Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-1
Predisposed to prejudice but responsive to intergroup contact? Testing the unique benefits of intergroup contact across different types of individual differences
Recent research demonstrates that intergroup contact effectively reduces prejudice even among prejudice-prone persons. But some assert that evidence regarding the benefits of contact among prejudice-prone individuals is “mixed,” particularly for those higher in social dominance orientation (SDO), one of the field’s most important individual differences. Problematically, person variables are typically considered in isolation despite being intercorrelated, leaving the question of which unique psychological aspects of prejudice proneness (e.g., authoritarianism, antiegalitarianism, cognitive style) are responsive to intergroup contact unresolved. To address this shortcoming, in a large sample of White Americans (N = 465) we simultaneously examined the contact–attitude association at varying levels of ideological (SDO, right-wing authoritarianism), cognitive style (need for closure), and identity-based (group identification) indicators of prejudice proneness. Examining a broad range of intergroup criterion measures (e.g., racism, support for racial profiling) we reveal that greater contact quality is associated with lower levels of intergroup hostility for those both lower and higher on a variety of indicators of prejudice proneness, simultaneously considered.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
Al RamiahA.HewstoneM. (2013). Intergroup contact as a tool for reducing, resolving, and preventing intergroup conflict: Evidence, limitations, and potential. American Psychologist, 68, 527–542. doi:10.1037/a0032603
3.
AltemeyerB. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
AltemeyerB. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
5.
AsbrockF.ChristO.DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2012). Differential effects of intergroup contact for authoritarians and social dominators: A dual process model perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 477–490. doi:10.1177/0146167211429747
6.
AsbrockF.GutenbrunnerL.WagnerU. (2013). Unwilling, but not unaffected: Imagined contact effects for authoritarians and social dominators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 404–412. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1956
7.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368. doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057
8.
BoboL. D. (1999). Prejudice as group position: Microfoundations of a sociological approach to racism and race relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 445–472. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00127
9.
BoboL.HutchingsV. L. (1996). Perceptions of racial group competition: Extending Blumer’s theory of group position to a multiracial social context. American Sociological Review, 61, 951–972. doi:10.2307/2096302
10.
BrownR.HewstoneM. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255–343. doi:10.1016/S0065–2601(05)37005–5
11.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
12.
ChomaB. L.HanochY.GummerumM.HodsonG. (2013). Relations between risk perceptions and socio-political ideology are domain- and ideology-dependent. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 29–34. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.07.028
13.
ChristO.SchmidK.LolliotS.SwartH.StolleD.TauschN.. . . HewstoneM. (2014). Contextual effect of positive intergroup contact on outgroup prejudice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 3996–4000. doi:10.1073/pnas.1320901111
14.
CostaP. T.Jr.McCraeR. R. (1992). NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
15.
DhontK.RoetsA.Van HielA. (2011). Opening closed minds: The combined effects of intergroup contact and need for closure on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 514–528. doi:10.1177/0146167211399101
16.
DhontK.RoetsA.Van HielA. (2013). The intergenerational transmission of need for closure underlies the transmission of authoritarianism and anti-immigrant prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 779–784. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.016
17.
DhontK.Van HielA. (2009). We must not be enemies: Interracial contact and the reduction of prejudice among authoritarians. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 172–177. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.022
18.
DhontK.Van HielA. (2011). Direct contact and authoritarianism as moderators between extended contact and reduced prejudice: Lower threat and greater trust as mediators. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 223–237. doi:10.1177/1368430210391121
19.
DhontK.Van HielA.De BolleM.RoetsA. (2012). Longitudinal intergroup contact effects on prejudice using self- and observer-reports. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 221–238. doi:10.1111/j.2044–8309.2011.02039.x
20.
DixonJ.DurrheimK.KerrP.ThomaeM. (2013). “What’s so funny ‘bout peace, love, and understanding?” Further reflections on the limits of prejudice reduction as a model of social change. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 1, 239–252. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.022
21.
DuckittJ. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 41–113. doi:10.1016/S0065–2601(01)80004–6
22.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2010). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation differentially moderate intergroup effects on prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 24, 583–601. doi:10.1002/per.772
23.
FedericoC. M.DeasonG.FisherE. L. (2012). Ideological asymmetry in the relationship between epistemic motivation and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 381–398. doi:10.1037/a0029063
24.
FedericoC. M.ErgunD.HuntC. (2014). Opposition to equality and support for tradition as mediators of the relationship between epistemic motivation and system-justifying identifications. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 524–541. doi:10.1177/1368430213517273
25.
FieldA. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London, UK: SAGE.
26.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F.AnastasioP. A.BachmanB. A.RustM. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1–26. doi:10.1080/14792779343000004
27.
GagnonA.BourhisR. Y. (1996). Discrimination in the minimal group paradigm: Social identity or self-interest?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1289–1301. doi:10.1177/01461672962212009
28.
HaywardL. E.TroppL. R.HornseyM. J.BarlowF. K. (2017). Toward a comprehensive understanding of intergroup contact: Descriptions and mediators of positive and negative contact among majority and minority groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 347–364. doi:10.1177/0146167216685291
29.
HenryP. J.SearsD. O. (2002). The symbolic racism 2000 scale. Political Psychology, 23, 253–283. doi:10.1111/0162–895X.00281
30.
Ho.A. K.SidaniusJ.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.PrattoF.HenkelK. E.. . . StewartA. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1003–1028. doi:10.1037/pspi0000033
31.
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.PrattoF.LevinS.ThomsenL.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ. (2012). Social dominance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 583–606. doi:10.1177/0146167211432765
32.
HodsonG. (2008). Interracial prison contact: The pros for (socially dominant) cons. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 325–351. doi:10.1348/014466607X231109
33.
HodsonG. (2011). Do ideologically intolerant people benefit from intergroup contact?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 154–159. doi:10.1177/0963721411409025
34.
HodsonG.CostelloK.MacInnisC. C. (2013). Is intergroup contact beneficial among intolerant people? Exploring individual differences in the benefits of contact on attitudes. In HodsonG.HewstoneM. (Eds.), Advances in intergroup contact (pp. 49–80). London, UK: Psychology Press.
35.
HodsonG.DhontK. (2015). The person-based nature of prejudice: Individual difference predictors of intergroup negativity. European Review of Social Psychology, 26, 1–42. doi:10.1080/10463283.2015.1070018
36.
HodsonG.DovidioJ. F.EssesV. M. (2003). Ingroup identification as a moderator of positive–negative asymmetry in social discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 215–233. doi:10.1002/ejsp.141
37.
HodsonG.HarryH.MitchellA. (2009). Independent benefits of contact and friendship on attitudes toward homosexuals among authoritarians and highly identified heterosexuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 509–525. doi:10.1002/ejsp.558
38.
HodsonG.HoggS. M.MacInnisC. C. (2009). The role of “dark personalities” (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), Big Five personality factors, and ideology in explaining prejudice. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 686–690. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.005
39.
HowellD. C. (2012). Statistical methods for psychology. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
40.
KinderD. R.SearsD. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 414–431. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.40.3.414
41.
KruglanskiA. W.WebsterD. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing.”Psychological Review, 103, 263–283. doi:10.1037/0033–295X.103.2.263
42.
KteilyN.HoA. K.SidaniusJ. (2012). Hierarchy in the mind: The predictive power of social dominance orientation across social contexts and domains. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 543–549. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.11.007
43.
KutnerM. H.NachtsheimC.NeterJ. (2004). Applied linear regression models. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
44.
LevinS.SidaniusJ.RabinowitzJ. L.FedericoC. (1998). Ethnic identity, legitimizing ideologies, and social status: A matter of ideological asymmetry. Political Psychology, 19, 373–404. doi:10.1111/0162–895X.00109
45.
LeyensJ. P.YzerbytV. Y. (1992). The ingroup overexclusion effect: Impact of valence and confirmation on stereotypical information search. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 549–569. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420220604
46.
LittleR. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198–1202. doi:10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722
47.
McConahayJ. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L. (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism (pp. 91–126). New York, NY: Academic Press.
48.
McCraeR. R.KurtzJ. E.YamagataS.TerraccianoA. (2011). Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 28–50. doi:10.1177/1088868310366253
49.
MeeusenC.DhontK. (2015). Parent–child similarity in common and specific components of prejudice: The role of ideological attitudes and political discussion. European Journal of Personality, 29, 585–598. doi:10.1002/per.2011
50.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2012). Mplus Version 7 user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
51.
OnraetE.DhontK.Van HielA. (2014). The relationships between internal and external threats and right-wing attitudes: A three-wave longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 712–725. doi:10.1177/0146167214524256
52.
PettigrewT. F.HewstoneM. (2017). The single factor fallacy: Implications of missing critical variables from an analysis of intergroup contact theory. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11, 8–37. doi:10.1111/sipr.12026
53.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.90.5.751
54.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934. doi:10.1002/ejsp.504
55.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
56.
PierroA.KruglanskiA. W. (2008). “Seizing and freezing” on a significant-person schema: Need for closure and the transference effect in social judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1492–1503. doi:10.1177/0146167208322865
57.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.67.4.741
58.
RoetsA.KruglanskiA. W.KossowskaM.PierroA.HongY. Y. (2015). The motivated gatekeeper of our minds: New directions in need for closure theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 221–283. doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.01.001
59.
RoetsA.Van HielA. (2007). Separating ability from need: Clarifying the dimensional structure of the need for closure scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 266–280. doi:10.1177/0146167206294744
60.
RoetsA.Van HielA. (2011). Allport’s prejudiced personality today: Need for closure as the motivated cognitive basis of prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 349–354. doi:10.1177/0963721411424894
61.
RoetsA.Van HielA.DhontK. (2012). Is sexism a gender issue? A motivated social cognition perspective on men’s and women’s sexist attitudes toward own and other gender. European Journal of Personality, 26, 350–359. doi:10.1002/per.843
62.
SaguyT.KteilyN. (2014). Power, negotiations, and the anticipation of intergroup encounters. European Review of Social Psychology, 25, 107–141. doi:10.1080/10463283.2014.957579
63.
SchaferJ. L.GrahamJ. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177. doi:10.1037/1082–989X.7.2.147
64.
SchmidK.HewstoneM.KüpperB.ZickA.WagnerU. (2012). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: A cross-national comparison in Europe. Social Psychology Quarterly, 75, 28–51. doi:10.1177/0190272511430235
65.
SidaniusJ.KteilyN. S.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.HoA. K.SibleyC.DuriezB. (2013). You’re inferior and not worth our concern: The interface between social dominance orientation and empathy. Journal of Personality, 81, 313–323. doi:10.1111/jopy.12008
66.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
67.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF.BoboL. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 476–490. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.70.3.476
68.
SpearsR.DoosjeB.EllemersN. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 538–553. doi:10.1177/0146167297235009
69.
StathiS.CrispR. J. (2008). Imagining intergroup contact promotes projection to outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 943–957. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.02.003
70.
StephanW. G. (2014). Intergroup anxiety: Theory, research, and practice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 239–255. doi:10.1177/1088868314530518
71.
SwartH.TurnerR.HewstoneM.VociA. (2011). Achieving forgiveness and trust in postconflict societies: The importance of self-disclosure and empathy. In TroppL. R.MallettR. K. (Eds.), Moving beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive intergroup relations (pp. 181–200). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
72.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
73.
TauschN.HewstoneM.KenworthyJ. B.PsaltisC.SchmidK.PopanJ. R.. . . HughesJ. (2010). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: Alternative accounts and underlying processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 282–302. doi:10.1037/a0018553
74.
VociA.HewstoneM. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 37–54. doi:10.1177/1368430203006001011
75.
VociA.HewstoneM.SwartH.VenezianiC. A. (2015). Refining the association between intergroup contact and intergroup forgiveness in Northern Ireland: Type of contact, prior conflict experience, and group identification. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 589–608. doi:10.1177/1368430215577001
76.
WebsterD. M.KruglanskiA. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.67.6.1049
77.
WrightS. C.LubenskyM. E. (2009). The struggle for social equality: Collective action versus prejudice reduction. In DemoulinS.LeyensJ.DovidioJ. F. (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
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.
