The contact hypothesis during the European refugee crisis: Relating quality and quantity of (in)direct intergroup contact to attitudes towards refugees
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2021
The contact hypothesis during the European refugee crisis: Relating quality and quantity of (in)direct intergroup contact to attitudes towards refugees
Research shows that direct and indirect intergroup contact reduces levels of prejudice towards immigrants. However, no research so far has explored the association of these different forms of contact with attitudes towards refugees. The present study analyses the relationship between the frequency and valence of direct intergroup contact with people with a migration background, the frequency of indirect contact with news on refugees, and the perception of realistic and symbolic threat, and attitudes towards refugees among adults in four European countries (Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Sweden). Data were collected in 2017 via online questionnaires (N = 6,000). Using structural equation modelling, findings indicate that interethnic contact is positively related to attitudes towards refugees. Moreover, valence of direct contact is found to be more important to attitude formation than its frequency. Regarding indirect contact, exposure to news on refugees and public news consumption are positively related to attitudes, while commercial news consumption is negatively related to attitudes.
AbramsJ. R.McGaugheyK. J.HaghighatH. (2018). Attitudes toward Muslims: A test of the parasocial contact hypothesis and contact theory. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 47, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2018.1443968
2.
AhmedS. (2017). News media, movies, and anti-Muslim prejudice: Investigating the role of social contact. Asian Journal of Communication, 27, 536–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2017.1339720
3.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
4.
AtaA.BastianB.LusherD. (2009). Intergroup contact in context: The mediating role of social norms and group-based perceptions on the contact–prejudice link. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 498–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.05.001
5.
Atwell SeateA.MastroD. (2016). Media’s influence on immigration attitudes: An intergroup threat theory approach. Communication Monographs, 83, 194–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1068433
6.
BardoelJ. L. H.d’HaenensL. (2008). Converging PSB policies in Western Europe: The Netherlands and Flanders compared. Journal of Global Mass Communication, 1, 190–209.
7.
BarlowF. K.PaoliniS.PedersenA.HornseyM. J.RadkeH. R. M.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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212457953
8.
BroadG. M.GonzalezC.Ball-RokeachS. J. (2014). Intergroup relations in south Los Angeles: Combining communication infrastructure and contact hypothesis approaches. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.06.001
9.
CameronL.RutlandA.BrownR.DouchR. (2006). Changing children’s intergroup attitudes toward refugees: Testing different models of extended contact. Child Development, 77, 1208–1219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00929.x
10.
CaoB.LinW. Y. (2017). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: Effects of different modes of computer-mediated communication on intergroup relationships. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 58, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.03.003
11.
ChouliarakiL.ZaborowskiR. (2017). Voice and community in the 2015 refugee crisis: A content analysis of news coverage in eight European countries. International Communication Gazette, 79, 613–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048517727173
12.
ConstantinA. A.CuadradoI. (2019). Perceived intergroup competition and adolescents’ behavioural intentions toward minorities: The role of threat, stereotypes and emotions. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00297-8
13.
De ConinckD. (2020). Migrant categorizations and European public opinion: Diverging attitudes towards immigrants and refugees. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46, 1667–1686. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1694406
14.
De ConinckD.d’HaenensL.JorisW. (2019). Investigating intergroup attitudes in Europe: Cross-national data on news media, attitudes towards newcomers, and socio-psychological indicators. Data in Brief, 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.104535
15.
De ConinckD.MatthijsK.DebraelM.JorisW.De CockR.d’HaenensL. (2018). The relationship between media use and public opinion on immigrants and refugees: A Belgian perspective. Communications. The European Journal of Communication Research, 43, 403–425. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2018-0016
16.
De ConinckD.OganC.d’HaenensL. (2020). Can “the other” ever become “one of us”? Comparing Turkish and European attitudes towards refugees: A five-country study. International Communication Gazette. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048519895376
17.
DenisJ. S. (2015). Contact theory in a small-town settler-colonial context: The reproduction of laissez-faire racism in Indigenous–White Canadian relations. American Sociological Review, 80, 218–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414564998
18.
DirksmeierP. (2014). Are urbanites more permissive? Germany’s urban geography of prejudice. Urban Affairs Review, 50, 835–863. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087414520950
DovidioJ. F.LoveA.SchellhaasF. M. H.HewstoneM. (2017). Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 606–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217712052
21.
EssesV. M.HamiltonL. K.GaucherD. (2017). The global refugee crisis: Empirical evidence and policy implications for improving public attitudes and facilitating refugee resettlement. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11, 78–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12028
22.
EssesV. M.MedianuS.LawsonA. S. (2013). Uncertainty, threat, and the role of the media in promoting the dehumanization of immigrants and refugees. Journal of Social Issues, 69, 518–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12027
FetzerJ. S. (2012). Public opinion and populism. In RosenblumM. R.TichenorD. J. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of the politics of international migration (pp. 229–323). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30.
FreitagM.KijewskiS. (2017). Negative experiences and out-group trust: The formation of natives’ trust toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 59, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.04.011
31.
GhosnF.BraithwaiteA.ChuT. S. (2019). Violence, displacement, contact, and attitudes toward hosting refugees. Journal of Peace Research, 56, 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343318804581
32.
GrafS.PaoliniS.RubinM. (2014). Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 536–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2052
33.
GregurovićM.Radeljak KaufmannP.Župarić-IljićD.DujmovićM. (2019). Are attitudes determined by location? Differences in perceptions of asylum seekers between residents of two Zagreb neighbourhoods. Geoforum, 104, 244–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.05.004
34.
HaS. E. (2010). The consequences of multiracial contexts on public attitudes toward immigration. Political Research Quarterly, 63, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912908325255
HarwoodJ.JoyceN. (2012). Intergroup contact and communication. In GilesH. (Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 167–180). New York, NY: Routledge.
37.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216685291
38.
HewstoneM.SwartH. (2011). Fifty-odd years of inter-group contact: From hypothesis to integrated theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 374–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02047.x
39.
IgartuaJ. J.BarriosI. M.OrtegaF.FrutosF. J. (2014). The image of immigration in fiction broadcast on prime-time television in Spain. Palabra Clave, 17, 589–618. https://doi.org/10.5294/pacla.2014.17.3.2
40.
IgartuaJ. J.WojcieszakM.Cachón-RamónD.Guerrero-MartínI. (2017). “If it hooks you, share it on social networks.” Joint effects of character similarity and imagined contact on the intention to share a short narrative in favor of immigration. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72, 1085–1106. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2017-1209
41.
IslamM. R.HewstoneM. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196005
42.
JackmanM. R.CraneM. (1986). “Some of my best friends are Black. . .”: Interracial friendship and Whites’ racial attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 459–486. https://doi.org/10.1086/268998
43.
JacobsL.MeeusenC.d’HaenensL. (2016). News coverage and attitudes on immigration: Public and commercial television news compared. European Journal of Communication, 31, 642–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323116669456
44.
JollyS. K.DiGiustoG. M. (2014). Xenophobia and immigrant contact: French public attitudes toward immigration. Social Science Journal, 51, 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2013.09.018
45.
JoyceN.HarwoodJ. (2014). Improving intergroup attitudes through televised vicarious intergroup contact: Social cognitive processing of ingroup and outgroup information. Communication Research, 41, 627–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212447944
46.
KimN.WojcieszakM. (2018). Intergroup contact through online comments: Effects of direct and extended contact on outgroup attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.013
47.
KotzurP. F.SchäferS. J.WagnerU. (2019). Meeting a nice asylum seeker: Intergroup contact changes stereotype content perceptions and associated emotional prejudices, and encourages solidarity-based collective action intentions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58, 668–690. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12304
48.
LanceeB.Pardos-PradoS. (2013). Group conflict theory in a longitudinal perspective: Analysing the dynamic side of ethnic competition. International Migration Review, 47, 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/imre.12015
49.
LaurenceJ.BentleyL. (2018). Countervailing contact: Community ethnic diversity, anti-immigrant attitudes and mediating pathways of positive and negative inter-ethnic contact in European societies. Social Science Research, 69, 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.09.007
50.
LeeperT. J. (2014). The informational basis for mass polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78, 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nft045
51.
McKennaS.LeeE.KlikK. A.MarkusA.HewstoneM.ReynoldsK. J. (2018). Are diverse societies less cohesive? Testing contact and mediated contact theories. PLoS One, 13, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193337
52.
Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX). (2015). Migrant integration policy index 2015. Retrieved from http://www.mipex.eu/
NailT. (2016). A tale of two crises: Migration and terrorism after the Paris attacks. Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, 16, 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/sena.12168
55.
OrtizM.HarwoodJ. (2007). A social cognitive theory approach to the effects of mediated intergroup contact on intergroup attitudes. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 51, 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150701626487
56.
PagottoL.VociA. (2013). Direct and mass-mediated contact: The role of different intergroup emotions. TPM – Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 20, 365–381. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM20.4.5
57.
ParkS. Y. (2012). Mediated intergroup contact: Concept explication, synthesis, and application. Mass Communication and Society, 15, 136–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.558804
58.
PedersenA.HartleyL. K. (2015). Can we make a difference? Prejudice towards asylum seekers in Australia and the effectiveness of antiprejudice interventions. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 9, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2015.1
PettigrewT. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 187–199. https://doi.org/j.ijintrel.2007.12.002
61.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
62.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R.WagnerU.ChristO. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001
RiekB. M.ManiaE. W.GaertnerS. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4
66.
SchemerC.MeltzerC. E. (2019). The impact of negative parasocial and vicarious contact with refugees in the media on attitudes toward refugees. Mass Communication and Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2019.1692037
SchlueterE.WagnerU. (2008). Regional differences matter: Examining the dual influence of the regional size of the immigrant population on derogation of immigrants in Europe. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 49, 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020815207088910
69.
SemyonovM.GlikmanA. (2009). Ethnic residential segregation, social contacts, and anti-minority attitudes in European societies. European Sociological Review, 25, 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcn075
70.
SemyonovM.RaijmanR.GorodzeiskyA. (2006). The rise of anti-foreigner sentiment in European societies, 1988–2000. American Sociological Review, 71, 426–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100304
StephanW. G.RenfroC. L.EssesV. M.StephanC. W.MartinT. (2005). The effects of feeling threatened on attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.04.011
73.
StephanW. G.YbarraO.MartnezC. M.SchwarzwaldJ.Tur-KaspaM. (1998). Prejudice toward immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theory analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 559–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198294004
74.
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.
75.
TechakesariP.BarlowF. K.HornseyM. J.SungB.ThaiM.ChakJ. L. Y. (2015). An investigation of positive and negative contact as predictors of intergroup attitudes in the United States, Hong Kong, and Thailand. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 454–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115570313
76.
Turoy-SmithK. M.KaneR.PedersenA. (2013). The willingness of a society to act on behalf of Indigenous Australians and refugees: The role of contact, intergroup anxiety, prejudice, and support for legislative change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12017
77.
VezzaliL.HewstoneM.CapozzaD.GiovanniniD.WölferR. (2014). Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology, 25, 314–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.982948
78.
VisintinE. P.VociA.PagottoL.HewstoneM. (2017). Direct, extended, and mass-mediated contact with immigrants in Italy: Their associations with emotions, prejudice, and humanity perceptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47, 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12423
79.
Von HermanniH.NeumannR. (2019). “Refugees welcome?” The interplay between perceived threats and general concerns on the acceptance of refugees – A factorial survey approach in Germany. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45, 349–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1459183
80.
WagnerU.ChristO.PettigrewT. F.StellmacherJ.WolfC. (2016). Prejudice and minority proportion: Contact instead of threat effects. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 380–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250606900406
81.
WagnerU.van DickR.PettigrewT. F.ChristO. (2003). Ethnic prejudice in East and West Germany: The explanatory power of intergroup contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001010
82.
WardC.MasgoretA. M. (2006). An integrative model of attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 671–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.06.002
83.
Wilson-DailyA. E.KemmelmeierM.PratsJ. (2018). Intergroup contact versus conflict in Catalan high schools: A multilevel analysis of adolescent attitudes toward immigration and diversity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 64, 12–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.03.002
84.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73
85.
ZárateM. A.GarciaB.GarzaA. A.HitlanR. T. (2004). Cultural threat and perceived realistic group conflict as dual predictors of prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00067-2
