This study investigates how the content and style of narrative writing about an outgroup reduce prejudice. The study compares cooperative contact, where writers describe working with an outgroup character, with parasocial contact, where writers describe the character alone. It further examines whether the contact effects vary with linguistic authenticity. In two experiments, I manipulated the types of contact and measured authenticity through language patterns. Study 1 (N = 719) found that having contact with an outgroup character elicited more positive affect toward the character, which reduced the desire for distance from the outgroup. Cooperative and parasocial contact showed similar effects, but their impacts varied with linguistic authenticity. Authentic language was associated with stronger impacts in cooperative contact but not in parasocial contact. Study 2 (N = 287) replicated that linguistic authenticity moderated the effect of cooperative contact on affect toward the character. These findings highlight linguistic dynamics in intergroup contact.
AbersonC. L.McVeanA. D. W. (2008). Contact and anxiety as predictors of bias toward the homeless. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(12), 3009–3035. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00423.x
2.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
BanasJ. A.BessarabovaE.MasseyZ. B. (2020). Meta-analysis on mediated contact and prejudice. Human Communication Research, 46(2–3), 120–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaa004
5.
BanduraA. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
6.
BemD. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). Academic Press.
7.
BientzleM.EggelingM.KanzleiterM.ThiemeK.KimmerleJ. (2021). The impact of narrative writing on empathy, perspective-taking, and attitude: Two randomized controlled experiments on violations of COVID-19 protection regulations. PLoS ONE, 16(7), e0254501. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254501
8.
BoydR. L.AshokkumarA.SerajS.PennebakerJ. W. (2022). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC-22. University of Texas at Austin. https://www.liwc.app
9.
BoydR. L.SchwartzH. A. (2021). Natural language analysis and the psychology of verbal behavior: The past, present, and future states of the field. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20967028
10.
ChungC. K.PennebakerJ. W. (2007). The psychological functions of function words. In FiedlerK. (Ed.), Social communication: Frontiers of social psychology (pp. 343–359). Psychology Press.
11.
CrispR. J.TurnerR. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions?: Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. American Psychologist, 64(4), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014718
12.
DibbleJ. L.HartmannT.RosaenS. F. (2016). Parasocial interaction and parasocial relationship: Conceptual clarification and a critical assessment of measures. Human Communication Research, 42(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12063
13.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F.GuerraR.HehmanE.SaguyT. (2016). A common ingroup identity: Categorization, identity, and intergroup relations. In NelsonT. D. (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed, pp. 433–454). Psychology Press.
14.
GimH.HarwoodJ. (2024). What people do matters during intergroup communication: Immediate and delayed effects of intergroup contact via cognitive, affective, and behavioral mediators. Communication Monographs, 91(3), 482–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2024.2304234
15.
GuentherC. L.ZhangY.SedikidesC. (2024). The authentic self is the self-enhancing self: A self-enhancement framework of authenticity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(8), 1182–1196. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231160653
16.
HarwoodJ. (2010). The contact space: A novel framework for intergroup contact research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09359520
17.
HarwoodJ. (2017). Indirect and mediated intergroup contact. In KimY. Y.McKay-SemmlerK. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of intercultural communication (Vol. 2, pp. 912–920). Wiley-Blackwell.
18.
HarwoodJ.QadarF.ChenC. Y. (2016). Harmonious contact: Stories about intergroup musical collaboration improve intergroup attitudes. Journal of Communication, 66(6), 937–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12261
19.
HayesA. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
20.
HusnuS.CrispR. J. (2010). Elaboration enhances the imagined contact effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 943–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014
21.
HusnuS.MertanB.CicekO. (2018). Reducing Turkish Cypriot children’s prejudice toward Greek Cypriots: Vicarious and extended intergroup contact through storytelling. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(1), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216656469
22.
JordanK. N.PennebakerJ. W.EhrigC. (2018). The 2016 U.S. presidential candidates and how people tweeted about them. Sage Open, 8(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018791218
23.
JoyceN.HarwoodJ. (2014). Improving intergroup attitudes through televised vicarious intergroup contact: Social cognitive processing of ingroup and outgroup information. Communication Research, 41(5), 627–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212447944
24.
KalichmanS. C.SmythJ. M. (2023). And you don’t like, don’t like the way I talk”: Authenticity in the language of Bruce Springsteen. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 17(5), 581–589. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000402
25.
KernisM. H.GoldmanB. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9
26.
KoutsoumpisA.OostromJ. K.HoltropD.Van BredaW.GhassemiS.De VriesR. E. (2022). The kernel of truth in text-based personality assessment: A meta-analysis of the relations between the Big Five and the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC). Psychological Bulletin, 148(11–12), 843–868. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000381
27.
KuchenbrandtD.EysselF.SeidelS. K. (2013). Cooperation makes it happen: Imagined intergroup cooperation enhances the positive effects of imagined contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(5), 635–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212470172
28.
LiangH.NgY. M. M. (2023). The expression effects of uncivil disagreement: The mechanisms of cognitive dissonance and self-perception. Human Communication Research, 49(3), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqac032
29.
LivingstoneA. G.BedfordS. L.AfyouniA.VuN.KapantaiI.MakanjuD.ChayinskaM.GonzálezR.CarozziP.ContrerasC.ByrneS.GuyJ.KingL.LoC. H. C.PearsonH.TappC. (2024). You get us, so you like us: Feeling understood by an outgroup predicts more positive intergroup relations via perceived positive regard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 126(2), 262–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000434
30.
LivingstoneA. G.Fernández RodríguezL.RothersA. (2020). They just don’t understand us”: The role of felt understanding in intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(3), 633–656. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000221
31.
MarkowitzD. M.GriffinD. J. (2020). When context matters: How false, truthful, and genre-related communication styles are revealed in language. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(3), 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2019.1652751
32.
MarkowitzD. M.KouchakiM.GinoF.HancockJ. T.BoydR. L. (2023). Authentic first impressions relate to interpersonal, social, and entrepreneurial success. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 14(2), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221086138
33.
MarkowitzF. E.SyversonJ. (2021). Race, gender, and homelessness stigma: Effects of perceived blameworthiness and dangerousness. Deviant Behavior, 42(7), 919–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1706140
34.
MaunderR. D.WhiteF. A. (2019). Intergroup contact and mental health stigma: A comparative effectiveness meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 72, 101749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101749
35.
MilesE.CrispR. J. (2014). A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213510573
36.
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (2017). Housing not handcuffs: Ending the criminalization of homelessness in U.S. cities. https://www.nlchp.org/documents/No_Safe_Place
37.
NewmanM. L.PennebakerJ. W.BerryD. S.RichardsJ. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(5), 665–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029005010
38.
OrtizM.HarwoodJ. (2007). A social cognitive theory approach to the effects of mediated intergroup contact on intergroup attitudes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(4), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150701626487
39.
PaoliniS.GibbsM.SalesB.AndersonD.McIntyreK. (2024a). Negativity bias in intergroup contact: Meta-analytical evidence that bad is stronger than good, especially when people have the opportunity and motivation to opt out of contact. Psychological Bulletin, 150(8), 921–964. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000439
40.
PaoliniS.HarwoodJ.RubinM.HuckJ.DunnK.DixonJ. (2024b). Reaching across social divides deliberately: Theoretical, political, and practical implications of intergroup contact volition for intergroup relations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 18(8), e12988. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12988
41.
PennebakerJ. W.ChungC. K. (2011). Expressive writing: Connections to physical and mental health. In FriedmanH. S. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of health psychology (pp. 417–437). Oxford University Press.
42.
PennebakerJ. W.MehlM. R.NiederhofferK. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 547–577. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145041
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
45.
PhelanJ.LinkB. G.MooreR. E.StueveA. (1997). The stigma of homelessness: The impact of the label “homeless” on attitudes toward poor persons. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60(4), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787093
46.
PingreeR. J. (2007). How messages affect their senders: A more general model of message effects and implications for deliberation. Communication Theory, 17(4), 439–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00306.x
47.
R Core Team (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
ShafferV. A.BohanekJ.FocellaE. S.HorstmanH.SaffranL. (2019). Encouraging perspective taking: Using narrative writing to induce empathy for others engaging in negative health behaviors. PLOS ONE, 14(10), e0224046. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224046
51.
TurnerR. N.CrispR. J.LambertE. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(4), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207081533
Van SwolL. M.PrahlA.KolbM. R.LewisE. A.CarlsonC. (2016). The language of extremity: The language of extreme members and how the presence of extremity affects group discussion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35(6), 603–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X16629788
54.
WarnerB.HorstmanH.KearneyC. (2020). Reducing political polarization through narrative writing. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 48(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2020.1789195
55.
WeischerA. E.WeiblerJ.PetersenM. (2013). To thine own self be true: The effects of enactment and life storytelling on perceived leader authenticity. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(4), 477–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.03.003
56.
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
57.
ZhuX. (2023). Mapping linguistic shifts during psychological coping with the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 42(2), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X221116335
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.
