We identify public opinion polls from other countries as an important form of indirect exposure to outgroups, and an important source of intergroup metaperceptions, outgroup perceptions, and support for group-level behavior towards outgroups. Three experiments demonstrate a two-step process through which such exposure affects support for ingroup behaviors that facilitate peaceful or violent intergroup relations. When indirectly exposed to national outgroups, Americans inferred intergroup metaperceptions (Step 1), which, in turn, shaped outgroup perceptions (Step 2). This effect and its underlying process occurred in relation to both fictitious (Experiment 2) and real outgroups (Iran, Experiment 1; Germany, Saudi Arabia, Experiment 3), as well as those similar (Germany) and dissimilar (Saudi Arabia) to the ingroup (Experiment 3). Further, this effect occurred beyond ingroup perceptions (Experiments 1–3), perceived intergroup threat (Experiments 2–3), and intergroup similarity (Experiment 3). Contributions to the literatures on cross-group contact, intergroup perceptions and attitudes, and image theory are discussed.
AlexanderM. G.BrewerM. B.HermannR. K. (1999). Images and affect: A functional analysis of out-group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 78–93. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.77.1.78
2.
AlexanderM. G.BrewerM. B.LivingstonR. W. (2005). Putting stereotype content in context: Image theory and interethnic stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 781–794. doi:10.1177/0146167204271550
3.
BakkerM.van DijkA.WichertsJ. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543–554. doi:10.1177/1745691612459060
4.
BanduraA. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
5.
BarlowF. K.LouisW. R.HewstoneM. (2009). Rejected! Cognitions of rejection and intergroup anxiety as mediators of the impact of cross-group friendships on prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 389–405. doi:10.1348/014466608X387089
6.
BilaliR. (2010). Assessing the internal validity of image theory in the context of Turkey–US relations. Political Psychology, 31, 275–303. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9221.2009.00752
7.
BouldingK. E. (1959). National images and international systems. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 111, 120–131.
8.
ChandlerJ.MuellerP.PaolacciG. (2014). Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 112–130. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7
9.
ChristO.HewstoneM.TauschN.WagnerU.VociA.HughesJ.CairnsE. (2010). Direct contact as a moderator of extended contact effects: Cross-sectional and longitudinal impact on outgroup attitudes, behavioral intentions, and attitude certainty. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1662–1674. doi:10.1177/0146167210386969
10.
CottamR. W. (1977). Foreign policy motivation: A general theory and a case study. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
11.
CrispR. J.TurnerR. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions? Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. American Psychologist, 64, 231–240. doi:10.1037/a0014718
12.
CurranP. G. (2016). Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 4–19. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.006
13.
ErdfelderE.FaulF.BuchnerA. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 1–11. doi:10.3758/BF03203630
14.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146
15.
FraleyR. C.VazireS. (2014). The N-pact factor: Evaluating the quality of empirical journals with respect to sample size and statistical power. PLoS ONE, 9, e109019. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109019
16.
FreyF. E.TroppL. R. (2006). Being seen as individuals versus as group members: Extending research on metaperception to intergroup contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 265–280. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_5
17.
GómezÁ.HuiciC. (2008). Vicarious intergroup contact and role of authorities in prejudice reduction. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11, 103–114. doi:10.1017/S1138741600004169
18.
GómezÁ.SeyleD. C.HuiciC.SwannW. J. (2009). Can self-verification strivings fully transcend the self–other barrier? Seeking verification of ingroup identities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1021–1044. doi:10.1037/a0016358
19.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
20.
HerrmannR. K.KellerJ. W. (2004). Beliefs, values, and strategic choice: U.S. leaders’ decisions to engage, contain, and use force in an era of globalization. Journal of Politics, 66, 557–580. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00164.x
21.
KamansE.GordijnE. H.OldenhuisH.OttenS. (2009). What I think you see is what you get: Influence of prejudice on assimilation to negative meta-stereotypes among Dutch Moroccan teenagers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 842–851. doi:10.1002/ejsp.593
22.
KoopmanC.SnyderJ.JervisR. (1990). Theory-driven versus data-driven assessment in a crisis: A survey of International Security readers. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 34, 694–722. doi:10.1177/0022002790034004006
23.
KramerR. M. (2004). Collective paranoia: Distrust between social groups. In HardinR. (Ed.), Distrust (pp. 136–166). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
24.
KteilyN.HodsonG.BruneauE. (2016). They see us as less than human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 343–370. doi:10.1037/pspa0000044
25.
LeidnerB.CastanoE.GingesJ. (2013). Dehumanization, retributive and restorative justice, and aggressive versus diplomatic intergroup conflict resolution strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 181–192. doi:10.1177/0146167212472208
26.
MarszalekJ. M.BarberC.KohlhartJ.HolmesC. B. (2011). Sample size in psychological research over the past 30 years. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 112, 331–348. doi:10.2466/03.11.pms.112.2.331-348
27.
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
28.
MéndezE.GómezÁ.TroppL. R. (2007). When metaperceptions are affected by intergroup processes. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 7, 237–250. Retrieved from http://www.ijpsy.com/volumen7/num2/167.html
29.
OrtizM.HarwoodJ. (2007). A social cognitive theory approach to the effects of mediated intergroup contact on intergroup attitudes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51, 615–631. doi:10.1080/08838150701626487
30.
PlantE. A.DevineP. G. (2003). The antecedents and implications of interracial anxiety. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 790–801. doi:10.1177/0146167203029006011
31.
RoccasS.SagivL.SchwartzS.HalevyN.EidelsonR. (2008). Toward a unifying model of identification with groups: Integrating theoretical perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 280–306. doi:10.1177/1088868308319225
32.
RoccasS.SchwartzS. H. (1993). Effects of intergroup similarity on intergroup relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 581–595. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420230604
33.
SchiappaE.GreggP. B.HewesD. E. (2005). The parasocial contact hypothesis. Communication Monographs, 72, 92–115. doi:10.1080/0363775052000342544
34.
SheltonJ. N.RichesonJ. A. (2005). Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 91–107. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.91
35.
SheltonJ. N.RichesonJ. A.SalvatoreJ. (2005). Expecting to be the target of prejudice: Implications for interethnic interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1189–1202. doi:10.1177/0146167205274894
36.
StephanW. G. (2014). Intergroup anxiety: Theory, research, and practice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 239–255. doi:10.1177/1088868314530518
37.
StephanW. G.BonieckiK. A.YbarraO.BettencourtA.ErvinK. S.JacksonL. A.. . . RenfroC. L. (2002). The role of threats in the racial attitudes of Blacks and Whites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1242–1254. doi:10.1177/01461672022812009
38.
StephanW. G.YbarraO.MorrisonK. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In NelsonT. D. (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 43–59). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
39.
SwannW. J.JettenJ.GómezÁ.WhitehouseH.BastianB. (2012). When group membership gets personal: A theory of identity fusion. Psychological Review, 119, 441–456. doi:10.1037/a0028589
TesslerM. (2003). Arab and Muslim political attitudes: Stereotypes and evidence from survey research. International Studies Perspectives, 4, 175–181. doi:10.1111/1528-3577.402005
42.
TroppL. R.BianchiR. A. (2006). Valuing diversity and interest in intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 533–551. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00472.x
43.
TroppL. R.StoutA. M.BoatswainC.WrightS.PettigrewT. F. (2006). Trust and acceptance in response to references to group membership: Minority and majority perspectives on cross-group interactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 769–794. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00031.x
44.
TurnerR. N.HewstoneM.VociA.VonofakouC. (2008). A test of the extended intergroup contact hypothesis: The mediating role of intergroup anxiety, perceived ingroup and outgroup norms, and inclusion of the outgroup in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 843–860. doi:10.1037/a0011434
45.
VorauerJ. D. (2006). An information search model of evaluative concerns in intergroup interaction. Psychological Review, 113, 862–886. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.862
46.
VorauerJ. D.MainK. J.O’ConnellG. B. (1998). How do individuals expect to be viewed by members of lower status groups? Content and implications of meta-stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 917–937. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.917
47.
VorauerJ. D.TurpieC. A. (2004). Disruptive effects of vigilance on dominant group members’ treatment of outgroup members: Choking versus shining under pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 384–399. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.384
48.
WoutD. A.MurphyM. C.SteeleC. M. (2010). When your friends matter: The effect of White students’ racial friendship networks on meta-perceptions and perceived identity contingencies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1035–1041. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.06.003
49.
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, 73–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73
50.
YzerbytV. Y. (2009). How do they see us? The vicissitudes of metaperception in intergroup relations. In DemoulinS.LeyensJ.-P.DovidioJ. F. (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 63–83). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
51.
YzerbytV. Y.MullerD.JuddC. M. (2004). Adjusting researchers’ approach to adjustment: On the use of covariates when testing interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 424–431. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.10.001
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.
