Positive mediated intergroup contact improves intergroup relations. By examining such effects in the foreign-language film context with varying verbal delivery methods, the study explores outgroup characters’ language accommodation to viewers as a critical mechanism. This experiment (N = 204) investigated how different verbal delivery methods in a foreign language movie featuring Asian Americans (titled Minari) influenced attitudes toward Asian Americans. Among native English speakers in America, watching the film with a native speaker's English dubbing (vs. foreign-accented English dubbing vs. foreign language with subtitles) led to more positive attitudes toward Asian Americans, mediated by two theory-driven mechanisms: perceived similarities and processing fluency with the target Asian American character. Results indicated that exposure to the target Asian American character in the native speaker's English dubbed (vs. subtitled) condition resulted in more perceived similarities with the character and fluent processing of the character's speech. Subsequently, these factors translated into positive evaluations of the character and Asian Americans as a group. With an emphasis on the role of language accommodation to viewers, theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
AhmedS. (2017). News media, movies, and anti-Muslim prejudice: Investigating the role of social contact. Asian Journal of Communication, 27(5), 536–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2017.1339720
2.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
3.
Amichai-HamburgerY.McKennaK. Y. (2006). The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Interacting via the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(3), 825–843. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00037.x
4.
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.
BoinJ.RuparM.GrafS.NejiS.SpieglerO.SwartH. (2021). The generalization of intergroup contact effects: Emerging research, policy relevance, and future directions. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12419
ChungA. H.SlaterM. D. (2013). Reducing stigma and out-group distinctions through perspective-taking in narratives. Journal of Communication, 63(5), 894–911. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12050
8.
CostaA.Sebastián-GallésN. (2014). How does the bilingual experience sculpt the brain?Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(5), 336–345. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3709
9.
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
10.
DragojevicM. (2020). Extending the fluency principle: Factors that increase listeners’ processing fluency positively bias their language attitudes. Communication Monographs, 87(2), 158–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2019.1663543
11.
DragojevicM.GilesH. (2014). The reference frame effect: An intergroup perspective on language attitudes. Human Communication Research, 40(1), 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12017
12.
DragojevicM.GilesH. (2016). I don't like you because you're hard to understand: The role of processing fluency in the language attitudes process. Human Communication Research, 42(3), 396–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12079
13.
DragojevicM.GilesH.BeckA. C.TatumN. T. (2017). The fluency principle: Why foreign accent strength negatively biases language attitudes. Communication Monographs, 84(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1322213
14.
FiskeS. T. (2018). Stereotype content: Warmth and competence endure. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417738825
15.
FrankD.-A.HøegA. H. (2022, October 10). Custom model builder 2.0 for PROCESS. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/35RW9
GalloisC.OgayT.GilesH. (2005). Communication accommodation theory: A look back and a look ahead. In GudykunstW. B. (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 121–148). Sage.
18.
GalloisC.WatsonB. M.GilesH. (2018). Intergroup communication: Identities and effective interactions. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx016
19.
GilesH.BourhisR. Y.TaylorD. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In GilesH. (Ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations (pp. 307–348). Academic Press.
20.
GilesH.OgayT. (2007). Communication accommodation theory. In WhaleyB. B.SamterW. (Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 293–310). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21.
GimH.HarwoodJ. (2024a). Music and sports as catalysts for intergroup harmony: What is more effective, and why?Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 36(2), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000385
22.
GimH.HarwoodJ. (2024b). Wha 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
23.
GoverA. R.HarperS. B.LangtonL. (2020). Anti-Asian hate crime during the COVID-19 pandemic: Exploring the reproduction of inequality. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 647–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09545-1
24.
GrafS.SczesnyS. (2019). Intergroup contact with migrants is linked to support for migrants through attitudes, especially in people who are politically right wing. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 73, 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.09.001
25.
HarwoodJ. (2021). Modes of intergroup contact: If and how to interact with the outgroup. Journal of Social Issues, 77, 154–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12421
26.
HayesA. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
27.
IoannouM.Al RamiahA.HewstoneM. (2018). An experimental comparison of direct and indirect intergroup contact. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 393–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.010
28.
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
KeysarB.HayakawaS. L.AnS. G. (2012). The foreign-language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases. Psychological Science, 23(6), 661–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611432178
31.
KoolstraC. M.PeetersA. L.SpinhofH. (2002). The pros and cons of dubbing and subtitling. European Journal of Communication, 17(3), 325–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323102017003694
32.
KubrakT. (2020). Impact of films: Changes in young people’s attitudes after watching a movie. Behavioral Sciences, 10(5), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10050086
33.
MandalaywalaT. M.GonzalezG.TroppL. R. (2023). Early perceptions of COVID-19 intensity and anti-Asian prejudice among White Americans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211049721
OliverM. B.RaneyA. A. (2011). Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful: Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption. Journal of Communication, 61(5), 984–1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01585.x
37.
PaoliniS.WhiteF. A.TroppL. R.TurnerR. N.Page-GouldE.BarlowF. K.GómezÁ (2021). Intergroup contact research in the 21st century: Lessons learned and forward progress if we remain open. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12427
38.
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
39.
ReidS. A.ZhangJ.GilesH.HarwoodJ. (2010). An evolutionary perspective on social identity and intergroup communication. In GilesH.ReidS.HarwoodJ. (Eds.), The dynamics of intergroup communication (pp. 277–290). Peter Lang.
SchwarzN. (2010). Meaning in context: Metacognitive experiences. In MesquitaB.BarrettL. F.SmithE. R. (Eds.), The mind in context (pp. 105–125). Guilford Press.
43.
SimardL.TaylorD. M.GilesH. (1976). Attribution processes and interpersonal accommodation in a bilingual setting. Language and Speech, 19(4), 374–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097601900408
44.
SolizJ.GilesH. (2014). Relational and identity processes in communication: A contextual and meta-analytical review of communication accommodation theory. Annals of the International Communication Association, 38(1), 107–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2014.11679160
SunL.JunJ. W. (2022). Effects of Hallyu on Chinese consumers: A focus on remote acculturation. Sustainability, 14(5), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14053018
47.
WestK.HewstoneM.LolliotS. (2014). Intergroup contact and prejudice against people with schizophrenia. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154(3), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.888327
48.
WhiteF. A.BorincaI.VezzaliL.ReynoldsK. J.Blomster LysholJ. K.VerrelliS.Falomir-PichastorJ. M. (2021). Beyond direct contact: The theoretical and societal relevance of indirect contact for improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12400
49.
WölferR.ChristO.SchmidK.TauschN.BuchallikF. M.VertovecS.HewstoneM. (2019). Indirect contact predicts direct contact: Longitudinal evidence and the mediating role of intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000146
50.
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
51.
ZhangK.ZhangM.LiC. (2021). Effects of celebrity characteristics, perceived homophily, and reverence on consumer-celebrity para-social interaction and brand attitude. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.711454
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.
