A longitudinal field study examined Pettigrew’s (1998) intergroup contact theory and Gaertner et al.’s (2000) Common Ingroup Identity Model (CIIM). In Pettigrew’s model, the contact-prejudice relation is mediated by changing behavior, ingroup reappraisal, generating affective ties, and learning about the outgroup. Pettigrew’s integration of the three chief models of contact generalization into a time-sequence holds that contact first elicits decategorization, then salient categorization, and finally recategorization. In CIIM, these three levels of categorization—plus a fourth, dual identity—are thought to be mediators in the contact-prejudice relation. Results underline the crucial mediating role of behavior modification in Pettigrew’s model and interpersonal and superordinate levels in CIIM. An attempt to partially integrate the two models is presented.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
Aron, A. , Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612.
3.
Baron, R. M. , & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
4.
Bettencourt, B. A. , Brewer, M. B., Rogers-Croak, M. R., & Miller, N. (1992). Cooperation and the reduction of intergroup bias: The role of reward structure and social orientation. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 28, 301-319.
5.
Bogardus, E. S. (1933). A social distance scale. Sociology and Social Science Research, 17, 265-271.
6.
Brewer, M. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.
7.
Brewer, M. (1996). When contact is not enough: Social identity and intergroup cooperation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 291-303.
8.
Brewer, M. B. , & Gaertner, S. L. (2001). Toward reduction of prejudice: Intergroup context and social categorization. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 451-472). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
9.
Brewer, M. B. , & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281-302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
10.
Conrad, C. A. , & Sharpe, R. V. (1996). The impact of the California civil rights initiative (CCRI) on university and professional school admissions and the implications for the California economy. Review of Black Political Economy, 25, 13-59.
11.
Duffy, M. (2001, July 22). Out of the shadows. TIME [Online]. Available: http://www.pathfinder.com/time/magazine.
12.
Eller, A. (2002). Putting Pettigrew’s reformulated model to the test: The intergroup contact theory in transition. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
13.
Gaertner, S. L. , & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
14.
Gaertner, S. L. , Dovidio, J. F., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S.Ward, C. M., & Houlette, M. (2000). The common ingroup identity model for reducing intergroup bias: Progress and challenges. In D. Capozza & R. Brown (Eds.), Social identity processes: Trends in theory and research (pp. 133-148). London: Sage.
15.
Gaertner, S. L. , Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M.et al. (1999). Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 388-402.
16.
Gaertner, S. L. , Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 239-249.
17.
Gaertner, S. L. , Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., & Anastasio, P. A. (1996). The contact hypothesis: The role of a common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias among majority and minority group members. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? (pp. 230-260). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18.
Gonzalez, R. , & Brown, R. J. (1999, October). Maintaining the salience of subgroup and superordinate group identities during intergroup contact. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
19.
Hewstone, M. , & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the ‘contact hypothesis’. In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1-44). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
20.
Hewstone, M. , Cairns, E., Judd, C. M., McLernon, F., & Voci, A. (2001). Intergroup contact in a divided society: Changing group beliefs in Northern Ireland. Paper presented at the EAESP Small Group Meeting on Social Identity: Motivational, Affective, and Cross-Cultural Aspects. Villasimius, Calgari, Italy, September 5-9.
21.
Hornsey, M. J. , & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Subgroup differentiation as a response to an overly-inclusive group: A test of optimal distinctiveness theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 543-550.
22.
Hornsey, M. J. , & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143-156.
23.
Kessler, T. , & Mummendey, A. (2001). Is there any scapegoat around? Determinants of intergroup conflicts at different categorization levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1090-1102.
24.
Lee, Y.-T. , Ottati, V., & Hussain, I. (2001). Attitudes towards ‘illegal’ immigration into the United States: California Proposition 187. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 23, 430-443.
25.
Lepore, L. , & Brown, R. (1997). Category and stereotype activation: Is prejudice inevitable?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 275-287.
26.
Loaeza, S. (1994). The changing face of Mexican nationalism. In M. D. Baer & S. Weintraub (Eds.), The NAFTA debate: Grappling with unconventional trade issues (pp. 145-158). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
27.
Mottola, G. R. , Bachman, B. A., Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1997). How groups merge: The effects of merger integration patterns on anticipated commitment to the merged organization. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1335-1358.
28.
Mummendey, A. , & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 158-174.
29.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
30.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1986). The intergroup contact hypothesis reconsidered. In M. Hewstone & R. J. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
31.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 173-185.
32.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.
33.
Pettigrew, T. F. , & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57-75.
34.
Pettigrew, T. F. , & Tropp, L. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 93-114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
35.
Riding, A. (1985). Distant neighbors: A portrait of the Mexicans. New York: Knopf.
36.
Rose, T. L. (1981). Cognitive and dyadic processes in intergroup contact. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 259-302). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
37.
Schmitt, K. M. (1974). Mexico and the United States, 1821-1973: Conflict and coexistence. New York: Wiley.
38.
Stephan, W. G. (1987). The contact hypothesis in intergroup relations. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 13-40.
39.
Stephan, W. G. , Diaz-Loving, R., & Duran, A. (2000). Integrated threat theory and intercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 240-249.
40.
Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (1996). California dreaming: Proposition 187 and the cultural psychology of racial and ethnic exclusion. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 27, 151-167.
41.
United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce (2000, February 27). The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) at five years: What it means for the U.S. and Mexico [Online]. Available: http://www.usmcoc.org/naftafor.html.
42.
Van Boven, L. (2000). Pluralistic ignorance and political correctness: The case of affirmative action. Political Psychology, 21, 267-276.
43.
Vivian, J. , Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1997). Intergroup contact: Theoretical and empirical developments. In R. Ben-Ari & Y. Rich (Eds.), Enhancing education in heterogeneous schools: Theory and application studies in memory of Yehuda Amir (pp. 13-46). Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press.
44.
Williams, R. M., Jr. (1947). The reduction of intergroup tensions. New York: Social Science Research Council.
45.
Wittig, M. A. , & Molina, L. (2000). Moderators and mediators of prejudice reduction in multicultural education. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: The Claremont symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 295-318). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
46.
Wright, S. C. , Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73-90.
