While previous research has examined social norms and intergroup contact as predictors of prejudice, there is limited research on their interplay in shaping intergroup attitudes. The results of five studies using correlational and experimental methods in different intergroup contexts consistently showed that the influence of intolerant (vs. tolerant) social norms on prejudice is reduced for people who have contacts with outgroup members. Studies 4–5 further showed that threat perceptions mediate the interaction effects between norms and contact on prejudice. Overall, the research program suggests that intergroup contact is a potent tool for reducing conformity to intolerant and antiegalitarian norms.
AikenL. S.WestS. G.RenoR. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
2.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.
3.
BarlowF. K.PaoliniS.PedersenA.HornseyM. J.RadkeH. R.HarwoodJ.. . . SibleyC. G. (2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1629–1643. doi:10.1177/0146167212457953
4.
BiglerR. S.HughesJ. M. (2010). Reasons for skepticism about the efficacy of simulated social contact interventions. American Psychologist, 65, 132–133. doi:10.1037/a0018097
5.
BlanchardF. A.CrandallC. S.BrighamJ. C.VaughnL. A. (1994). Condemning and condoning racism: A social context approach to interracial settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 993–997. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.993
6.
BranscombeN. R.EllemersN. (1998). Coping with group-based discrimination: Individualistic versus group-level strategies. In SwimJ. K.StangorC. (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 243–266). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
7.
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
8.
CeobanuA. M.EscandellX. (2010). Comparative analyses of public attitudes toward immigrants and immigration using multinational survey data: A review of theories and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 309–328. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102651
9.
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
10.
CialdiniR. B.KallgrenC. A.RenoR. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5
11.
CrandallC. S.EshlemanA.O’BrienL. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359–378. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.359
12.
CrispR. J.TurnerR. N. (2012). The imagined contact hypothesis. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 125–182. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00003-9
13.
DaviesK.TroppL. R.AronA.PettigrewT. F.WrightS. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 332–351. doi:10.1177/1088868311411103
14.
DhontK.van HielA. (2012). Intergroup contact buffers against the intergenerational transmission of authoritarianism and racial prejudice. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 231–234. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.008
15.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L. (2004). Aversive racism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 1–51. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(04)36001-6
16.
EndersC. K.TofighiD. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138. doi:10.1037/1082–989X.12.2.121
Falomir-PichastorJ. M.GabarrotF.MugnyG.NurraC. (2007). Influence normative, menace intergroupe et adaptabilité perçue des immigrés [Normative influence, intergroup threat, and perceived adaptability of immigrants]. Bulletin de Psychologie, 491, 407–414. doi:10.3917/bupsy.491.0407
20.
Falomir-PichastorJ. M.MugnyG. (2009). Influencia social y discriminación: Percepción de la capacidad de adaptación de los inmigrantes y amenaza para la identidad nacional [Social influence and discrimination: Perceived adaptability of immigrants and threat to national identity]. Revista de Psicología Social, 24, 3–15. doi:10.1174/021347409786922943
21.
Falomir-PichastorJ. M.Muñoz-RojasD.InvernizziF.MugnyG. (2004). Perceived in-group threat as a factor moderating the influence of in-group norms on discrimination against foreigners. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 135–153. doi:10.1002/ejsp.189
22.
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
23.
FazioR. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 75–109. doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60318-4
24.
FazioR. H.ZannaM. P.CooperJ. (1978). Direct experience and attitude–behavior consistency: An information processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 48–51. doi:10.1177/014616727800400109
25.
GiacobbeM. R.StukasA. A.FarhallJ. (2013). The effects of imagined versus actual contact with a person with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35, 265–271. doi:10.1080/01973533.2013.785403
26.
GreenE. G. T. (2009). Who can enter? A multilevel analysis on public support for immigration criteria across 20 European countries. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 41–60. doi:10.1177/1368430209102208
27.
GreenE. G. T.VisintinE. P.SarrasinO.HewstoneM. (2019). When integration policies shape the impact of intergroup contact on threat perceptions: A multilevel study across 20 European countries. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1369183x.2018.1550159
28.
GreenE. G. T.ZografovaY. (2014). Interethnic relations in Bulgaria. Unpublished dataset.
29.
GrevenT. (2016). The rise of right-wing populism in Europe and the United States. Berlin, Germany: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
30.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
31.
HornseyM. J.MajkutL.TerryD. J.McKimmieB. M. (2003). On being loud and proud: Non-conformity and counter-conformity to group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 319–335. doi:10.1348/014466603322438189
32.
HoweL. C.KrosnickJ. A. (2017). Attitude strength. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 327–351. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033600
33.
Jasinskaja-LahtiI.MähönenT. A.LiebkindK. (2011). Ingroup norms, intergroup contact and intergroup anxiety as predictors of the outgroup attitudes of majority and minority youth. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 346–355. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.06.001
34.
JettenJ.HornseyM. J. (2014). Deviance and dissent in groups. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 461–485. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115151
35.
JettenJ.PostmesT.McAuliffeB. J. (2002). “We’re all individuals”: Group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 189–207. doi:10.1002/ejsp.65
36.
JettenJ.SpearsR.MansteadA. S. (1996). Intergroup norms and intergroup discrimination: Distinctive self-categorization and social identity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1222–1233. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1222
37.
KendeA.TroppL.LantosN. A. (2017). Testing a contact intervention based on intergroup friendship between Roma and non-Roma Hungarians: Reducing bias through institutional support in a non-supportive societal context. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47, 47–55. doi:10.1111/jasp.12422
38.
KendeJ.PhaletK.van den NoortgateW.KaraA.FischerR. (2017). Equality revisited: A cross-cultural meta-analysis of the contact hypothesis. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1948550617728993
39.
LaurenceJ. (2014). Reconciling the contact and threat hypotheses: Does ethnic diversity strengthen or weaken community inter-ethnic relations?Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37, 1328–1349. doi:10.1080/01419870.2013.788727
40.
LeidnerB.CastanoE.ZaiserE.Giner-SorollaR. (2010). Ingroup glorification, moral disengagement, and justice in the context of collective violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1115–1129. doi:10.1177/0146167210376391
41.
LevinS.MatthewsM.GuimondS.SidaniusJ.PrattoF.KteilyN.. . . DoverT. (2012). Assimilation, multiculturalism, and colorblindness: Mediated and moderated relationships between social dominance orientation and prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 207–212. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.06.019
42.
MähönenT. A.IhalainenK.Jasinskaja-LahtiI. (2013). Specifying the contact hypothesis in a minority–minority context: A social identity perspective. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 221, 223–231. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000152
43.
MazzoleniO.PilottiA. (2015). The outcry of the periphery? An analysis of Ticino’s no to immigration. Swiss Political Science Review, 21, 63–75. doi:10.1111/spsr.12147
44.
McConahayJ. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L. (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91–125). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
45.
MerinoS. M. (2013). Contact with gays and lesbians and same-sex marriage support: The moderating role of social context. Social Science Research, 42, 1156–1166. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.02.004
46.
MilesE.CrispR. J. (2014). A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 3–26. doi:10.1177/1368430213510573
47.
MuddeC. (2013). Three decades of populist radical right parties in Western Europe: So what?European Journal of Political Research, 52, 1–19. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02065.x
MutzD. C.GoldmanS. K. (2010). Mass media. In DovidioJ. F.HewstoneM.GlickP.EssesV. M. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 241–258). London, UK: SAGE.
50.
NicoletS.SciariniP. (2006). When do issue opinions matter, and to whom? The determinants of long-term stability and change in party choice in the 2003 Swiss elections. Swiss Political Science Review, 12, 159–190. doi:10.1002/j.1662-6370.2006.tb00064.x
51.
PackerD. J.ChasteenA. L. (2010). Loyal deviance: Testing the normative conflict model of dissent in social groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 5–18. doi:10.1177/0146167209350628
52.
PaluckE. L.GreenD. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607
53.
PettigrewT. F.ChristO.WagnerU.StellmacherJ. (2007). Direct and indirect intergroup contact effects on prejudice: A normative interpretation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 411–425. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.11.003
54.
PettigrewT. F.MeertensR. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57–75. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420250106
55.
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
56.
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
57.
RiekB. M.ManiaE. W.GaertnerS. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4
58.
RiosK.WheelerS. C.MillerD. T. (2012). Compensatory nonconformity: Self-uncertainty and low implicit self-esteem increase adoption and expression of minority opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1300–1309. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.07.005
59.
Rodríguez-GarcíaJ.-M.WagnerU. (2009). Learning to be prejudiced: A test of unidirectional and bidirectional models of parent–offspring socialization. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 516–523. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.08.001
60.
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
61.
SchmidK.Al RamiahA.HewstoneM. (2014). Neighborhood ethnic diversity and trust: The role of intergroup contact and perceived threat. Psychological Science, 25, 665–674. doi:10.1177/0956797613508956
62.
SechristG. B.StangorC. (2007). When are intergroup attitudes based on perceived consensus information? The role of group familiarity. Social Influence, 2, 211–235. doi:10.1080/15534510701459068
63.
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
64.
StephanW. G.YbarraO.Rios MorrisonK. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In NelsonT. (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 43–59). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
65.
SwartH.HewstoneM.ChristO.VociA. (2011). Affective mediators of intergroup contact: A three-wave longitudinal study in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1221–1238. doi:10.1037/a0024450
TankardM. E.PaluckE. L. (2016). Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Social Issues and Policy Review, 10, 181–211. doi:10.1111/sipr.12022
68.
TauschN.TamT.HewstoneM.KenworthyJ.CairnsE. (2007). Individual-level and group-level mediators of contact effects in Northern Ireland: The moderating role of social identification. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 541–556. doi:10.1348/014466606X155150
69.
ThomsenJ. P. F.RafiqiA. (2018). When does superficial intergroup contact reduce anti-foreigner sentiment? Negative contact as an essential condition. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 59, 25–43. doi:10.1177/0020715217744598
70.
TroppL. R.PettigrewT. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16, 951–957. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01643.x
71.
TurnerR. N.CrispR. J.LambertE. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 427–441. doi:10.1177/1368430207081533
72.
TurnerR. N.WestK. (2012). Behavioural con-sequences of imagining intergroup contact with stigmatized outgroups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 193–202. doi:10.1177/1368430211418699
73.
Van AsscheJ.RoetsA.De KeersmaeckerJ.van HielA. (2017). The mobilizing effect of right-wing ideological climates: Cross-level interaction effects on different types of outgroup attitudes. Political Psychology, 38, 757–776. doi:10.1111/pops.12359
74.
VassilevR. (2010). Restoring the ethnolinguistic rights of Bulgaria’s Turkish minority. Ethnopolitics, 9, 295–309. doi:10.1080/17449050903551859
75.
VezzaliL.CrispR. J.StathiS.GiovanniniD. (2013). The affective consequences of imagined contact: A review and some suggestions for future research. TPM: Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 20, 343–363. doi:10.4473/TPM20.4.4
76.
VezzaliL.StathiS.CrispR. J.CapozzaD. (2015). Comparing direct and imagined intergroup contact among children: Effects on outgroup stereotypes and helping intentions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 49, 46–53. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.06.009
77.
VisintinE. P.BerentJ.GreenE. G. T.Falomir-PichastorJ. M. (2019). The interplay between social dominance orientation and intergroup contact in explaining support for multiculturalism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49, 319–327. doi:10.1111/jasp.12587
78.
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
79.
VonofakouC.HewstoneM.VociA. (2007). Contact with out-group friends as a predictor of meta-attitudinal strength and accessibility of attitudes toward gay men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 804–820. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.804
80.
WestK.TurnerR.LevitaL. (2015). Applying imagined contact to improve physiological responses in anticipation of intergroup interactions and the perceived quality of these interactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45, 425–436. doi:10.1111/jasp.12309
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.
