Mediated exposure to outgroups leads to attitude change. Through a controlled lab experiment, this study examines how television narrative focus (i.e., politics, religion, parenting, technology) primes people’s explicit and implicit attitudes toward gay people, attitudes toward same-sex family, and social dominance orientation, in the mediated context of a gay family having conflicting opinion exchange with heterosexual characters. The results showed that while people’s explicit prejudice toward gay people decreased after exposure, their prejudice toward same-sex families and social dominance orientation increased. That is, even though mediated outgroup contact could prime people to think positively about the outgroup, it also simultaneously increases people’s tendency to maintain current social order. Attitudes toward gay people and social dominance orientation varied depending on the narrative focus. Implications are discussed.
BeckerR. (2006). Gay TV and straight America.
New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
4.
BinderJ.BrownR.ZagefkaH.FunkeF.KesslerT.MummendeyA. (2009).
Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
96(4), 843–856.
5.
Cameron, L., Rutland, A., Brown, R., & Douch, R. (2006). Changing children's intergroup attitudes toward refugees: Testing different models of extended contact. Child Development, 77(5), 1208–1219. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00929.x
6.
CaprarielloP. A.CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T. (2009).
Social structure shapes cultural stereotypes and emotions: A causal test of the stereotype content model. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
12(2), 147–155.
7.
CavalcanteA. (2015).
Anxious displacements: The representation of gay parenting on modern family and the New Normal and the management of cultural anxiety. Television & New Media,
16(5), 454–471.
8.
Craig, S., Martinez, M., Kane, J., & Gainous, J. (2005). Core values, value conflict, and citizens' ambivalence about gay rights. Political Research Quarterly, 58(1), 5–17. doi:10.2307/3595591
9.
DambrunM.KamiejskiR.HaddadiN.DuarteS. (2009).
Why does social dominance orientation decrease with university exposure to the social sciences? The impact of institutional socialization and the mediating role of “geneticism.” European Journal of Social Psychology,
39(1), 88–100.
10.
DevineP. G. (1989).
Stereotype and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
56, 5–18. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5
11.
DoanL.QuadlinN. (2018). Partner characteristics and perceptions of responsibility for housework and child care. Journal of Marriage and Family. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/jomf.12526
12.
FiskeS. T. (1993).
Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologists,
48, 621–628.
13.
FiskeS. T.HarrisL. T.RussellA. M.SheltonJ. N. (2009). Divergent social realities, depending on where you sit: Perspectives from the stereotype content model. In DemoulinS.LeyensJ.DovidioJ. F. (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 173–189).
New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
GómezA.HuiciC. (2008).
Vicarious intergroup contact and the role of authorities in prejudice reduction. The Spanish Journal of Psychology,
11, 103–114. doi:10.1017/S1138741600004169
16.
GrahamC.CnaanR. (2012). Teachers' explicit and implicit attitude toward homosexuality: The role of internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice.
Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania
17.
GravesS. B. (1999).
Television and prejudice reduction: When does television as a vicarious experience make a difference?Journal of Social Issues,
55(4), 707–727.
18.
HarwoodJ. (2010).
The contact space: A novel framework for intergroup contact research. Journal of Language & Social Psychology,
29(2), 147–177. doi:10.1177/0261927X09359520
19.
HarwoodJ.QadarF.ChenC. (2016).
Harmonious contact: Stories about intergroup musical collaboration improve intergroup attitudes. Journal of Communication,
66(6), 937–959. doi:10.1111/jcom.12261
20.
HerekG. M. (1984).
Beyond “homophobia”: A social psychological perspective on attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality,
10, 1–21.
21.
HewstoneM.RubinM.WillisH. (2002).
Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology,
53, 575–604.
22.
HigginsE. T.BarghJ. A.LombardiW. (1985).
Nature of priming effects on categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
11(1), 59–69.
23.
HuijdingJ.de JongP. J. (2009).
Implicit and explicit attitudes toward spiders: Sensitivity to treatment and predictive value for generalization of treatment effects. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
33(2), 211–220.
24.
JoyceN.HarwoodJ. (2014).
Improving intergroup attitudes through televised vicarious intergroup contact: Social cognitive processing of ingroup and outgroup information. Communication Research,
41(5), 627. doi:10.1177/0093650212447944
25.
KüpperB.WolfC.ZickA. (2010).
Social status and anti-immigrant attitudes in Europe: An examination from the perspective of social dominance theory. International Journal of Conflict & Violence,
4(2), 206.
26.
LiebkindK.McAlisterA. L. (1999).
Extended contact through peer modelling to promote tolerance in Finland. European Journal of Social Psychology,
29(5), (6),765–780.
27.
LovelaceV.ScheinerS.DollbergS.SegufI.BlackT. (1994).
Making a neighborhood the Sesame Street way: Developing a methodology to evaluate children’s understanding of race. Journal of Educational Television,
20(2), 69–78.
28.
MastroD.TukachinskyR. (2011).
The influence of exemplar versus prototype-based media primes on racial/ethnic evaluations. Journal of Communication,
61(5), 916–937. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01587.x
29.
MazziottaA.MummendeyA.WrightS. C. (2011).
Vicarious intergroup contact effects: Applying social-cognitive theory to intergroup contact research. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
14, 255–274. doi:10.1177/1368430210390533.
30.
MorrisonK. R.FastN. J.YbarraO. (2009).
Group status, perceptions of threat, and support for social inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
45(1), 204–210. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.004
31.
MorrisonK. R., & YbarraO. (2008).
The effects of realistic threat and group identification on social dominance orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
44(1), 156–163.
32.
MorrisonM. A.MorrisonT. G. (2002).
Development and validation of a scale measuring modern prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality,
43(2), 15–37. doi:10.1300/J082v43n02_02
NosekB. A.BanajiM. R.GreenwaldA. G. (2006). Sexuality IAT stimulus materials. Retrieved from Project Implicit: http://implicit.harvard.edu
35.
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. doi:10.1080/08838150701626487
36.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006).
A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,
90(5), 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.75
37.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact.
New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
38.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R.WagnerU.ChristO. (2011).
Review: Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
35, 271–280. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001
39.
Roskos-EwoldsenD.Roskos-EwoldsenB. (2009). Current research in media priming. In NabiR. L.OliverM. B. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 177–192).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
40.
RuscherJ.FiskeS. T.MikiH.Van ManenS. (1991).
Individuating processes in competition: Interpersonal versus Intergroup. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
17, 595–605.
41.
SchiappaE.GreggP. B.HewesD. E. (2005).
The parasocial contact hypothesis. Communication Monographs,
72(1), 92–115. doi: 10.1080/0363775052000342544
42.
SchiappaE.GreggP. B.HewesD. E. (2006).
Can one TV show make a difference? Will & Grace and the parasocial contact hypothesis. Journal of Homosexuality,
51(4), 15–37. doi: 10.1300/J082v51n04_02
43.
SchmidK.HewstoneM.KupperB.ZickA.WagnerU. (2012).
Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: A cross-national comparison in Europe. Social Psychology Quarterly,
75(1), 28–51.
44.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An Intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression.
New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
45.
SmithD. (1993).
The Standard North American Family: SNAF as an ideological code. Journal of Family Issues,
14(1), 50–65.
46.
VezzaliL.HewstoneM.CapozzaD.GiovanniniD.WolferR. (2014).
Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology,
25(1), 314–389.
47.
WalchS. E.SinkkaneK. A.SwainE. M.FranciscoJ.BreauxC. A.SjobergM. D. (2012).
Using intergroup contact theory to reduce stigma against transgender individuals: Impact of a transgender speaker panel presentation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
42(10), 2583–2605.
48.
WebbS. N.ChonodyJ. (2014).
Heterosexual attitudes toward same-sex marriage: The influence of attitudes toward same-sex parenting. Journal of GLBT Family Studies,
10(4), 404–421. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2013.832644
49.
WebbS. N.ChonodyJ.KavanaghP. S. (2017).
Attitudes toward same-sex parenting: An effect of gender. Journal of Homosexuality,
64(11), 1583–1596. doi:10.1080/00918369.2016.1247540
50.
WrightS. C.AronA.McLaughlin-VolpeT.RoppS. A. (1997).
The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,
73(1), 73–90.
51.
WrightS. C.BarayG. (2012). Models of social change in social psychology: Collective action or prejudice reduction? Conflict or harmony.? In DixonJ.LevineM.DixonJ.LevineM. (Eds.), Beyond prejudice: Extending the social psychology of conflict, inequality and social change (pp. 225–247).
New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
