This study investigates the impact of intergroup contact of White British adults (N = 192) on the language used when describing their recent interactions with Asian British people. Specifically, we assessed the role of different forms of intergroup contact (i.e., cross-group friendship, positive and negative, and direct and extended contact) on the abstraction of negative terms used by White British people, as a linguistic measure of outgroup derogation. As expected, the frequency of direct negative intergroup contact was associated with higher negative language abstraction in depicting Asian British people. However, this association was weaker for White British people with higher levels of positive direct and extended intergroup contacts compared to those with lower levels of positive direct and extended contact. Overall, results emphasize the importance of independently analyzing the impact of positive and negative intergroup contact experiences, as well as understanding how they interact with each other in the communication of intergroup discrimination.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
3.
AlperinA.HornseyM.HaywardL.DiedrichsP.BarlowF. (2014). Applying contact hypothesis to anti-fat attitudes: Contact with overweight people is related to how we interact with our bodies and others. Social Science and Medicine, 123(12), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.051
ÁrnadóttirK.LolliotS.BrownR.HewstoneM. (2018). Positive and negative intergroup contact: Interaction not asymmetry. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(6), 784–800. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2365
7.
BagciS. C.StathiS.VezzaliL.TurnukluA.PiyaleZ. E. (2021). I (dis) like the way you (dis) like them: The role of extended contact on social distance and attitudes towards the ingroup. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(1), 95–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12381
8.
BarlowF. K.HornseyM. J.HaywardL. E.HoukamauC. A.KangJ.MilojevP., et al. (2019). Why do we hold mixed emotions about racial out-groups? A case for affect matching. Psychological Science, 30(6), 917–929. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619844269
9.
BarlowF. K.PaoliniS.PedersenA.HornseyM. J.RadkeH. R.HarwoodJ.RubinM.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
10.
BrownR.PatersonJ. (2016). Indirect contact and prejudice reduction: Limits and possibilities. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11(1), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.005
11.
BrylkaA. A.Jasinskaja-LahtiI.MähönenT. A. (2016). The majority influence on interminority attitudes: The secondary transfer effect of positive and negative contact. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 50(1), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.12.007
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(3), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.3.9
13.
CheongH. P., et al. (2007). Immigration, social cohesion and social capital: A critical review. Critical Social Policy, 27(1), 24–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018307072206
14.
ChristO.HewstoneM.TauschN.WagnerU.VociA.HughesJ.CairnsE. (2010). Direct contact as a moderator of extended contact effects: Cross-sectional and longitudinal impact on outgroup attitudes, behavioral intentions, and attitude certainty. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1662–1674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210386969
15.
ChristOSchmidKLolliotSSwartHStolleDTauschNRamiahA. A.WagnerU.VertovecS.HewstoneM. (2014). Contextual effect of positive intergroup contact on outgroup prejudice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(11), 3996–4000. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320901111
16.
CohrsJ. C.StelzlM. (2010). How ideological attitudes predict host society members’ attitudes toward immigrants: Exploring cross-national differences. Journal of Social Issues, 66(4), 673–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01670.x
17.
CronbachL. J. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in analyses recently proposed. Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 414–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2010.483393
18.
DaviesK.TroppL. R.AronA.PettigrewT. F.WrightS. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 332–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411103
19.
DhontK.van HielA. (2009). We must not be enemies: Interracial contact and the reduction of prejudice among authoritarians. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(2), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.022
20.
DouglasK. M.SuttonR. M.WilkinK. (2008). Could you mind your language? An investigation of communicators’ ability to inhibit linguistic bias. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/https://doi-org.ezproxy.unibo.it/10.1177/0261927X07313655
21.
DovidioJ. F.EllerA.HewstoneM. (2011). Improving intergroup relations through direct, extended and other forms of indirect contact. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210390555
22.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior research methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
GómezA.TroppL. R.FernándezS. (2011). When extended contact opens the door to future contact: Testing the effects of extended contact on attitudes and intergroup expectancies in majority and minority groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210391119
25.
GrafS.PaoliniS.RubinM. (2014). Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6), 536–447. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2052
26.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
27.
HayesA. F.CouttsJ. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
28.
KrosM.HewstoneM. (2020). Negative and positive interethnic contact and the consequences of ethnic neighborhood composition for trust, cohesion, and prejudice. European Sociological Review, 36(6), 937–956. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcaa032
29.
LaurenceJ. (2014). Reconciling the contact and threat hypotheses: Does ethnic diversity strengthen or weaken community inter-ethnic relations?Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37(8), 1328–1349. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2013.788727
30.
LevinS. (2004). Perceived group status differences and the effects of gender, ethnicity, and religion on social dominance orientation. Political Psychology, 25(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3792522
31.
MaassA. (1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 79–121). Academic Press.
32.
MaassA.ArcuriL. (1996). Language and stereotyping. In MacraeC. N.StangorC.HewstoneM. (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 193–226). Guildford Press.
33.
MaassA.CastelliL.ArcuriL. (2000). Measuring prejudice: Implicit versus explicit techniques. Social Identity Processes: Trends in Theory and Research, 96–116. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446218617.n7
34.
MaassA.CeccarelliR.RudinS. (1996). Linguistic intergroup bias: Evidence for in-group-protective motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 512–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.512
35.
MähönenT. A.Jasinskaja-LahtiI. (2016). Ramifications of positive and negative contact experiences among remigrants from Russia to Finland. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(2), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000059
36.
MastroD. E.GreenbergB. S. (2000). The portrayal of racial minorities on prime time television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(4), 690–703. https://doi.org/https://doi-org.ezproxy.unibo.it/10.1207/s15506878jobem4404_10
37.
MazziottaA.RohmannA.WrightS. C.De Tezanos-PintoP.LutterbachS. (2015). (How) does positive and negative extended cross-group contact predict direct cross-group contact and intergroup attitudes?European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(5), 653–667. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2110
38.
MoscatelliS.AlbarelloF.PratiF.RubiniM. (2014). Badly off or better off than them? The impact of relative deprivation and relative gratification on implicit and overt intergroup discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(2), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036704
39.
MoscatelliS.AlbarelloF.RubiniM. (2008). Linguistic discrimination in minimal groups: The impact of status differentials. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27(2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X07313652
40.
MoscatelliS.RubiniM. (2011). The impact of group entitativity on linguistic discrimination: Ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation in the explanation of negative outcome allocations. Social Psychology, 42(4), 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000071
41.
Office for National Statistics. (2020). Ethnic group, England and Wales: Census 2021. Retrieved from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/bulletins/ethnicgroupenglandandwales/census2021#ethnic-groups-inengland- and-wales.
42.
PaoliniS.HarwoodJ.HewstoneM.NeumannD. L. (2018). Seeking and avoiding intergroup contact: Future frontiers of research on building social integration. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(12), e12422. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12422
43.
PaoliniS.HarwoodJ.RubinM. (2010). Negative intergroup contact makes group memberships salient: Explaining why intergroup conflict endures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1723–1738. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210388667
44.
PaoliniS.HarwoodJ.RubinM.HusnuS.JoyceN.HewstoneM. (2014). Positive and extensive intergroup contact in the past buffers against the disproportionate impact of negative contact in the present. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6), 548–562. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2029
45.
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
46.
PratiF.MenegattiM.RubiniM. (2015). The beneficial role of multiple categorization and intergroup contact in reducing linguistic out-group derogation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34(5), 475–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14567777
47.
PratiF.MoscatelliS.HewstoneM.RubiniM. (2020). The effects of recalling positive and negative contacts on linguistic discrimination towards migrant people. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 89, 103970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103970
48.
PratiF.SchaeferS. J.HewstoneM.ChristO. (2022). Antecedents of positive and negative intergroup contact: Evidence from a diary study. International Journal of Psychology, 57(4), 524–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12841
49.
PrattoF.CidamA.StewartA. L.ZeineddineF. B.ArandaM.AielloA.ChryssochoouX.CichockaA.CohrsJ. C.DurrheimK.EicherV.FoelsR.GórskaP.LeeI.-C.LicataL.LiuJ.LiuL.MeyerI.DavideM.EicherV. (2013). Social dominance in context and in individuals: Contextual moderation of robust effects of social dominance orientation in 15 languages and 20 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(5), 587–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612473663
50.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.LevinS. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 271–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280601055772
51.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
52.
PutnamR. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century the 2006 Johan Skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x
ReimerN. K.BeckerJ. C.BenzA.ChristO.DhontK.KlockeU.NejiS.RychlowskaM.SchmidK.HewstoneM. (2017). Intergroup contact and social change: Implications of negative and positive contact for collective action in advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216676478
55.
RoccatoM.RicolfiL. (2005). On the correlation between right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2703_1
56.
RubiniM.MenegattiM. (2008). Linguistic bias in personnel selection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27(2), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X07313653
57.
RubiniM.MenegattiM.MoscatelliS. (2014). The strategic role of language abstraction in achieving symbolic and practical goals. European Review of Social Psychology, 25(1), 263–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.985501
58.
RubiniM.MoscatelliS.PalmonariA. (2007). Increasing group entitativity: Linguistic intergroup discrimination in the minimal group paradigm. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10(2), 280–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207075156
59.
SanchezK. L.KalksteinD. A.WaltonG. M. (2022). A threatening opportunity: The prospect of conversations about race-related experiences between black and white friends. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(5), 853–872. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000369
60.
SchäferS. J.KauffM.PratiF.KrosM.LangT.ChristO. (2021). Does negative contact undermine attempts to improve intergroup relations? Deepening the understanding of negative contact and its consequences for intergroup contact research and interventions. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12422
61.
SeminG. R.FiedlerK. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 558–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.558
62.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.
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
65.
VezzaliL.HewstoneM.CapozzaD.GiovanniniD.WölferR. (2017). Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology, 25, 314–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.982948
66.
VociA.HewstoneM. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/136843020300600101
67.
WrightS. C.AronA.McLaughlin-VolpeT.RoppS. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73
68.
ZhouS.Page-GouldE.AronA.MoyerA.HewstoneM. (2019). The extended contact hypothesis: A meta-analysis on 20 years of research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(2), 132–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318762647
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.
