Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-1
Fostering social change among advantaged and disadvantaged group members: Integrating intergroup contact and social identity perspectives on collective action
Recent research on intergroup contact has shown how interactions with outgroup members may both decrease and increase motivations to achieve social equality. Similarly, social identity theory has identified the conditions that lead individuals to challenge unequal social systems. Integrating these two major theories, the current study examined the processes underlying the relationship between intergroup contact and participants’ willingness to engage in collective action to challenge social inequality. Specifically, we tested sociostructural variables (status legitimacy and stability, and permeability of group boundaries) as potential mediators of contact in a sample of both advantaged (Italian high school students, N = 392) and disadvantaged (immigrant high school students, N = 165) group members. We found that contact was positively associated with motivation for change, an effect mediated by decreased perceived legitimacy of status differences. Moreover, for the advantaged group, membership salience moderated the effects of quality (but not quantity) of contact. Indirect effects were instead not moderated by content of contact (an index considering the extent to which contact was characterized by a focus on differences vs. commonalities between groups). Theoretical and practical implications of findings are discussed.
BanfieldJ. C.DovidioJ. F. (2013). Whites’ perceptions of discrimination against Blacks: The influence of common identity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 833–841. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.008
2.
BeckerJ. C.TauschN. (2015). A dynamic model of engagement in normative and non-normative collective action: Psychological antecedents, consequences, and barriers. European Review of Social Psychology, 26, 43–92. http://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.1094265
3.
BeckerJ. C.WrightS. C.LubenskyM. E.ZhouS. (2013). Friend or ally: Whether cross-group contact undermines collective action depends on what advantaged group members say (or don’t say). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 442–455. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213477155
ÇakalH.HewstoneM.GülerM.HeathA. (2016). Predicting support for collective action in the conflict between Turks and Kurds: Perceived threats as a mediator of intergroup contact and social identity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19, 732–752. http://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216641303
6.
ÇakalH.HewstoneM.SchwärG.HeathA. (2011). An investigation of the social identity model of collective action and the “sedative” effect of intergroup contact among Black and White students in South Africa. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 606–627. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02075.x
7.
CapozzaD.TrifilettiE.VezzaliL.FavaraI. (2013). Can intergroup contact improve humanity attributions?International Journal of Psychology, 48, 527–541. http://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.688132
8.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
Di BernardoG. A.VezzaliL.StathiS.CadamuroA.CortesiL. (2017). Vicarious, extended and imagined intergroup contact: A review of interventions based on indirect contact strategies applied in educational settings. TPM – Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 24, 3–21. http://doi.org/10.4473/TPM24.1.1
10.
DixonJ. (2017). Concluding thoughts: The past, present and future of research on the contact hypothesis. In VezzaliL.StathiS. (Eds.), Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 168–184). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
11.
DixonJ.DurrheimK.ThomaeM. (2017). The principle–implementation gap in attitudes towards racial equality (and how to close it). Advances in Political Psychology, 38, 91–126. http://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12393
12.
DixonJ.DurrheimK.TredouxC. (2005). Beyond the optimal strategy: A “reality check” for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 697–711. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.697
13.
DixonJ.DurrheimK.TredouxC. (2007). Intergroup contact and attitudes toward the principle and practice of racial equality. Psychological Science, 18, 867–872. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01993.x
14.
DroogendykL.LouisW. R.WrightS. C. (2016). Renewed promise for positive cross-group contact: The role of supportive contact in empowering collective action. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 48, 317–327. http://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000058
15.
DurrheimK.DixonJ. (2004). Attitudes in the fiber of everyday life: The discourse of racial evaluation and the lived experience of desegregation. American Psychologist, 59, 626–636. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.7.626
16.
EllemersN. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity management strategies. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 27–57. http://doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000013
17.
EllemersN.BarretoM. (2009). Collective action in modern times: How modern expressions of prejudice prevent collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 749–768. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01621.x
18.
EllemersN.WilkeH.van KnippenbergA. (1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 766–778. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.766
GlasfordD. E.CalcagnoJ. (2012). The conflict of harmony: Intergroup contact, commonality and political solidarity between minority groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 323–328. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.001
23.
GlasfordD. E.DovidioJ. F. (2011). E pluribus unum: Dual identity and minority group members’ motivation to engage in contact, as well as social change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1021–1024. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.021
24.
GlasfordD. E.JohnstonB. (2018). Respect the technique: Status-based respect increases minority group social cohesion with majority groups, while also increasing minority collective action tendencies. Journal of Social Psychology, 158, 201–214. http://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1324395
HarwoodJ.HewstoneM.PaoliniS.VociA. (2005). Grandparent–grandchild contact and attitudes toward older adults: Moderator and mediator effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 393–406. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271577
27.
HauK. T.MarshH. W. (2004). The use of item parcels in structural equation modelling: Non-normal data and small sample sizes. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 57, 327–351. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2004.tb00142.x
28.
HaysN. A.BladerS. L. (2017). To give or not to give? Interactive effects of status and legitimacy on generosity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 17–38. http://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000067
29.
HaywardL. E.TroppL. R.HornseyM. J.BarlowF. K. (2018). How negative contact and positive contact with Whites predict collective action among racial and ethnic minorities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 1–20. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12220
30.
HerY. W.ShinH.PaeS. (2018). A multigroup SEM analysis of moderating role of task uncertainty on budgetary participation–performance relationship: Evidence from Korea. Asia Pacific Management Review, 24, 140–153.
31.
HodsonG.HewstoneM. (2013). Advances in intergroup contact. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
32.
IacobucciD.PosavacS. S.KardesF. R.SchneiderM. J.PopovichD. L. (2015). The median split: Robust, refined, and revived. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25, 690–704. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.014
IyerA.LeachC. W.CrosbyF. J. (2003). White guilt and racial compensation: The benefits and limits of self-focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 117–129. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202238377
35.
JackmanM. R.CraneM. (1986). “Some of my best friends are Black. . .”: Interracial friendship and Whites’ racial attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 459–486. http://doi.org/10.1086/268998
36.
JettenJ.SpearsR.PostmesT. (2004). Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 862–879. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.862
37.
KauffM.GreenE. G. T.SchmidK.HewstoneM.ChristO. (2016). Effects of majority members’ positive intergroup contact on minority members’ support for ingroup rights: Mobilizing or demobilizing effects?European Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 833–839. http://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2194
38.
LickelB.SchmaderT.BarquissauM. (2004). The evocation of moral emotions in intergroup contexts: The distinction between collective guilt and collective shame. In BranscombeN. R.DoosjeB. (Eds.), Collective guilt: International perspectives (pp. 35–55). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39.
LittleT. D.CunninghamW. A.ShaharG.WidamanK. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
40.
MajorB.GramzowR. H.McCoyS. K.LevinS.SchmaderT.SidaniusJ. (2002). Perceiving personal discrimination: The role of group status and legitimizing ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 269–282. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.269
41.
McKeownS.DixonJ. (2017). The “contact hypothesis”: Critical reflections and future directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11. http://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12295
42.
McKeownS.TaylorL. K. (2017). Intergroup contact and peacebuilding: Promoting youth civic engagement in Northern Ireland. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11. http://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12295
43.
MironA. M.BranscombeN. R.SchmittM. T. (2006). Collective guilt as distress over illegitimate intergroup inequality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 163–180. http://doi.org/10.1177/1368430206062075
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
47.
Pew Research Center. (2007). World publics welcome global trade – But not immigration: 47-nation Pew Global Attitudes Survey. Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.org/2007/10/04/
48.
PooreA. G.GagneF.BarlowK. M.LydonJ. E.TaylorD. M.WrightS. C. (2002). Contact and the person/group discrimination discrepancy in an Inuit community. Journal of Psychology, 136, 371–382. http://doi.org/10.1080/00223980209604164
ReimerN. K.BeckerJ. C.BenzA.ChristO.DhontK.KlockeU.. . . HewstoneM. (2017). Intergroup contact and social change: Implications of negative and positive contact for collective action in advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 121–136. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216676478
51.
SaguyT. (2018). Downside of intergroup harmony? When reconciliation might backfire and what to do. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 75–81. http://doi.org/10.1177/2372732217747085
52.
SaguyT.Chernyak-HaiL. (2012). Intergroup contact can undermine disadvantaged group members’ attributions to discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 714–720. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.01.003
53.
SaguyT.DovidioJ. F. (2013). Insecure status relations shape preferences for the content of intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1030–1042. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213487078
54.
SaguyT.DovidioJ. F.PrattoF. (2008). Beyond contact: Intergroup contact in the context of power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 432–445. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207311200
55.
SaguyT.Shchory-EyalN.Hasan-AslihS.SobolD.DovidioJ. F. (2017). The irony of harmony: Past and new developments. In VezzaliL.StathiS. (Eds.), Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 53–71). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
56.
SaguyT.TauschN.DovidioJ. F.PrattoF. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20, 114–121. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02261.x
57.
ScheepersD.EllemersN. (2005). When the pressure is up: The assessment of social identity threat in low and high status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 192–200. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.002
58.
ScheepersD.RöellC.EllemersN. (2015). Unstable power threatens the powerful and challenges the powerless: Evidence from cardiovascular markers of motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00720
59.
ScheepersD.SpearsR.DoosjeB.MansteadA. S. R. (2006). The social functions of ingroup bias: Creating, confirming, or changing social reality. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 359–396. http://doi.org/10.1080/10463280601088773
60.
SchmidK.HewstoneM.KupperB.ZickA.TauschN. (2014). Reducing aggressive intergroup action tendencies: Effects of intergroup contact via perceived intergroup threat. Aggressive Behaviour, 40, 250–262. http://doi.org/10.1002/jts5.15
61.
SelvanathanH. P.TechakesariP.TroppL. R.BarlowF. K. (2017). Whites for racial justice: How contact with Black Americans predicts support for collective action among White Americans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21, 893–912. http://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217690908
62.
SenguptaN. K.SibleyC. G. (2013). Perpetuating one’s own disadvantage: Intergroup contact enables the ideological legitimation of inequality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1391–1403. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213497593
63.
SimonB.KlandermansB. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319–331. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.4.319
64.
StewartT.LatuI. M.BranscombeN. R.DenneyH. T. (2010). Yes we can! Prejudice reduction through seeing (inequality) and believing (in social change). Psychological Science, 21, 1557–1562. http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610385354
65.
StürmerS.SimonB. (2004). The role of collective identification in social movement participation: A panel study in the context of the German gay movement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 263–277. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203256690
66.
SweetmanJ.SpearsR.LivingstoneA. G.MansteadA. S. R. (2013). Admiration regulates social hierarchy: Antecedents, dispositions, and effects on intergroup behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 534–542. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.007
67.
SwimJ. K.MillerD. L. (1999). White guilt: Its antecedents and consequences for attitudes toward affirmative action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 500–514. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025004008
68.
TajfelH. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London, UK: Academic Press.
69.
TajfelH. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
70.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflicts. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
71.
TauschN.SaguyT.BrysonJ. (2015). How does intergroup contact affect social change? Its impact on collective action and individual mobility intentions among members of a disadvantaged group. Journal of Social Issues, 71, 536–553. http://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12127
72.
TroppL. R.HawiD. R.van LaarC.LevinS. (2012). Cross-ethnic friendships, perceived discrimination, and their effects on ethnic activism over time: A longitudinal investigation of three ethnic minority groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 257–272. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02050.x
73.
TroppL. R.PettigrewT. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16, 951–957. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01643.x
74.
TurnerJ. C.BrownR. (1978). Social status, cognitive alternatives, and intergroup relations. In TajfelH. (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 201–234). London, UK: Academic Press.
75.
UfkesE. G.CalcagnoJ.GlasfordD. E.DovidioJ. F. (2016). Understanding how common ingroup identity undermines collective action among disadvantaged-group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 26–35. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.11.006
76.
Van ZomerenM.LeachC. W.SpearsR. (2012). Protesters as “passionate economists”: A dynamic dual pathway model of approach coping with collective disadvantage. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 180–199. http://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311430835
77.
Van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504–535. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
78.
Van ZomerenM.SpearsR.FischerA. H.LeachC. W. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 649–664. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.649
79.
VezzaliL.AndrighettoL.CapozzaD.Di BernardoG. A.SaguyT. (2017). Discussing differences between groups: The content of intergroup encounters and motivation for social change among members of advantaged groups. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 1, 52–59. http://doi.org/10.1002/jts5.12
80.
VezzaliL.CadamuroA.VersariA.GiovanniniD.TrifilettiE. (2015). Feeling like a group after a natural disaster: Common ingroup identity and relations with outgroup victims among majority and minority young children. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 519–538. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12091
81.
VezzaliL.CapozzaD. (2011). Reducing explicit and implicit prejudice toward disabled colleagues: Effects of contact and membership salience in the workplace. Life Span and Disability, 14, 139–162.
82.
VezzaliL.GiovanniniD. (2011). Intergroup contact and reduction of explicit and implicit prejudice towards immigrants: A study with Italian businessmen owning small and medium enterprises. Quality and Quantity, 45, 213–222. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-010-9366-0
83.
VezzaliL.GiovanniniD.CapozzaD. (2010). Longitudinal effects of contact on intergroup relations: The role of majority and minority group membership and intergroup emotions. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 462–479. http://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1058
84.
VezzaliL.StathiS.GiovanniniD. (2012). Indirect contact through book reading: Improving adolescents’ attitudes and behavioral intentions toward immigrants. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 148–162. http://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20621
85.
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. http://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001011
86.
VorauerJ. D.SakamotoY. (2008). Who cares what the outgroup thinks? Testing an information search model of the importance individuals accord to an outgroup member’s view of them during intergroup interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1467–1480. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0012631
87.
WellmanJ. D.LiuX.WilkinsC. L. (2016). Priming status-legitimizing beliefs: Examining the impact on perceived anti-White bias, zero-sum beliefs, and support for affirmative action among White people. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55, 426–437. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12133
88.
WrightS. C.LubenskyM. E. (2009). The struggle for social equality: Collective action versus prejudice reduction. In DemoulinS.LeyensJ. P.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.
