How Positive and Negative Intergroup Contact May Shape the Communication of Discrimination Toward Migrants

Abstract

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.

Keywords

immigration intergroup contact language abstraction diary study prejudice

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Achiume

(2018). Putting racial equality onto the global human rights agenda. In United Nations Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance Sur International Journal on Human Rights 28^th. Special Issue Race and Human Rights: Moving Structures. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/AdvisoryCom/EliminationRacism/Achiume_Dec2018_Article_in_Sur.pdf

Allport

G. W.

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

Alperin

Hornsey

Hayward

Diedrichs

Barlow

(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

Altemeyer

(1998). The other “authoritarian” personality. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30(3), 47–91. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.27.3.117

Altemeyer

(1998). The Other “Authoritarian” Personality. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30(1), 47–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60382-2

Árnadóttir

Lolliot

Brown

Hewstone

(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

Bagci

S. C.

Stathi

Vezzali

Turnuklu

Piyale

Z. 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

Barlow

F. K.

Hornsey

M. J.

Hayward

L. E.

Houkamau

C. A.

Kang

Milojev

, 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

Barlow

F. K.

Paolini

Pedersen

Hornsey

M. J.

Radke

H. R.

Harwood

Rubin

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

10.

Brown

Paterson

(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.

Brylka

A. A.

Jasinskaja-Lahti

Mähönen

T. 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.

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(3), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.3.9

13.

Cheong

H. 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.

Christ

Hewstone

Tausch

Wagner

Voci

Hughes

Cairns

(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.

Christ

Schmid

Lolliot

Swart

Stolle

Tausch

Ramiah

A. A.

Wagner

Vertovec

Hewstone

(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.

Cohrs

J. C.

Stelzl

(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.

Cronbach

L. 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.

Davies

Tropp

L. R.

Aron

Pettigrew

T. F.

Wright

S. 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.

Dhont

van Hiel

(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.

Douglas

K. M.

Sutton

R. M.

Wilkin

(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.

Dovidio

J. F.

Eller

Hewstone

(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.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. 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

23.

Franco

F. M.

Maass

(1999). Intentional control over prejudice: When the choice of the measure matters. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(4), 469–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199906)29:4<469::AID-EJSP938>3.0.CO;2-S

24.

Gómez

Tropp

L. R.

Fernández

(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.

Graf

Paolini

Rubin

(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.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

27.

Hayes

A. F.

Coutts

J. 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.

Kros

Hewstone

(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.

Laurence

(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.

Levin

(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.

Maass

(1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 79–121). Academic Press.

32.

Maass

Arcuri

(1996). Language and stereotyping. In Macrae

C. N.

Stangor

Hewstone

(Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 193–226). Guildford Press.

33.

Maass

Castelli

Arcuri

(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.

Maass

Ceccarelli

Rudin

(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.

Mähönen

T. A.

Jasinskaja-Lahti

(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.

Mastro

D. E.

Greenberg

B. 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.

Mazziotta

Rohmann

Wright

S. C.

De Tezanos-Pinto

Lutterbach

(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.

Moscatelli

Albarello

Prati

Rubini

(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.

Moscatelli

Albarello

Rubini

(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.

Moscatelli

Rubini

(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.

Paolini

Harwood

Hewstone

Neumann

D. 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.

Paolini

Harwood

Rubin

(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.

Paolini

Harwood

Rubin

Husnu

Joyce

Hewstone

(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.

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

46.

Prati

Menegatti

Rubini

(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.

Prati

Moscatelli

Hewstone

Rubini

(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.

Prati

Schaefer

S. J.

Hewstone

Christ

(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.

Pratto

Cidam

Stewart

A. L.

Zeineddine

F. B.

Aranda

Aiello

Chryssochoou

Cichocka

Cohrs

J. C.

Durrheim

Eicher

Foels

Górska

Lee

I.-C.

Licata

Liu

Meyer

Davide

Eicher

(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.

Pratto

Sidanius

Levin

(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.

Pratto

Sidanius

Stallworth

L. M.

Malle

B. 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.

Putnam

R. 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

53.

Reid

S. A.

S. H.

(1999). Language, power, and intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55(1), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00108

54.

Reimer

N. K.

Becker

J. C.

Benz

Christ

Dhont

Klocke

Neji

Rychlowska

Schmid

Hewstone

(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.

Roccato

Ricolfi

(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.

Rubini

Menegatti

(2008). Linguistic bias in personnel selection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27(2), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X07313653

57.

Rubini

Menegatti

Moscatelli

(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.

Rubini

Moscatelli

Palmonari

(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.

Sanchez

K. L.

Kalkstein

D. A.

Walton

G. 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.

Schäfer

S. J.

Kauff

Prati

Kros

Lang

Christ

(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.

Semin

G. R.

Fiedler

(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.

Sidanius

Pratto

(1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.

63.

Social Mobility Commission (2016). Ethnicity, gender and social mobility. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/579988/Ethnicity_gender_and_social_mobility.pdf

64.

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

65.

Vezzali

Hewstone

Capozza

Giovannini

Wölfer

(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.

Voci

Hewstone

(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.

Wright

S. C.

Aron

McLaughlin-Volpe

Ropp

S. 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.

Zhou

Page-Gould

Aron

Moyer

Hewstone

(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.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB