Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-6
Intergroup Contact Reduces Dehumanization and Meta-Dehumanization: Cross-Sectional,Longitudinal,and Quasi-Experimental Evidence From 16 Samples in Five Countries
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.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
2.
AndrighettoL.BaldissarriC.LattanzioS.LoughnanS.VolpatoC. (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
3.
BarlowF. K.PaoliniS.PedersenA.HornseyM. J.RadkeH. R. M.HarwoodJ.. . . SibleyC. 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
4.
BinderJ.ZagefkaH.BrownR.FunkeF.KesslerT.MummendeyA.. . .LeyensJ.-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
5.
BrownR.EllerA.LeedsS.StaceK. (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
6.
BrownR.HewstoneM. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5
7.
BruneauE.KteilyN. (2017). The enemy as animal: Symmetric dehumanization during asymmetric warfare. PLOS ONE, 12(7), Article e0181422. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181422
8.
BruneauE.KteilyN.LaustsenL. (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
9.
BruneauE.JacobyN.KteilyN.SaxeR. (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
CapozzaD.Di BernardoG. A.FalvoR. (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.
CapozzaD.FalvoR.Di BernardoG. A.VezzaliL.VisintinE. 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.
CapozzaD.TrifilettiE.VezzaliL.FavaraI. (2013). Can intergroup contact improve humanity attributions?International Journal of Psychology, 48(4), 527–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.688132
EssesV. M.MedianuS.LawsonA. 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.
FreyF. E.TroppL. 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.
GaitherS. E.SommersS. 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.
GwinnJ. D.JuddC. M.ParkB. (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.
HansonJ. M.WeedenD. D.PascarellaE. T.BlaichC. (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
HedgesL. V.OlkinI. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press.
24.
JahodaG. (1999). Images of savages: Ancient roots of modern prejudice in Western culture. Routledge.
25.
JardinaA.PistonS. (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.
KteilyN. S.BruneauE. (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.
KteilyN. S.BruneauE. (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.
KteilyN. S.BruneauE.WaytzA.CotterillS. (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.
KteilyN. S.HodsonG.BruneauE. (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.
LemmerG.WagnerU. (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.
LeyensJ.PaladinoP. M.Rodriguez-TorresR.VaesJ.DemoulinS.Rodriguez-PerezA.GauntR. (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.
MartherusJ. L.MartinezA. G.PiffP. K.TheodoridisA. 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-BergS. L.Ankori-KarlinskyL.HameiriB.BruneauE. (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.
OrthU.ClarkD. A.DonnellanM. B.RobinsR. W. (in press). Testing prospective effects in longitudinal research: Comparing seven competing cross-lagged models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
35.
PaluckE. L.GreenS. A.GreenD. P. (2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25
36.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. 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.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. Psychology Press.
38.
SaminadenA.LoughnanS.HaslamN. (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.
SchmidK.HewstoneM.KüpperB.ZickA.TauschN. (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.
SchoonjansF.ZalataA.DepuydtC. E.ComhaireF. 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.
SheltonJ. N.RichesonJ. A. (2006). Interracial interactions: A relational approach. In ZannaM. 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.
StathiS.HusnuS.PendletonS. (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.
TamT.HewstoneM.KenworthyJ.CairnsE. (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.
TechakesariP.BarlowF. K.HornseyM. J.SungB.ThaiM.ChakJ. 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.
TroppL. R.BarlowF. 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.
TroppL. R.PettigrewT. 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.
VikiG. T.FullertonI.RaggettH.TaitF.WiltshireS. (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.
VikiG. T.OsgoodD.PhillipsS. (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.
VorauerJ. D.MainK. J.O’ConnellG. 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.
VorauerJ. D.SasakiS. 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.
