Purpose: This study evaluated the possible effects of empathy-focused group work on the participants, which is designed by bringing together cisgender heterosexual and LGBTQ+ people. Method: The study group of the research consists of 28 people (14 people in each of the experimental and control groups) who receive social service from a municipality in Istanbul, Turkey. The empathy-focused group work lasted 8 weeks, and pretest and posttest measurements were performed using the Affective and Cognitive Measure of Empathy (ACME) Scale and the Social Dominance Orientation Scale. Results: The result of this study showed that the participants were able to experience positive contact experiences in group work with heterogeneous groups, and an increase in the emotional and cognitive empathy levels of the participants and a decrease in their social dominance orientation. Conclusions: Implications for future research and professional practice are discussed.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
2.
AnderssenN. (2002). Does contact with lesbians and gays lead to friendlier attitudes? A two-year longitudinal study. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 12(2), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.665
3.
BarlowF. K.LouisW. R.HewstoneM. (2009). Rejected! Cognitions of rejection and intergroup anxiety as mediators of the impact of cross-group friendships on prejudice. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(3), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X387089
4.
Bar-TalD. (2013). Intractable conflicts: Socio-psychological foundations and dynamics. Cambridge University Press.
5.
BrownR.EllerA.LeedsS.StaceK. (2007). Intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(4), 692–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.384
6.
ÇetinerŞDVan AsscheJ. (2021). Prejudice in Turkey and Belgium: The cross-cultural comparison of correlations of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation with sexism, homophobia, and racism. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 21(1), 1167–1183. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12280
7.
CohenT. R.HallD. L.TuttleJ. (2009). Attitudes toward stereotypical versus counterstereotypical gay men and lesbians. Journal of Sex Research, 46(4), 274–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490802666233
8.
CollierK. L.BosH. M.SandfortT. G. (2012). Intergroup contact, attitudes toward homosexuality, and the role of acceptance of gender non-conformity in young adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 35(4), 899–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.12.010
9.
DuhiggJ. M.RostoskyS. S.GrayB. E.WimsattM. K. (2010). Development of heterosexuals into sexual-minority allies: A qualitative exploration. Sexuality Research and Social Policy,7(1), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-010-0005-2
10.
GorskaP.van ZomerenM.BilewiczM. (2017). Intergroup contact as the missing link between LGB rights and sexual prejudice. Social Psychology, 48(6), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000313
11.
GustianiS. (2019). Challenges and strategies in teaching English to heterogeneous classes: A case study. Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran, 6(2), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.19109/ejpp.v6i2.3909
12.
HalperinE.CrispR. J.HusnuS.TrzesniewskiK. H.DweckC. S.GrossJ. J. (2012). Promoting intergroup contact by changing beliefs: Group malleability, intergroup anxiety, and contact motivation. Emotion, 12, 1192–1195. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028620
13.
HerekG. M.CapitanioJ. P. (1996). “Some of my best friends”: Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296224007
14.
HerekG. M.GluntE. K. (1993). Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men: Results from a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 30(3), 239–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499309551707
HouY. (2020). Prejudice and discrimination. In JettenJ.ReicherS. D.HaslamS. A.CruwysT. (Eds.), Together apart: The psychology of COVID-19 (pp. 113–118). Sage Publications.
17.
JarvisN.WeedenC.LadkinA.TaylorT. (2022). Intergroup contact between front-line cruise staff and LGBT passengers. Tourism Management Perspectives, 42, 100960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2022.100960
18.
KaraY. (2022a). Açılma Sürecinde LGBTQ Bireylere Yönelik Sosyal Hizmet Müdahalesi: Queer Grup Çalışması Örneği (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi.
19.
KaraY. (2022b). Nitel bir araştırmanın gösterdikleri: Türkiye’de LGBTQ+ olmak. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (52), 399–415..
20.
KaraY.SerpenA. S. (2022). Online group work with social workers to enhance skills for working with LGBTQIA+ people. Social Work With Groups, 46(2), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/01609513.2022.2053030
21.
KaraçantaH. (2002). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Sosyal Baskınlık Yönelimi ve Bazı Değişkenler Açısından Karşılaştırılması (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi).
22.
MazziottaA.MummendeyA.WrightS. C. (2011). Vicarious intergroup contact effects: Applying social-cognitive theory to intergroup contact research. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210390533
23.
McKeownS.DixonJ. (2017). The ‘contact hypothesis’: Critical reflections and future directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,11(1), [e12295].. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12295
24.
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%2F1368430213510573
25.
ObeidS.HaddadC.SalameW.KheirN.HallitS. (2020). Correlates of homophobic attitudes in Lebanon: Results of a cross-sectional study. Journal of Homosexuality, 67(6), 844–862. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2018.1557954
26.
OetzelJ. G. (1998). Culturally homogeneous and heterogeneous groups: Explaining communication processes through individualism-collectivism and self-construal. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 135–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00002-9
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
29.
PratiG.PietrantoniL. (2016). Knowledge, risk perceptions, and xenophobic attitudes: Evidence from Italy during the Ebola outbreak. Risk Analysis, 36(10), 2000–2010. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12537
30.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallwortM. N.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
31.
RonY.SolomonJ.HalperinE.SaguyT. (2017). Willingness to engage in intergroup contact: A multilevel approach. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23(3), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000204
32.
RutschE. (2019). Empati geliştirme rehberi (Çev. Ergün Hasgül, Ayşe Sezen Serpen, Veli Duyan). Yeni İnsan Yayınevi.
33.
ŞahU. (2012). Eşcinselliğe, biseksüelliğe ve transseksüelliğe ilişkin tanımlamaların homofobi ve LGBT bireylerle tanışıklık düzeyi ile ilişkisi. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, 32(2), 23–48.
34.
ŞahinA.SarıB.GülerB.ÇoksanS. (2022). Investigating the moderating role of positive intergroup contact on the association between authoritarianism and homophobia among heterosexual young adults. Current Research in Social Sciences, 8(2), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.30613/curesosc.1162897
35.
SakallıN.UğurluO. (2003). The effects of social contact with a lesbian person on the attitude change toward homosexuality in Turkey. Journal of Homosexuality, 44(1), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v44n01_06
36.
SmithS. J.AxeltonA. M.SaucierD. A. (2009). The effects of contact on sexual prejudice: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 61(3–4), 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9627-3
37.
TurnerR. N.CrispR. J.LambertE. (2007a). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(4), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207081533
38.
TurnerR. N.HewstoneM.VociA.PaoliniS.ChristO. (2007b). Reducing prejudice via direct and extended cross-group friendship. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 212–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701680297
39.
VachonD. D.LynamD. R. (2016). Fixing the problem with empathy: Development and validation of the affective and cognitive measure of empathy. Assessment, 23(2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114567941
40.
VezzaliL.StathiS.GiovanniniD. (2012). Indirect contact through book Reading: Improving adolescents’ attitudes and behavioral intentions toward immigrants. Psychology in the Schools, 49(2), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20621
41.
WangZ. (2013). Effects of Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Grouping on Student Learning [Master’s Thesis]. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
42.
WiertzD.BennettM. R.ParameshwaranM. (2016). Ethnic heterogeneity, ethnic and national identity, and social cohesion in England. In KoopmansR.LanceeB.SchaefferM. (Eds.), Social cohesion and immigration in Europe and North America: Mechanisms, conditions, and causality (pp. 123–142). Routledge.
43.
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
44.
Yukay-YükselM.OkurS.AkbulutZ.KütükH. (2020). Psychometric parameters of the turkish version of the affective and cognitive measure of empathy (ACME). International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 11(3), 1–15.
