety when one is merely anticipating interaction with members of an outgroup. Expectations that interactions with foreign members of outgroups will result in an aversive experience is believed to be the cause of intergroup anxiety, with an affected individual being anxious or unsure about a number of issues. Methods of reducing intergroup anxiety and stress including facilitating positive intergroup contact.

Richard J. Crisp is an author, blogger, scientist and Professor of Psychology at Durham University. He is co-originator of the imagined contact hypothesis and a major contributor to the field of social psychology.

There is a great deal of research on the factors that lead to the formation of prejudiced attitudes and beliefs. There is also a lot of research on the consequences of holding prejudiced beliefs and being the target of such beliefs. It is true that advances have been made in understanding the nature of prejudice. A consensus on how to end prejudice has yet to be established, but there are a number of scientifically examined strategies that have been developed in attempt to solve this social issue.

Integrated threat theory, also known as intergroup threat theory is a theory in psychology and sociology which attempts to describe the components of perceived threat that lead to prejudice between social groups. The theory applies to any social group that may feel threatened in some way, whether or not that social group is a majority or minority group in their society. This theory deals with perceived threat rather than actual threat. Perceived threat includes all of the threats that members of group believe they are experiencing, regardless of whether those threats actually exist. For example, people may feel their economic well-being is threatened by an outgroup stealing their jobs even if, in reality, the outgroup has no effect on their job opportunities. Still, their perception that their job security is under threat can increase their levels of prejudice against the outgroup. Thus, even false alarms about threat still have “real consequence” for prejudice between groups.

Intergroup relations

Intergroup relations refers to interactions between individuals in different social groups, and to interactions taking place between the groups themselves collectively. It has long been a subject of research in social psychology, political psychology, and organizational behavior.

In social psychology, a metastereotype is a stereotype that members of one group have about the way in which they are stereotypically viewed by members of another group. In other words, it is a stereotype about a stereotype. They have been shown to have adverse effects on individuals that hold them, including on their levels of anxiety in interracial conversations. Meta-stereotypes held by African Americans regarding the stereotypes White Americans have about them have been found to be largely both negative and accurate. People portray meta-stereotypes of their ingroup more positively when talking to a member of an outgroup than to a fellow member of their ingroup.

Diversity ideology refers to individual beliefs regarding the nature of intergroup relations and how to improve them in culturally diverse societies. A large amount of scientific literature in social psychology studies diversity ideologies as prejudice reduction strategies, most commonly in the context of racial groups and interracial interactions. In research studies on the effects of diversity ideology, social psychologists have either examined endorsement of a diversity ideology as individual difference or used situational priming designs to activate the mindset of a particular diversity ideology. It is consistently shown that diversity ideologies influence how individuals perceive, judge and treat cultural outgroup members. Different diversity ideologies are associated with distinct effects on intergroup relations, such as stereotyping and prejudice, intergroup equality, and intergroup interactions from the perspectives of both majority and minority group members. Beyond intergroup consequences, diversity ideology also has implications on individual outcomes, such as whether people are open to cultural fusion and foreign ideas, which in turn predict creativity.

In social psychology, social projection is the psychological process through which an individual expects behaviors or attitudes of others to be similar to their own. Social projection occurs between individuals as well as across ingroup and outgroup contexts in a variety of domains. Research has shown that aspects of social categorization affect the extent to which social projection occurs. Cognitive and motivational approaches have been used to understand the psychological underpinnings of social projection as a phenomenon. Cognitive approaches emphasize social projection as a heuristic, while motivational approaches contextualize social projection as a means to feel connected to others. In contemporary research on social projection, researchers work to further distinguish between the effects of social projection and self-stereotyping on the individual’s perception of others.

Fiona A. White Australian psychologist

Fiona A. White is a professor of social psychology at the University of Sydney, Australia, and director of the Sydney University Psychology of Intergroup Relations (SUPIR) Lab., and degree coordinator of the Bachelor of Liberal Arts and Science (BLAS). She has been a lead author on four editions of Developmental Psychology: From Infancy to Adulthood. White is known as the developer of the E-contact intervention, a synchronous online tool that has been found to reduce anxiety, prejudice, and stigma.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Crisp, R. J.; Turner, R. N. (2009). "Can Imagined Interactions Promote Positive Perceptions? Reducing Prejudice Through Simulated Social Contact". American Psychologist . 64 (4): 231–240. doi:10.1037/a0014718. PMID   19449982.
  2. 1 2 3 Turner, R. N.; Crisp, R. J.; Lambert, E. (2007). "Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes" (PDF). Group Processes and Intergroup Relations . 10 (4): 427–441. doi:10.1177/1368430207081533. S2CID   144405432.
  3. 1 2 Giacobbe, M. R.; Stukas, A. A.; Farhall, J. (2013). "The effects of imagined versus actual contact with a person with a diagnosis of schizophrenia". Basic and Applied Social Psychology . 35 (3): 265–271. doi:10.1080/01973533.2013.785403. S2CID   144687121.
  4. 1 2 3 Husnu, S.; Crisp, R. J. (2010). "Imagined intergroup contact: A new technique for encouraging greater inter-ethnic contact in Cyprus". Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology . 16: 97–108. doi:10.1080/10781910903484776.
  5. 1 2 3 Turner, R. N.; West, K. (2012). "Behavioral consequences of imagining intergroup contact with stigmatized outgroups" (PDF). Group Processes and Intergroup Relations . 15 (2): 192–202. doi:10.1177/1368430211418699. S2CID   146535157.
  6. 1 2 Stathi (2011). "Imagining intergroup contact enables member-to-group generalization". Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 15 (3): 275–284 [280]. doi:10.1037/a0023752.
  7. 1 2 3 Lee, Yueh-Ting; Jussim, Lee (2010). "Back in the real world". American Psychologist. 65 (2): 130–131. doi:10.1037/a0018195. PMID   20141269.
  8. ↑ Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books
  9. ↑ Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. p.453
  10. 1 2 3 4 Crisp, Richard J. & Turner, Rhiannon N. (2012). "The Imagined Contact Hypothesis". In Olson, James M. & Zanna, Mark P. (eds.). Advances in Social Psychology. Academic Press. pp. 125–182. ISBN   978-0-12-394281-4.
  11. ↑ Wright, S.C.; Aron, A.; McLaughlin-Volpe, T.; Ropp, S.A. (1997). "The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 73: 73–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73.
  12. ↑ Dadds, M.R.; Bovbjerg, D.H.; Redd, W.H.; Cutmore, T.R. (1997). "Imagery in human classical conditioning". Psychological Bulletin . 122 (1): 89–103. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.89. PMID   9204782.
  13. ↑ Taylor, S.E.; Pham, L.B.; Rivkin, I.D.; Armor, D.A. (1998). "Harnessing the imagination: Mental simulation, self-regulation, and coping". The American Psychologist . 53 (4): 429–439. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.53.4.429. PMID   9572006.
  14. ↑ Blair, I.V.; Ma, J.E.; Lenton, A.P. (2001). "Imagining stereotypes away: The moderation of implicit stereotypes through mental imagery". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 81 (5): 828–841. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.555.2509 . doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.828. PMID   11708560.
  15. 1 2 3 4 Crisp, R.J.; Stathi, S.; Turner, R.N.; Husnu, S (2008). "Imagined intergroup contact: Theory, paradigm, and practice". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2: 1–18. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00155.x.
  16. 1 2 Miles, E.; Crisp, R. J. (2014). "A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis". Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. 17: 3–26. doi:10.1177/1368430213510573. S2CID   146728157.
  17. ↑ Crisp, R.J.; Stathi, S.; Turner, R.N.; Husnu, S (2008). "Imagined intergroup contact: Theory, paradigm, and practice". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2: 6.
  18. 1 2 3 4 Stath, S.I.; Crisp, R. J. (2008). "Imagining intergroup contact promotes projection to outgroups". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 44 (4): 943–957. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.02.003.
  19. ↑ Crisp, R.J.; Stathi, S.; Turner, R.N.; Husnu, S (2008). "Imagined intergroup contact: Theory, paradigm, and practice". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2: 5.
  20. ↑ Turner, R. N.; Crisp, R. J.; Lambert, E. (2007). "Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations . 10 (4): 427–441. doi:10.1177/1368430207081533. S2CID   144405432.
  21. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Husnu, S.; Crisp, R. J. (2010). "Elaboration enhances the imagined contact effect". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 46 (6): 943–950. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014.
  22. ↑ Harwood, J.; Paolini, S.; Joyce, N.; Rubin, M.; Arroyo, A. (2010). "Secondary transfer effects from imagined contact: Group similarity affects the generalization gradient". British Journal of Social Psychology. 50 (Pt 1): 180–189. doi:10.1348/014466610x524263. PMID   21366619. S2CID   31620191.
  23. 1 2 3 Turner, R. N.; Crisp, R. J. (2010). "Imagining intergroup contact reduces implicit prejudice" (PDF). British Journal of Social Psychology . 49 (Pt 1): 129–142. doi:10.1348/014466609X419901. PMID   19302731. S2CID   10199045.
  24. 1 2 Vezzali, L.; Capozza, D.; Giovannini, D.; Stathi, S. (2012a). "Improving implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes using imagined contact: An experimental intervention with elementary school children". Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. 15 (2): 203–212. doi:10.1177/1368430211424920. S2CID   144536286.
  25. ↑ Turner, R. N.; West, K.; Christie, Z. (2013). "Out-group trust, intergroup anxiety, and out-group attitude as mediators of the effect of imagined intergroup contact on intergroup behavioral tendencies". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 43: E196–E205. doi:10.1111/jasp.12019.
  26. ↑ Vezzali, L.; Capozza, D.; Giovannini, D.; Stathi, S. (2012b). "Increasing outgroup trust, reducing infrahumanization, and enhancing future contact intentions via imagined intergroup contact". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 48: 437–440. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.09.008.
  27. ↑ Husnu, S.; Crisp, R. J. (2011). "Enhancing the imagined contact effect". Journal of Social Psychology. 151 (1): 113–116. doi:10.1080/00224541003599043. PMID   21375129. S2CID   22125380.
  28. ↑ Hewstone, M. & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the 'contact hypothesis'. In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (p. 1-44). Oxford, England: Blackwell
  29. ↑ Birtel, M. D.; Crisp, R. J. (22 May 2012). "Imagining intergroup contact is more cognitively difficult for people higher in intergroup anxiety but this does not detract from its effectiveness". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 15 (6): 744–761. doi:10.1177/1368430212443867. S2CID   145087737.
  30. ↑ Richeson, J. A.; Shelton, J. N. (1 May 2003). "When Prejudice Does Not Pay: Effects of Interracial Contact on Executive Function". Psychological Science. 14 (3): 287–290. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.03437. PMID   12741756. S2CID   2005116.
  31. ↑ Trawalter, Sophie; Adam, Emma K.; Chase-Lansdale, P. Lindsay; Richeson, Jennifer A. (May 2012). "Concerns about appearing prejudiced get under the skin: Stress responses to interracial contact in the moment and across time". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 48 (3): 682–693. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.003. PMC   3375720 . PMID   22711918.
  32. 1 2 Turner, Rhiannon N.; West, Keon; Christie, Zara (June 2013). "Out-group trust, intergroup anxiety, and out-group attitude as mediators of the effect of imagined intergroup contact on intergroup behavioral tendencies". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 43: E196–E205. doi:10.1111/jasp.12019.
  33. ↑ Bigler, Rebecca S.; Hughes, Julie Milligan (2010). "Reasons for skepticism about the efficacy of simulated social contact interventions". American Psychologist. 65 (2): 132–133. doi:10.1037/a0018097. PMID   20141270.
  34. ↑ Crisp, Richard J.; Turner, Rhiannon N. (2010). "Have confidence in contact". American Psychologist. 65 (2): 133–135. doi:10.1037/a0018437.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.