Intergroup contact is an effective way to improve intergroup relations, but appropriate evaluative and field research is lacking. We assessed the short- and long-term effectiveness of intergroup contact between refugees and pupils with the workshop “Taking a Closer Look.” A total of 388 pupils from 11 Austrian schools were divided into two groups: the contact group attended the workshop including intergroup contact; and the no-contact group, without it. Intergroup contact predicted changes from 1 week before to immediately after the workshop: The pupils’ attitudes toward refugees improved in the contact group, whereas they remained unchanged in the no-contact group. Empathy, support for refugee-friendly policies, and willingness to engage in intergroup contact increased in both groups, but significantly stronger in the contact group. Intergroup anxiety decreased and knowledge about refugees increased equally in both groups. One month after the workshop, this knowledge gain remained stable in both groups, but the other effects disappeared.
AdesokanA. A.UllrichJ.van DickR.TroppL. R. (2011). Diversity beliefs as moderator of the contact–prejudice relationship. Social Psychology, 42(4), 271–278. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000058
2.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
3.
BatsonC. D.PolycarpouM. P.Harmon-JonesE.ImhoffH. J.MitchenerE. C.BednarL. L.KleinT. R.HighbergerL. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.105
4.
BatsonC. D.ShawL. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0202_1
5.
BeelmannA.HeinemannK. S. (2014). Preventing prejudice and improving intergroup attitudes: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent training programs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2013.11.002
6.
BezrukovaK.SpellC. S.PerryJ. L.JehnK. A. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological bulletin, 142(11), 1227. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000067
7.
BešićE.Gasteiger-KlicperaB.BuchartC.HafnerJ.StefitzE. (2020). Refugee students’ perspectives on inclusive and exclusive school experiences in Austria. International Journal of Psychology, 55(5), 723–731. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12662
8.
BischofG.RupnowD. (Eds.). (2017). Contemporary Austrian studies: Vol. 26. Migration in Austria. Innsbruck University Press.
9.
BouldenW. T. (2006). Youth leadership, racism, and intergroup dialogue. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 15(1-2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1300/J051v15n01_01
10.
BrattC. (2008). The jigsaw classroom under test: No effect on intergroup relations evident. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18(5), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.946
11.
BretschneiderR. (2017). Was denkt Österreich? Integration und Zusammenleben. [What does Austria think? Integration and living together.] Österreichischer Integrationsfonds.
12.
CarlssonM.ErikssonS. (2017). Do attitudes expressed in surveys predict ethnic discrimination?Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40(10), 1739–1757. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2016.1201580
13.
CrandallC. S.EshlemanA. (2003). A justification–suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 414–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.414
14.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.KawakamiK. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past, present, and the future. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001009
15.
EisenbergN. (2010). Empathy-related responding: Links with self-regulation, moral judgment, and moral behavior. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 129–148). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12061-007
16.
EssesV. M.DovidioJ. F. (2002). The role of emotions in determining willingness to engage in intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1202–1214. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672022812006
17.
FatfoutaR.GerlachT. M.Schröder-AbéM.MerklA. (2015). Narcissism and lack of interpersonal forgiveness: The mediating role of state anger, state rumination, and state empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.051
18.
FrieslC.RenerK.WieserR. (2010). “Wir” und die Anderen”: Einstellungen zu “Fremden” und “Fremdenfeindlichkeit” in Österreich [‘We’ and the Others: Attitudes towards ‘Foreigners’ and ‘Xenophobia’ in Austria]. SWS-Rundschau, 50, 6–32.
19.
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(6), 536–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2052
HuangJ. L.CurranP. G.KeeneyJ.PoposkiE. M.DeShonR. P. (2012). Detecting and deterring insufficient effort responding to surveys. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9231-8
23.
IoannouM.Al RamiahA.HewstoneM. (2018). An experimental comparison of direct and indirect intergroup contact. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 393–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.010
24.
LemmerG.WagnerU. (2015). Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(2), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2079
25.
OverH.McCallC. (2018). Becoming us and them: Social learning and intergroup bias. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12, Article e12384. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12384
26.
PaluckE. L.GreenS. A.GreenD. P. (2018). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25
27.
PaoliniS.HewstoneM.CairnsE.VociA. (2004). Effects of direct and indirect cross-group friendships on judgments of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediating role of an anxiety-reduction mechanism. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), 770–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262848
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
30.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504
31.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R.WagnerU.ChristO. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001
32.
PrinzC.Glöckner-RistA. (2014). ESS Items zu Asylpolitik und Asylbewerbern. Zusammenstellung Sozialwissenschaftlicher Items Und Skalen. [ESS Items on Asylum Policy and Asylum Seekers: Compilation of Social Science Items and Scales]. GESIS Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.6102/zis143
33.
RennerW.ThomasA.MikulajováM.NewmanD. (2017). Threat perception and modern racism as possible predictors of attitudes towards asylum seekers: Comparative findings from Austria, Germany, and Slovakia. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 7(12), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.18533/ijbsr.v7i12.1081
34.
RonY.SolomonJ.HalperinE.SaguyT. (2017). Willingness to engage in intergroup contact: A multilevel approach. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23(3), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000204
35.
ScaccoA.WarrenS. S. (2018). Can social contact reduce prejudice and discrimination? Evidence from a field experiment in Nigeria. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 654–677. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000151
36.
ScheibelhoferP. (2017). “It won’t work without ugly pictures”: Images of othered masculinities and the legitimisation of restrictive refugee-politics in Austria. NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, 12(2), 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/18902138.2017.1341222
37.
SchmittM. T.BranscombeN. R.PostmesT.GarciaA. (2014). The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 921–948. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035754
38.
SpencerM. S.BrownM.GriffinS.AbdullahS. (2008). Outcome evaluation of the intergroup project. Small Group Research, 39(1), 82–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407313416
39.
SteinmayrA. (2016). Exposure to refugees and voting for the far-right: (Unexpected) results from Austria. SSRN. IZA Discussion Paper 9790. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2750273
40.
SteinmayrA. (2021). Contact versus exposure: Refugee presence and voting for the far right. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 103(2), 310–327. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00922
41.
StephanW. G. (2014). Intergroup anxiety: Theory, research, and practice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(3), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314530518
42.
StephanW. G.FinlayK. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00144
43.
TurnerR. N.HewstoneM.VociA. (2007). Reducing explicit and implicit outgroup prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.369
44.
van ZomerenM.FischerA. H.SpearsR. (2007). Testing the limits of tolerance: How intergroup anxiety amplifies negative and offensive responses to out-group-initiated contact. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(12), 1686–1699. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207307485
45.
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(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001011
46.
von BergH. L.RothR. (Eds.). (2003). Maßnahmen und Programme gegen Rechtsextremismus wissenschaftlich begleitet: Aufgaben, Konzepte und Erfahrungen [Scientifically Monitored Measures and Programs against Right-wing Extremism: Tasks, Concepts, and Experiences]. Springer.
WayneE. K. (2008). Is it just talk? Understanding and evaluating intergroup dialogue. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 25(4), 451–478. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.217
49.
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
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.
