Intergroup Contact Reduces Dehumanization and Meta-Dehumanization: Cross-Sectional,Longitudinal,and Quasi-Experimental Evidence From 16 Samples in Five Countries

Abstract

In 16 independent samples from five countries involving ~7,700 participants, we employ a mixture of cross-sectional, longitudinal, and quasi-experimental methods to examine the effect of intergroup contact on (a) the blatant dehumanization of outgroups, and (b) the perception that outgroup members dehumanize the ingroup (meta-dehumanization). First, we conduct a meta-analysis across 12 survey samples collected from five countries regarding eight different target groups (total N = 5,388) and find a consistent effect of contact quality on dehumanization and meta-dehumanization. Second, we use a large longitudinal sample of American participants (N = 1,103) to show that quality of contact with Muslims at Time 1 predicts dehumanization of Muslims and meta-dehumanization 6 months later. Finally, we show that sustained semester-long “virtual contact” between American and Muslim college students is associated with reduced American students’ (N = 487) dehumanization of, and perceived dehumanization by, Muslims.

Keywords

intergroup contact dehumanization meta-dehumanization Islamophobia prejudice

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Andrighetto

Baldissarri

Lattanzio

Loughnan

Volpato

(2014). Human-itarian aid? Two forms of dehumanization and willingness to help after natural disasters. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(3), 573–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12066

Barlow

F. K.

Paolini

Pedersen

Hornsey

M. J.

Radke

H. R. M.

Harwood

. . . Sibley

C. G.

(2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1629–1643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212457953

Binder

Zagefka

Brown

Funke

Kessler

Mummendey

. . .Leyens

J.-P.

(2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 843–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013470

Brown

Eller

Leeds

Stace

(2007). Intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(4), 692–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.384

Brown

Hewstone

(2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5

Bruneau

Kteily

(2017). The enemy as animal: Symmetric dehumanization during asymmetric warfare. PLOS ONE, 12(7), Article e0181422. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181422

Bruneau

Kteily

Laustsen

(2018). The unique effects of blatant dehumanization on attitudes and behavior towards Muslim refugees during the European “refugee crisis” across four countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(5), 645–662. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2357

Bruneau

Jacoby

Kteily

Saxe

(2018). Denying humanity: The distinct neural correlates of blatant dehumanization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(7), 1078–1093. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000417

10.

Bruneau

Szekeres

Kteily

Tropp

L. R.

Kende

(2020). Beyond dislike: Blatant dehumanization predicts teacher discrimination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(4), 560–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219845462

11.

Capozza

Di Bernardo

G. A.

Falvo

(2017). Intergroup contact and outgroup humanization: Is the causal relationship uni- or bidirectional? PLOS ONE, 12(1), Article e0170554. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170554

12.

Capozza

Falvo

Di Bernardo

G. A.

Vezzali

Visintin

E. P.

(2014). Intergroup contact as a strategy to improve humanness attributions: A review of studies. TPM—Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21, 349–362. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.3.9

13.

Capozza

Trifiletti

Vezzali

Favara

(2013). Can intergroup contact improve humanity attributions? International Journal of Psychology, 48(4), 527–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.688132

14.

DerSimonian

Laird

(1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7(3), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2

15.

Diamant

(2017, July 26). American Muslims are concerned—But also satisfied with their lives. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/26/american-muslims-are-concerned-but-also-satisfied-with-their-lives/

16.

Esses

V. M.

Medianu

Lawson

A. S.

(2013). Uncertainty, threat, and the role of the media in promoting the dehumanization of immigrants and refugees. Journal of Social Issues, 69(3), 518–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12027

17.

Frey

F. E.

Tropp

L. R.

(2006). Being seen as individuals versus as group members: Extending research on metaperception to intergroup contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_5

18.

Gaither

S. E.

Sommers

S. R.

(2013). Living with an other-race roommate shapes Whites’ behavior in subsequent diverse settings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(2), 272–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.020

19.

Gwinn

J. D.

Judd

C. M.

Park

(2013). Less power = less human? Effects of power differentials on dehumanization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 464–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.005

20.

Hanson

J. M.

Weeden

D. D.

Pascarella

E. T.

Blaich

(2012). Do liberal arts colleges make students more liberal? Some initial evidence. Higher Education, 64(3), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9498-8

21.

Haslam

(2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4

22.

Haslam

Loughnan

(2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), 399–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045

23.

Hedges

L. V.

Olkin

(1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press.

24.

Jahoda

(1999). Images of savages: Ancient roots of modern prejudice in Western culture. Routledge.

25.

Jardina

Piston

(2016, February). Dehumanization of Black people motivates White support for punitive criminal justice policies [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, United States.

26.

Kteily

N. S.

Bruneau

(2017a). Backlash: The politics and real-world consequences of minority group dehumanization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216675334

27.

Kteily

N. S.

Bruneau

(2017b). Darker demons of our nature: The need to (re)focus attention on blatant forms of dehumanization. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 487–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417708230

28.

Kteily

N. S.

Bruneau

Waytz

Cotterill

(2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 901–931. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000048

29.

Kteily

N. S.

Hodson

Bruneau

(2016). They see us as less than human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(3), 343–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000044

30.

Lemmer

Wagner

(2015). Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(2), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2079

31.

Leyens

Paladino

P. M.

Rodriguez-Torres

Vaes

Demoulin

Rodriguez-Perez

Gaunt

(2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of secondary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_06

32.

Martherus

J. L.

Martinez

A. G.

Piff

P. K.

Theodoridis

A. G.

(2019). Party animals? Extreme partisan polarization and dehumanization. Political Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09559-4

33.

Moore-Berg

S. L.

Ankori-Karlinsky

Hameiri

Bruneau

(2020). Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117, 14864–14872. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001263117

34.

Orth

Clark

D. A.

Donnellan

M. B.

Robins

R. W.

(in press). Testing prospective effects in longitudinal research: Comparing seven competing cross-lagged models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

35.

Paluck

E. L.

Green

S. A.

Green

D. P.

(2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25

36.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

37.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. Psychology Press.

38.

Saminaden

Loughnan

Haslam

(2010). Afterimages of savages: Implicit associations between “primitives,” animals and children. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(1), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X415293

39.

Schmid

Hewstone

Küpper

Zick

Tausch

(2014). Reducing aggressive intergroup action tendencies: Effects of intergroup contact via perceived intergroup threat. Aggressive Behavior, 40(3), 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21516

40.

Schoonjans

Zalata

Depuydt

C. E.

Comhaire

F. H.

(1995). MedCalc: A new computer program for medical statistics. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 48(3), 257–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2607(95)01703-8

41.

Shelton

J. N.

Richeson

J. A.

(2006). Interracial interactions: A relational approach. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 121–181). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38003-3

42.

Stathi

Husnu

Pendleton

(2017). Intergroup contact and contact norms as predictors of postconflict forgiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 21(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000060

43.

Tam

Hewstone

Kenworthy

Cairns

(2008). Postconflict reconciliation: Intergroup forgiveness and implicit biases in Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Issues, 64(2), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00563.x

44.

Techakesari

Barlow

F. K.

Hornsey

M. J.

Sung

Thai

Chak

J. L.

(2015). An investigation of positive and negative contact as predictors of intergroup attitudes in the United States, Hong Kong, and Thailand. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(3), 454–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115570313

45.

Tropp

L. R.

Barlow

F. K.

(2018). Making advantaged racial groups care about inequality: Intergroup contact as a route to psychological investment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(3), 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417743282

46.

Tropp

L. R.

Pettigrew

T. F.

(2005). Differential relationships between intergroup contact and affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(8), 1145–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205274854

47.

Viki

G. T.

Fullerton

Raggett

Tait

Wiltshire

(2012). The role of dehumanization in attitudes toward the social exclusion and rehabilitation of sex offenders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(10), 2349–2367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00944.x

48.

Viki

G. T.

Osgood

Phillips

(2013). Dehumanization and self-reported proclivity to torture prisoners of war. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 325–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.11.006

49.

Vorauer

J. D.

Main

K. J.

O’Connell

G. B.

(1998). How do individuals expect to be viewed by members of lower status groups? Content and implications of meta-stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 917–937. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.917

50.

Vorauer

J. D.

Sasaki

S. J.

(2009). Helpful only in the abstract? Ironic effects of empathy in intergroup interaction. Psychological Science, 20(2), 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02265.x

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.32 MB