Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated anti-Chinese sentiments, demonstrating an urgent need for effective prejudice reduction interventions. Study 1 tested the relationship between contact and prejudice and its mediators toward Chinese people in Australia ( N = 362). As predicted, positive contact was significantly associated with less prejudice and, reliably, intergroup anxiety had the strongest mediation effect in this relationship. In Study 2, European Australians ( N = 161) were randomly assigned to an intergroup or intragroup (control) contact interaction, delivered vicariously via audio or text. As hypothesized, vicarious intergroup contact significantly reduced prejudice and negative emotions toward Chinese people. Moreover, text-based vicarious contact led to significantly lower intergroup anxiety and negative intergroup emotions than audio-based contact. No interaction effects of vicarious contact and delivery mode were found. Overall, these studies support direct and vicarious text-based contact as effective strategies for reducing prejudice in a global crisis and improving attitudes toward Chinese people.

Keywords

intergroup contact intergroup relations prejudice prejudice reduction vicarious contact

From the U.S. Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) to the White Australia policy (1901–1958), which disproportionately restricted Chinese migration, racial prejudice toward Chinese people has been ever present in Western history. Current anti-Chinese prejudice is underpinned by a myriad of perceived threats (Gao, 2022). For example, China is perceived as a geopolitical threat to the West, with ongoing trade wars and border disputes further enflaming anti-Chinese prejudice in the United States and Europe (Gao, 2022; Gries & Turcsányi, 2021; He & Xie, 2022; Li & Nicholson, 2021; Tan et al., 2022). More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic brought about an associated rhetoric labelling it the “China virus” or “kung flu,” implying that Chinese individuals also pose a health threat and, by extension, an economic (realistic) threat brought on by the pandemic (Borja et al., 2020; Budhwani & Sun, 2020; Dhanani & Franz, 2021; Yi, 2023). These sentiments, largely perpetuated by media channels, have been found to exacerbate entrenched implicit and explicit racial prejudice toward Chinese people (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020; Reny & Barreto, 2022; Shi et al., 2022; Song, 2023).

An analysis of the U.S. 15 largest cities revealed that hate crimes such as assault and vandalism targeting Asians, particularly those of Chinese descent, increased by nearly 170% during the COVID-19 pandemic (Levin, 2021). Similar increases in anti-Chinese prejudice since this time have also been reported in Australia (Biddle et al., 2020), Canada (Chinese Canadian National Council for Social Justice, 2022), and the United Kingdom (Tam, 2021). These intergroup frictions have resulted in physical assault, verbal harassment, and bullying toward Chinese individuals (Gries & Turcsányi, 2021; Gover et al., 2020). Furthermore, it is predicted that Western concerns about China’s economic power and the economic threat of the pandemic with the rising cost of living will continue to exacerbate anti-Chinese sentiments well beyond the pandemic (Ang & Colic-Peisker, 2022; Dhanani & Franz, 2021; Gao, 2022).

The vast evidence of anti-Chinese prejudice is concerning given that such marginalization is predicted to lead to various systemic issues, including poorer mental health, disadvantaged socioeconomic status, and, ultimately, reduced quality of life (Misra et al., 2020; T. T. Nguyen et al., 2020; Tessler et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2021). This is especially important in Australia, where people with Chinese ancestry comprises 5.5% of the total population, the largest racial minority group in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2022; Hsu, 2023). To address this global and national issue, the present research aimed to shed light on whether and how intergroup contact may be a useful strategy to reduce anti-Chinese prejudice in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, Study 1 explored the mechanisms that drive the contact–prejudice reduction relationship, and Study 2 experimentally examined the utility of vicarious contact as a potential solution, particularly the relative effectiveness of audio versus text modes of delivery in improving attitudes toward Chinese people.

The Role of Positive Contact During a Crisis

Intergroup contact is currently one of the most empirically tested and validated prejudice reduction strategies (Paluck et al., 2021). Current research has demonstrated promising evidence that direct contact is effective in improving attitudes toward Chinese people in Malaysia (Al Ramiah et al., 2014), Malawi (Gu et al., 2015), and the United Kingdom (Alston et al., 2022). However, much of this research occurred before the health and economic threats of COVID-19 were understood, and the subsequent surge in anti-Chinese prejudice and rhetoric became more widespread (Croucher et al., 2020; Pan & Gao, 2021; Ruiz et al., 2021; Silver et al., 2020). To date, there is barely any research that has examined contact’s effects during a global health crisis (e.g., COVID-19) toward the targeted outgroup (Adler et al., 2022). In support of this, a recent meta-analysis examining the benefits of contact in the face of threat outlined that more research is still needed to understand the role of unique historical and political (i.e., external) contexts as potential limiting conditions for contact (Van Assche et al., 2023). This is especially the case when health and financial threats due to the pandemic have been shown to predict unwillingness to help and the dehumanization of outgroups (Adler et al., 2022).

The few research studies that have examined contact in historical and political crises have been mixed. For example, some researchers have argued that threatening contexts via major crises might in fact reduce the effectiveness of contact in bringing positive attitude changes (Ditlmann & Samii, 2016; Mousa, 2020; Paluck & Clark, 2020; Stephan & Renfro, 2002). Specifically, a study testing Iraqi Christians’ attitudes toward Muslims during a political crisis found that it remained difficult for Christians to generalize improved attitudes toward the Muslim outgroup after contact (Mousa, 2020; Paluck & Clark, 2020), while another study found that positive contact had a negative effect on outgroup attitudes toward Jewish Israelis amongst Arab Palestinians (Ditlmann & Samii, 2016). On the other hand, Abrams et al. (2017) demonstrated that, after the 2005 London terrorist attack, positive contact was associated with lower prejudice toward Muslims in the UK despite an increase in prejudice.

A possible reason for this inconsistency could be due to the fact that Abrams et al. (2017) investigated attitudes toward Muslims as immigrants in a Western country (i.e., UK) while Mousa (2020) and Ditlmann and Samii (2016) investigated contact in threatening contexts driven by significant power imbalances over a long period of time. Similar to Abrams et al.’s (2017) study, our research examined attitudes toward Chinese people as immigrants in a Western country (i.e., Australia) during a health crisis over a shorter period of time, where it is plausible that contact remains an effective prejudice reduction strategy in such a context. By reexamining the contact–prejudice relationship, given the complex interplay of threats contributing to anti-Chinese prejudice today, we aim to contribute to a larger body of research investigating the factors and contexts that may act as boundary conditions to the efficacy of contact on prejudice. As it stands, the empirical question remains whether contact continues to be as effective in reducing anti-Chinese sentiments in light of a large-scale health crisis.

The Strongest Mediator of the Contact–Prejudice Relationship

Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2008) meta-analysis of 515 contact studies showed that contact successfully reduced prejudice via the mediating mechanism of lowering intergroup anxiety, the emotion felt when anticipating or engaging in intergroup contact, and increasing outgroup empathy, the ability and willingness to take the perspective of an outgroup member. More recently, Banas et al. (2020) supported that intergroup anxiety and outgroup empathy are significant mediators of both positive and negative indirect contact. Another potential mediating factor is interpersonal closeness (Stefaniak & Bilewicz, 2016; Turner et al., 2008). It is thought that experiencing positive contact with an outgroup member can reduce the cognitive distance between the individual and the outgroup, thus reducing prejudice (Turner et al., 2008). A recent study examining interpersonal closeness posits that major crises (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic) can incite greater closeness in the ingroup toward the outgroup, resulting in reduced prejudice toward Chinese people (Valtorta et al., 2022). Extrapolating from this research, intergroup anxiety, outgroup empathy, and interpersonal closeness may be key drivers underpinning the contact–prejudice reduction relationship in a crisis.

While the mediators of the contact–prejudice reduction relationship have been extensively explored, research comparing their relative effectiveness across different dimensions (i.e., affective, cognitive, behavioral intentions) of prejudice remains limited. So far, research has shown that high intergroup anxiety is a consistent driver of prejudice toward ethnic groups perceived as dangerous or competitive (Hutchison & Rosenthal, 2011; Stephan, 2014). According to Stephan and Stephan (1985), intergroup anxiety is most prevalent in an intergroup context where there is a high perception of danger and threat from the outgroup. Indeed, with the growing anti-Chinese prejudice due to the threat of a global crisis, intergroup anxiety has already been highlighted as a key predictor of anti-Chinese sentiments at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (Alston et al., 2022; Croucher et al., 2020; Gao, 2022). As such, it is plausible that lowered intergroup anxiety will remain the strongest mediator of the contact–prejudice reduction relationship in today’s anti-Chinese prejudice landscape, regardless of the outcome variables’ dimensions of prejudice. Moreover, research has yet to compare the effect of interpersonal closeness in major crises on other known mediators (Valtorta et al., 2022). By comparing the relative mediating role of intergroup anxiety in the contact–prejudice relationship across different dimensions of prejudice, especially in the context of a global crisis, we aim to identify key mechanisms that can better inform effective future contact interventions to be used in crises and beyond.

Study 1

Aims and Hypotheses

The aims of Study 1 were to establish whether contact continued to be a relevant factor amid the levels of anti-Chinese sentiment during the COVID-19 pandemic, and investigate the relative strengths of intergroup anxiety, outgroup empathy, and interpersonal closeness as mediators of the contact–prejudice relationship. It was predicted that among European Australian participants:

H1: Positive reported contact with Chinese individuals would be associated with less prejudice toward Chinese individuals (i.e., high positive outgroup attitude, high interpersonal closeness, low social distance, low realistic threat, low modern racism, high outgroup empathy).

H2: Intergroup anxiety, outgroup empathy, and interpersonal closeness toward Chinese individuals would mediate the contact–prejudice relationship.

H3: Intergroup anxiety would have the strongest mediation effect in the contact–prejudice relationship, regardless of the outcome variables’ dimensions.

Method

Participants

The final study sample, collected in late 2021 and early 2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic, consisted of 173 psychology Australian undergraduates and 189 Australian community members (N = 362) after excluding participants that failed the attention check (n = 24) and the suspicion check (n = 9). The ages ranged from 18 to 49 (M_age = 21.36 years, SD_age = 4.05). Two hundred and twelve participants (58.6%) identified as female, 147 as male, and three as nonbinary. Two hundred and twenty participants (58%) identified as not religious, 128 as Christian, 15 as Jewish, and nine identified with other religions. All participants identified as European Australian.

Measures

Positive contact

Hayward et al.’s (2017) intergroup contact measure was adapted for participants to indicate whether they had had a previous interaction with a Chinese person (0 = no, 1 = yes), how frequently they experienced interactions with Chinese individuals on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = extremely rarely, 7 = extremely frequently), and how positively they would rate these interactions (1 = not at all positive, 7 = very positive). These scores were combined by multiplying the quantity and quality of contact, as per Hayward et al. (2017) and Voci and Hewstone (2003), to make a composite overall score of positive contact, with higher scores indicating greater positive contact (Cronbach’s α = .76).

Outgroup attitudes

Outgroup attitudes were assessed using Burke et al.’s (2017) single-item feeling thermometer, “How warm do you feel toward Chinese people?” (0 = extremely cold, 100 = extremely warm). Higher scores indicated a more positive affective attitude.

Realistic threat

Maddux et al.’s (2006) modified nine-item measure was used to assess realistic threat. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed that “Chinese people have more economic power than they deserve,” on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicated greater threat (Cronbach’s α = .71).

Social distance

Crawford et al.’s (2017, Study 2) seven-item social distance measure was administered to determine participants’ behavioral intentions (e.g., “I would be happy to have a Chinese person living in Australia [as a roommate/marry into the family]”). Each item was rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Higher values indicated greater prejudice (Cronbach’s α = .92).

Modern racism

Son Hing et al.’s (2008) nine-item Asian Modern Racism Scale was adapted for participants to rate items such as “Discrimination against Chinese people is no longer a problem in Australia,” on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Higher scores reflected greater prejudice (Cronbach’s α = .93).

Interpersonal closeness

Interpersonal closeness was measured using Aron et al.’s (1992) single-item pictorial Inclusion of the Other in the Self. Participants selected the picture that best represented their perception of themselves in relation to the outgroup from a set of Venn diagrams, each representing different degree of overlap from 1 to 7, with higher scores denoting closeness.

Outgroup empathy

Pedersen et al.’s (2004) five-item empathy measure was adapted to assess participants’ empathy levels across a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree); for example, whether they “often feel sympathy” toward the outgroup. Higher scores were coded to indicate more empathy (Cronbach’s α = .75).

Intergroup anxiety

An adapted version of Stephan and Stephan’s (1985) six-item Intergroup Anxiety Scale was used to gauge participants’ affect (e.g., “anxious,” “comfortable”) when interacting with the target group. Participants rated their anxiety toward Chinese people on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater anxiety, after reverse-scoring relevant items (Cronbach’s α = .89).

Demographic questionnaire

The questionnaire asked participants about their gender, age, residency status, ethnic background, and religion.

Attention check

One item tested participants’ attention during the study. Participants were asked to select “disagree” on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Suspicion check

To reinforce the cover story and probe for suspicion, participants were asked whether they would like to comment on anything about the “two studies” and whether they noticed anything unusual.

Procedure

Advertisements of the study were posted on the University of Sydney’s online recruitment research portal and on social media (e.g., Facebook). All measures were completed online via Qualtrics. All participants took part in the study voluntarily. Once consent was given, participants completed the demographic questionnaire. Participants were then asked to complete a fake random selection task to determine which social group out of five they would be asked questions on. Unbeknownst to participants, they were always completing questionnaires assessing their attitude toward Chinese people living in Australia. The order of all outcome measures in the questionnaire was randomized, with the attention check item randomly placed amongst the measures. At the end of the questionnaire, participants were given the opportunity to express any suspicions on the true nature of the study, and were then debriefed with the true aims of the study.

Results

Preliminary analyses

A Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted to determine whether the relationships between the main variables were theoretically and conceptually consistent. As reported in Table 1, most variables were significantly correlated in the expected direction, except for interpersonal closeness with realistic threat and modern racism.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, and Pearson’s correlations of main variables.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Outgroup attitude	77.54	19.74	-	−.55**	−.34**	−.47**	−.50**	.26**	.30**	.21**
2. Social distance	2.09	1.01		-	.53**	.58**	.46**	−.27**	−.23**	−.24**
3. Realistic threat	3.33	0.79			-	.55**	.40**	−.19**	−.01	−.06
4. Modern racism	2.54	1.01				-	.38**	−.11*	−.09	−.11*
5. Intergroup anxiety	2.24	1.03					-	−.15**	−.13**	−.17**
6. Outgroup empathy	4.11	0.83						-	.22**	.20**
7. Closeness	3.06	1.48							-	.29**
8. Positive contact	21.02	13.80								-

Note. Higher scores for social distance, intergroup anxiety, realistic threat, and modern racism indicate greater racial prejudice. Higher scores for outgroup attitudes, outgroup empathy, and interpersonal closeness indicate lower racial prejudice.

*p < .05. ** p < .01 (two-tailed).

Main analyses

Linear regressions, using SPSS, were conducted on the mediator and outcome variables (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations). In support of H1, positive contact with Chinese individuals was associated with less prejudice on all of the outcomes variables: outgroup attitude: b = 0.31, SE_b = 0.07, t(360) = 4.16, p < .001; interpersonal closeness: b = 0.03, SE_b = 0.01, t(360) = 5.83, p < .001; social distance: b = −0.02, SE_b = 0.00, t(360) = −4.74, p < .001; outgroup empathy: b = 0.01, SE_b = 0.00, t(360) = 3.96, p < .001; intergroup anxiety: b = −0.13, SE_b = 0.00, t(360) = −3.32, p < .001; and modern racism: b = −0.01, SE_b = 0.00, t(360) = −2.11, p = .036. And positive contact was not found to be associated with realistic threat, b = −0.00, SE_b = 0.00, t(360) = −1.20, p = .232.

To test H2 and H3, mediation path analyses using Hayes’s (2018) PROCESS macro (Model 4) were conducted on the mediator variables intergroup anxiety, interpersonal closeness, and outgroup empathy, and on their effects on the contact–prejudice relationship (i.e., outgroup attitude, social distance, modern racism, and realistic threat). As per the typical statistical procedure (see Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001), standardized β was used to compare the relative effect of the mediators on the four outcome variables.

Consistent with H2 and H3, the indirect mediation effect of positive contact on outgroup attitudes through intergroup anxiety, β = .08, SE_β = 0.03, 95% CI [0.03, 0.13]; interpersonal closeness, β = .06, SE_β = 0.02, 95% CI [0.03, 0.09]; and outgroup empathy, β = .03, SE_β = 0.02, 95% CI [0.00, 0.06], was significant, with intergroup anxiety having the strongest mediation effect (see Figure 1a).

Figure 1.

Parallel multiple mediation models with standardized regression coefficients for the positive contact–outcome relationship as mediated by intergroup anxiety, outgroup empathy, and closeness for (a) outgroup attitudes, (b) social distance, (c) modern racism, and (d) realistic threat. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Consistent with H2 and H3, the indirect mediation effect of positive contact on social distance through intergroup anxiety, β = −.07, SE_β = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.12, −0.02]; interpersonal closeness, β = −.03, SE_β = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.06, −0.01]; and outgroup empathy, β = −.03, SE_β = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.07, −0.01], was significant, with intergroup anxiety having the strongest mediation effect (see Figure 1b).

The indirect mediation effect of positive contact on modern racism through intergroup anxiety, β = −.06, SE_β = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.11, −0.02], was significant. However, outgroup empathy, β = −.01, SE_β = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.04, 0.01], and interpersonal closeness, β = −.01, SE_β = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.04, 0.03], were not significant for modern racism. Thus, H2 was partially supported for modern racism. Nevertheless, supporting H3, intergroup anxiety was found to have the strongest mediation effect on modern racism (see Figure 1c).

Finally, the indirect mediation effect of positive contact on realistic threat through intergroup anxiety, β = −.07, SE_β = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.12, −0.02], and outgroup empathy, β = −.03, SE_β = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.06, −0.01], was significant. However, interpersonal closeness, β = .03, SE_β = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.06], was not significant for realistic threat. Thus, H2 was partially supported for realistic threat. Consistent with H3, intergroup anxiety had the highest mediation effect on realistic threat (see Figure 1d).

Overall, H1 and H2 were mostly supported, and H3 was fully supported.

Discussion

Considering the COVID-19-related threat posed by the Chinese diaspora during the pandemic, the contact–prejudice relationship and its mediators were reinvestigated. Study 1 results supported the predictions that greater positive contact with Chinese individuals would be associated with lower levels of prejudice, and that this relationship would be mediated by intergroup anxiety and partially mediated by outgroup empathy and interpersonal closeness. This finding suggests that a health crisis may not compromise the positive effects of contact as much, compared to other crises that have yielded mixed results (Ditlmann & Samii, 2016; Mousa, 2020). Only realistic threat was not significantly associated with positive contact. Realistic threats are those that endanger the physical or material well-being of the individual (Kachanoff et al., 2020). This latter finding may be explained by the salience of existing health and economic threats toward the well-being of participants during the pandemic (Adler et al., 2022), ultimately making it difficult for them to perceive Chinese people as less threatening, even with more positive contact (Ditlmann & Samii, 2016; Mousa, 2020; Paluck & Clark, 2020).

Intergroup anxiety was also found to be the most significant mediator in the contact–prejudice relationship across all three dimensions of prejudice (i.e., affective, cognitive, and behavioral intentions), whereas interpersonal closeness had the weakest mediating effect on the contact–prejudice relationship. Together, these findings support (a) the continuing theoretical and empirical relevance of the contact–prejudice relationship, (b) that a global health crisis does not limit the positive effects of contact, although a more enduring intervention might be needed to reduce any perceived realistic threats, and (c) that intergroup anxiety is a key mediator in the contact–prejudice relationship, regardless of the dimension of prejudice in question.

These findings should, however, be interpreted within the context of the limitations of Study 1. First, contact was self-reported and not manipulated, limiting causal inferences about the relationship between contact and anti-Chinese prejudice. Second, the study did not measure each of Allport’s (1954) facilitating conditions for contact, a critical design issue identified by experts in the field (Paluck et al., 2019; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Finally, Study 1 only measured direct positive contact with Chinese individuals, despite direct contact being difficult to achieve due to crisis-related distancing and in general (White, Borinca, et al., 2020). Thus, investigation of indirect contact, such as vicarious contact, is needed. Indirect contact strategies might be especially relevant to reduce prejudice in crises that encourage avoiding social interactions. For example, in our research context, since the outbreak of COVID-19, social distancing was actively encouraged due to health concerns and, thus, research predicted direct contact could potentially exacerbate hostility toward Chinese people, who were stigmatized as being those spreading the virus (Barrero et al., 2022; Tsai et al., 2020).

To this end, Study 2 was conducted to overcome the limitations of self-reported contact by experimentally manipulating vicarious contact and exploring the efficacy of different modes of this type of contact (text vs. audio) as a potential strategy to reduce intergroup anxiety and increase outgroup empathy as mechanisms to reduce anti-Chinese prejudice.

Study 2

Vicarious Contact and Prejudice Reduction

One way to overcome the psychological (i.e., anxiety) and physical (i.e., segregation) barriers to direct contact is via indirect contact (White, Borinca, et al., 2020). A growing body of research has shown indirect contact to be effective in improving outgroup attitudes (Lemmer & Wagner, 2015; White, Borinca, et al., 2020). Moreover, extant literature has demonstrated that a potent factor related to the rise in negative attitudes toward Chinese people is the media’s stigmatizing language and racial bias (Croucher et al., 2020; Song, 2023; Tessler et al., 2020). With the anti-Chinese prejudice widely spread by mass media (Song, 2023; Tessler et al., 2020), it is important to consider a strategy whose processes match such media dissemination.

One such strategy is vicarious contact. Vicarious contact refers to merely observing a positive cross-group interaction, which can reduce intergroup prejudice (Brown & Paterson, 2016; Wright et al., 1997). Vicarious contact is asynchronous and passive and, thus, can easily occur either by listening to the radio (Paluck, 2009) and/or reading texts (Vezzali et al., 2014; Wojcieszak & Warner, 2020). Currently, there is a plethora of evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of vicarious contact in improving attitudes toward various outgroups (Ortiz & Harwood, 2007; Walker & Scior, 2013), including individuals of Chinese descent (Mazziotta et al., 2011). Given that the media has been shown to play a crucial role in the formation of negative attitudes toward Chinese people, and considering that vicarious contact can be operationalized in a similar format to media presentations and also widely disseminated through mass media channels, vicarious contact has the potential to be a genuine strategy for improving attitudes toward Chinese people (Tessler et al., 2020, Vezzali and Stathi, 2020; White, Borinca, et al., 2020).

Additionally, with anxiety being a key predictor of anti-Chinese sentiments (see Study 1), vicarious contact offers a more distal form of contact in the continuum of contact framework, which in turn may induce less anxiety compared to more “active” and synchronous strategies such as E-contact (White, Borinca, et al., 2020; White, Harvey, & Abu-Rayya, 2015). Nevertheless, empirical questions remain about the most efficacious mode (audio or text) of vicarious contact for reducing prejudice, and whether the mediating factors identified in Study 1 would contribute to the effectiveness of different vicarious contact modalities.

Another consideration when implementing vicarious contact is the inclusion of Allport’s (1954) four optimal conditions. There is evidence, for instance, that the intentional inclusion of cooperation and authority support significantly increases the positive effects of vicarious contact (Gómez & Huici, 2008). Despite such evidence, however, there is currently a dearth of contact research fully operationalizing all four conditions (Paluck et al., 2019).

Modes of Vicarious Contact

One major advantage of vicarious contact is its ability to be widely disseminated through different modes of delivery (Gómez & Huici, 2008; White, Borinca, et al., 2020). While most laboratory studies have used visual media (e.g., film, TV; Preuß & Steffens, 2021), adopting a broader definition of observation has allowed vicarious contact to be operationalized either via a text-based format or an audio-based format (Vezzali et al., 2014).

Text-based vicarious contact facilitates the observation of positive cross-group interactions through words (Vezzali et al., 2014). It has generally been tested in schools using specially created stories (Di Bernardo et al., 2017; Husnu et al., 2018; Tercan et al., 2021), but it has also been tested in adult populations via mass media communications. For instance, research showed that reading about a positive interaction between a progressive and a conservative individual in a newspaper reduced social distancing and improved perceptions of the political outgroup (Wojcieszak & Warner, 2020).

A less explored mode is audio-delivered vicarious contact. Only a limited number of studies have investigated the effectiveness of an audio-based approach (Bilali & Vollhardt, 2013; Bilali et al., 2016; Paluck, 2009, 2010). Using an educational radio soap opera featuring friendships between two rival ethnic groups in postgenocidal Rwanda, Paluck (2009) induced long-term improvement in listeners’ outgroup empathy, social beliefs, and cooperative intergroup actions. Further, this radio soap opera also positively influenced postconflictual Congolese participants’ levels of outgroup mistrust, historical perspective-taking (i.e., willingness to examine the outgroup’s point of view), and competitive victimhood (i.e., competing for victim status; see Bilali & Vollhardt, 2013). Indeed, current evidence suggests that both text-based and audio-based vicarious types of contact have their merits in reducing intergroup tensions.

Surprisingly, experimental comparisons of different modes of delivery of vicarious contact are scarce. Yet, in our information-rich mass media society, information is constantly disseminated through various media modalities. Apart from two correlational studies (Vezzali et al., 2015, Studies 2 and 3), only one study to date has experimentally compared video- and text-based interventions (Cocco et al., 2021). Thus, there is a genuine need to explore the relative effectiveness of audio- and text-based contact to better determine the best delivery method for future mass media vicarious contact strategies to improve outgroup attitudes (Vezzali & Stathi, 2020).

It is possible that audio-based vicarious contact, including the accents of outgroup members, may be more anxiety-provoking than text-based interactions (White, Harvey, & Abu-Rayya, 2015). Previous research has shown that communication barriers, such as accents, are associated with negative affective reactions (e.g., frustration), which in turn are associated with intergroup anxiety (Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern, 2002). Further, auditory information has been found to play a central role in helping people achieve social categorizations (Giles & Coupland, 1991), with research demonstrating the robust effect of hearing accents on making group membership salient (Rakić et al., 2011). Consequently, interactions that are seen as intergroup in nature are more anxiety-provoking than interpersonal ones (Amichai-Hamburger & McKenna, 2006). In one study, American participants listening to a Nigerian English accent experienced higher intergroup anxiety and a lower perception of the speaker’s social status than listening to an American English accent (Acheme, 2022). As concluded in Study 1, intergroup anxiety was a particularly powerful mediator of the contact–prejudice relationship toward Chinese people during the pandemic. Increased intergroup anxiety is positively associated with negative intergroup outcomes (Stephan, 2014), such as a higher likelihood to apply outgroup stereotypes (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985) and resistance to changing prior negative outgroup beliefs (Amichai-Hamburger & McKenna, 2006; Wilder & Shapiro, 1989).

Furthermore, much like electronic contact (E-contact; White, Maunder, & Verrelli, 2020), text-based vicarious contact can conceal outgroup features (physical or vocal) that may be too threatening for some individuals. It also allows ingroup members to read and experience the outgroup interaction at a speed that is comfortable for them, potentially leading to greater contact quality and therefore greater improvement in intergroup attitudes (Dovidio et al., 2017). To the extent that reduced anxiety and quality of contact predict more positive intergroup relations (Dovidio et al., 2017; Voci & Hewstone, 2003), text-based vicarious contact could be less anxiety-provoking and therefore provide a more robust approach to prejudice reduction than an audio-based intervention. Thus, by evaluating the differences between modes of delivery, we will be able to unpack the technical features of audio- versus text-based vicarious contact that might influence the effectiveness of intergroup contact in improving racial attitudes.

Anxiety and Empathy as Mediators of Vicarious Contact

In Study 1, we demonstrated that intergroup anxiety and outgroup empathy are strong mediators of the direct contact–prejudice relationship, with anxiety being the strongest mediator. Whereas previous research has shown mixed findings when it comes to anxiety as a mediator in the vicarious contact–prejudice relationship (e.g., Vezzali et al., 2019), recent research has shown that affective factors such as empathy and anxiety do mediate the vicarious contact–prejudice relationship, mirroring the results for direct contact (Preuß & Steffens, 2021). In fact, vicarious contact, compared to direct contact, has been shown to produce greater reductions in anxiety for future contact (Ioannou et al., 2018). Clearly, more robust empirical evidence is needed to continue to investigate the role of affective mediators, especially during experimentally manipulated vicarious contact in the reduction of anti-Chinese prejudice (Alston et al., 2022; Croucher et al., 2020).

Aims and Hypotheses

There has been a dearth of literature exploring the relative effectiveness of the different modes of vicarious contact (Cocco et al., 2021). Study 2 will be the first to address this whilst systematically implementing all of Allport’s optimal conditions to significantly increase the positive effects of contact (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Further, Study 2 also extends the findings of Study 1 by examining the role of the two strongest mediators—intergroup anxiety and outgroup empathy—in the relationship vicarious contact–prejudice toward Chinese individuals. It was hypothesized that:

H1: Participants in the intergroup contact conditions would report more positive attitudes toward Chinese individuals compared to those in the intragroup (control) condition.

H2: Participants who experienced text-delivered vicarious contact would report more positive attitudes toward Chinese individuals compared to participants in the audio-delivered condition.

H3: The positive effects of intergroup vicarious contact, compared to intragroup contact, on attitudes toward Chinese individuals would be more pronounced when contact is delivered via text than via audio.

H4: Intergroup anxiety and outgroup empathy toward Chinese individuals would mediate the relationship between vicarious contact and other outcome variables.

Method

Participants

After excluding participants that failed the attention check (n = 11) and the suspicion check (n = 5), the final study sample, collected in 2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic, consisted of 161 Australian participants, including 112 community members and 49 undergraduate students, all aged over 18 years.¹ One hundred participants identified as women. One hundred and five participants identified as having Anglo-Celtic background, 54 identified as having European background, and two identified as Hispanic. One hundred and one participants identified as not religious, 52 identified as Christian, three as Buddhist, and five as having other religions. Finally, 105 participants supported left-wing political parties, 28 supported right-wing parties, and 28 supported other parties or preferred not to respond.

An a priori G*Power analysis and a Monte Carlo power analysis for the mediation effect were conducted (Faul et al., 2007; Schoemann et al., 2017) using a medium effect (f = .25), as indicated by a recent vicarious contact meta-analysis (Banas et al., 2020). The analysis showed that for a two-way ANOVA with four groups, 128 participants were needed to detect a medium effect size, and 151 participants were needed to detect the predicted indirect effects, allowing a power of 0.80 at α = .05. Given the final sample included 161 participants, sufficient statistical power was obtained.

Overall, in the intergroup conditions (n = 64), 33 participants were in the audio condition and 31 were in the text condition. In the intragroup conditions (n = 97), 53 were in the audio condition and 44 in the text condition.

Design

Participants were randomly allocated to one condition of a 2 (contact: intergroup vs. intragroup) x 2 (mode of delivery: audio vs. text) between-subjects experimental design.

Materials and measures

Audio versus text vicarious contact manipulation

Two interaction scripts were developed for the intergroup and intragroup conditions. Consistent with the relatively neutral discussion themes (e.g., work–life balance in Australia) used in previous E-contact materials (Boccanfuso et al., 2021; Maunder et al., 2019), the scripts depicted two characters discussing strategies for sustainable living as solutions to tackle climate change in a talk show setting (see supplemental material). Apart from the absence of racial identity disclosure in the intragroup condition, the intergroup and intragroup interactions were identical. Moreover, in the intergroup condition, the Chinese character’s ethnic background was revealed after the initial self-introduction phase. Here, the names Wuchen and John were used for the Chinese and ingroup member, respectively. In the intragroup condition, the characters’ White identity was signaled using prototypical European Australian male names, Tom and Lucas, and the fact that they were both born in Australia.

The scripts also incorporated all four of Allport’s (1954) optimal conditions, which have been neglected in previous vicarious contact research despite their ability to enhance the positive effects of contact (Paluck et al., 2019; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). These conditions were operationalized by having a “talk show host” moderate the interaction (authority support), establishing both characters as Australian residents (equal status), and having the characters collaboratively devise a sustainable living strategy together (cooperation and common goal).

Intergroup anxiety

Using Stephan and Stephan’s (1985) six-item Intergroup Anxiety Scale, participants rated how, for example, “happy” and “defensive” they would be if they were the only non-Chinese person in a group of Chinese people, on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). After reverse-scoring relevant items, higher scores indicated higher levels of intergroup anxiety (Cronbach’s α = .85).

Outgroup empathy

The same scale used in Study 1 was used to measure outgroup empathy (Cronbach’s α = .67).

Prejudice

White and Abu-Rayya’s (2012) Cultural Issues Scale (CIS) required participants to rate the seriousness of 12 events involving Chinese individuals, such as “Having several Chinese families move into your neighbourhood,” across a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all serious, 7 = extremely serious). After reverse-scoring relevant items, higher scores indicated higher levels of prejudice (Cronbach’s α = .90).

Negative intergroup emotions

Binder et al.’s (2009) adapted six-item measure assessed participants’ level of negative emotions toward Chinese individuals. Participants rated the extent to which they agreed with statements describing general feelings (e.g., “irritated”) toward Chinese people on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). After reverse-scoring relevant items, higher values indicated higher levels of negative intergroup emotions (Cronbach’s α = .82).

Desire for social distance

Link et al.’s (1987) adapted six-item Desire for Social Distance Scale assessed participants’ willingness to engage with Chinese individuals (e.g., “Having a Chinese person as a neighbor”) on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = definitely willing, 4 = definitely unwilling). Higher scores indicated a greater desire for social distance (Cronbach’s α = .90).

Manipulation checks

Allport’s optimal conditions check

Four items checked whether Allport’s optimal contact conditions (Allport’s, 1954) were successfully implemented. Participants rated the extent to which the interaction was positive and cooperative, supported by an authority figure, and involving individuals of equal status and a common goal across a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicated greater effective operationalization in the contact scripts (Cronbach’s α = .80).

Intergroup and intragroup identification checks

Four items assessed whether participants identified with the characters in the contact interactions on the following aspects: Australian identity, European Australian versus Chinese ethnicity, and the issue of climate change. Participants scored their level of agreement with statements such as “I strongly identify with being Australian,” on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicated greater identification. For the intergroup check: Cronbach’s α = .69; for the intragroup check: Cronbach’s α = .72.

Experimental check

One item assessed if participants correctly recognized the ethnicity of the individuals in their contact conditions. If participants could identify the individuals’ ethnicities, they were asked to specify it.

Suspicion check

Three items asked participants whether they perceived the talk show to be useful in promoting discussions about climate change, to comment on their general experience during the talk show, and whether they noticed anything unusual during the “two studies.”

Attention check

Two items identified inattentive participants. The first item asked them to select “strongly disagree” from a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The second item asked participants to select the month after April (i.e., May).

Demographic questionnaire

Eight items were used to collect information about participants’ gender, age, residency status, ethnicity, religion, education, political orientation, and disability status.

Procedure

This research was conducted online using Qualtrics. Participants first read the consent form and were given information about two “unrelated” studies to disguise the true intent of Study 2. After random allocation, participants in the audio condition listened to a recording of the stimulus material. The voice actors in the recording all had an Australian accent except for the Chinese character in the intergroup condition, who distinctively had a Chinese accent. Participants in the text condition read a transcript of their assigned contact interaction. The audio and the text conditions lasted, on average, 5 and 3 minutes, respectively. After contact, participants in the intergroup contact condition answered two discussion questions intended to reinforce the effects of contact, whereas participants in the intragroup condition answered two filler discussion questions (see supplemental material). All participants then completed manipulation checks and proceeded to the “second study.” As in Study 1, participants completed a fake random selection task and only answered outcome measures involving Chinese individuals in which the order of all outcome measures was randomized. Two attention check items were randomly placed amongst the measures, and two suspicion checks assessed participants’ awareness of the study’s true purpose. Finally, participants were all debriefed in regard to the true aims of the study.

Results

A one-sample t test with 3 as the midpoint and test statistic showed that participants rated all items in the Allport’s conditions check significantly higher than the scale’s midpoint (see Table 2), overall indicating a successful operationalization of Allport’s conditions.

Table 2.

Means, standard deviations, and t-test results of ratings of Allport’s conditions check.

Item	M (SD)	t(160)	p
Common goal	4.42 (0.80)	22.60	< .001
Cooperation	4.44 (0.71)	25.91	< .001
Equal status	4.31 (0.85)	19.49	< .001
Authority support	4.34 (0.79)	21.51	< .001

Note. Scores ranged from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ), with 3 as the midpoint and test statistic. Higher scores indicate greater agreement with Allport’s conditions.

Additionally, independent samples t tests showed that participants in the intergroup condition (M = 4.59, SD = 0.58) rated the interaction as significantly more cooperative than participants in the intragroup condition did (M = 4.34, SD = 0.76), t(159) = 2.26, p = .025, but did not differ in their ratings of all other contact conditions. No significant differences in item ratings were found between the audio and text conditions.

In vicarious contact scenarios, identification with the ingroup member (i.e., ingroup identification) is an essential precondition for the effectiveness of the strategy, as it is important for the participants to identify with the ingroup character so that the positive effect of an intergroup contact is also relatable to them (Banas et al., 2020; Ortiz & Harwood, 2007; Vezzali et al., 2015). A one-sample t test found that intergroup participants did not significantly identify with the Chinese character (M = 3.09, SD = 0.97), t(160) = 0.77, p = .443, though they identified significantly with being Australian, the European Australian character, and the issue of climate change (all ps < .001). Similarly, the intragroup condition participants identified with the Australian identity, the Caucasian characters Tom and Lucas, and the issue of climate change significantly more than the midpoint of 3 (all ps < .050).

Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, and Pearson’s correlations for the dependent variables. Specifically, intergroup anxiety and outgroup empathy significantly correlated with all three outcome measures in the expected directions. Consistent with prior evidence (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008), intergroup anxiety was also negatively correlated with outgroup empathy.

Table 3.

Means, standard deviations, and Pearson’s correlations of mediator and outcome variables.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Intergroup anxiety	15.56	4.87	-	−.27**	.36**	.52**	.30**
2. Outgroup empathy	21.75	4.94		-	−.33**	−.47**	−.30**
3. Prejudice	21.94	10.09			-	.55**	.52**
4. NIE	14.73	5.57				-	.57**
5. DSD	8.54	2.38					-

Note. Higher scores indicate greater intergroup anxiety, outgroup empathy, prejudice, negative outgroup emotions, and more desire for social distance. Hyphens represent variables’ correlations with themselves. NIE = negative intergroup emotions; DSD = desire for social distance.

**p < .01 (two-tailed).

To test the main hypotheses, a series of two-way between-subjects ANOVAs tested the effects of the experimental manipulation on all dependent measures. Refer to Table 4 for all relevant statistics. In partial support of H1, participants in the intergroup vicarious contact condition reported lower levels of prejudice toward Chinese people (M = 19.58, SD = 8.85) than those in the intragroup vicarious contact condition (M = 23.49, SD = 10.59), and significantly lower negative intergroup emotions (M = 13.61, SD = 5.07) than those the intragroup contact condition (M = 15.46, SD = 5.79). There was no significant main effect of contact on the remaining dependent measures. In partial support of H2, participants in the text-based vicarious contact condition reported significantly lower intergroup anxiety (M = 14.75, SD = 4.61) than participants in the audio-based condition did (M = 16.27, SD = 5.01), and significantly lower negative intergroup emotions (M = 13.53, SD = 5.61) than participants in the audio-based condition did (M = 15.77, SD = 5.36). There was no significant main effect of mode of delivery on reported outgroup empathy, prejudice, and desire for social distance. There was no support for H3, which predicted an interaction effect between contact and mode of delivery on any of the dependent measures.

Table 4.

F values, p values, and effect sizes for contact and mode of delivery on dependent variables.

	Contact (IV₁)			Mode of delivery (IV₂)			IV₁ × IV₂
	F	p	η²_p	F	p	η²_p	F	p	η²_p
Intergroup anxiety	2.63	.107	.02	4.84	.029	.03	1.90	.170	.01
Outgroup empathy	0.11	.742	.00	3.54	.062	.02	0.85	.359	.01
Prejudice	6.12	.014	.04	0.11	.740	.00	0.69	.408	.00
NIE	4.55	.034	.03	7.86	.006	.05	2.24	.137	.01
DSD	1.46	.229	.01	0.24	.628	.00	0.04	.846	.00

Note . The interaction between the two independent variables is indicated by IV₁ × IV₂. NIE = negative intergroup emotions; DSD = desire for social distance. Significant results (p < .05) are boldfaced.

The moderated mediation model predicted in H4 was analyzed using Model 8 of Hayes’s (2018) PROCESS macro. Whilst intergroup anxiety was found to be positively associated with all three outcome variables: prejudice, b = 0.55, SE_b = 0.16, 95% CI [0.24, 0.85]; negative intergroup emotions, b = 0.36, SE_b = 0.07, 95% CI [0.22, 0.50]; and desire for social distance, b = 0.11, SE_b = 0.04, 95% CI [0.03, 0.19]; and outgroup empathy was negatively associated with prejudice, b = −0.52, SE_b = 0.15, 95% CI [−0.82, −0.23]; negative intergroup emotions, b = −0.35, SE_b = 0.07, 95% CI [−0.48, −0.21]; and desire for social distance, b = −0.11, SE_b = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.18, −0.03], the analyses revealed that there were no significant direct effects of contact on any of the dependent variables (ps > .050). Therefore, there was no support for H4.

Discussion

The finding that vicarious contact reduced prejudice and negative intergroup emotions is consistent with previous evidence (Castelli et al., 2012; Liebkind & McAlister, 1999; Pahlke et al., 2012). However, contrasting with previous findings and Study 1 (Koc & Anderson, 2018; E. Nguyen et al., 2012; Pagotto & Voci, 2013), intergroup vicarious contact did not reduce anxiety or desire for social distance. One potential explanation for the null finding on social distance is that the current sample reflected a substantial ceiling effect, due to the fact that Chinese people make up the largest racial minority group in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2022), and thus that the opportunity for prior contact, measured in Study 1, was relatively high. This social context limits the ability for manipulated vicarious contact to promote additional positive changes on social distance measures (Hodson, 2011; White, Borinca, et al., 2020; White, Verrelli, et al., 2019). Alternatively, there may have been an insufficient level of stereotypic information in the vicarious contact condition, which is necessary for reducing anxiety about the outgroup (Maunder et al., 2019; Pettigrew, 1998; Walch et al., 2012). In the COVID-19 context, Chinese individuals are stereotyped as dirty and disease carriers (Roberto et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2021). However, the current vicarious contact scripts did not focus on this topic, and instead centered on the less stereotypic topic of sustainable living. Future vicarious contact interventions may be more effective by directly challenging specific stereotypic information about Chinese people.

Despite only partial support for our second hypothesis, Study 2 yielded the first experimental evidence demonstrating the benefits of text-based (over audio-based) vicarious contact in reducing intergroup anxiety and negative intergroup emotions. These results are supported by previous findings (Acheme, 2022) that accented speech indicating outgroup membership induces higher intergroup anxiety than accented speech indicating ingroup membership. Further, these results align with research showing that hearing different accents is associated with a broad range of negative affective responses (e.g., annoyance, frustration; Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern, 2002). These results also indirectly support Bilali and Vollhardt’s (2013) finding that an audio-based vicarious contact intervention was effective in improving outgroup attitudes when the outgroup membership of the characters could not be identified via their accent. Overall, this finding poses an interesting theoretical question for future research on what features of text- versus audio-based contact (e.g., accents) can elicit greater anxiety and/or outgroup bias (Stephan, 2014).

Nevertheless, it is also worth noting that a methodological feature of the current text-based vicarious contact condition may have impacted the results. Most past research investigating text-based vicarious contact entailed narration of ad hoc created texts by an extenal and neutral voice, usually the researcher,² (e.g., Cameron & Rutland, 2006) due to the young age of the children involved. Participants in the present research, however, read the interaction scripts by themselves. Previous research has associated reading with inner speech (Filik & Barber, 2011), the psychological experience of covertly articulating words in one’s mental space (Alderson-Day & Fernyhough, 2015). As this has been closely associated with the vocal features of one’s ingroup (e.g., regional accents, age; Filik & Barber, 2011), participants may have interpreted the intergroup interaction as an intragroup experience. Compared to participants in the audio-delivered condition who experienced either intergroup or intragroup contact, such “absence” of intergroup contact in the text-delivered condition may also explain our current findings.

Finally, there was no significant difference between the two delivery mode conditions across the remaining outcome variables (i.e., prejudice, outgroup empathy, and desire for social distance), and no significant interaction effect between contact and mode of delivery. One possible explanation for these findings is the lack of adequate self-disclosure by the outgroup character. Previous theoretical (Brewer & Miller, 1984) and experimental research (Davies et al., 2011; Ensari & Miller, 2005) has suggested that self-disclosure during contact is necessary for promoting positive outgroup attitudes. This is because self-disclosure (i.e., information about oneself) facilitates contact on an interpersonal basis, thereby personalizing the interaction and placing emphasis on the outgroup member’s individual (rather than group) features. Contrasting the extended self-disclosure manipulations in previous studies (Ensari & Miller, 2002), the outgroup character here only briefly disclosed personal information through sharing hobbies, and this limited self-disclosure may have contributed to our null findings (see Bagci et al., 2021).

General Discussion

The results of Study 1 and Study 2 supported that both direct and indirect contact are viable strategies to improve outgroup attitudes toward Chinese people, especially during a global crisis (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic). While our results were obtained during a specific time frame, these findings can be generalized and contribute to the extant contact literature by demonstrating that within the context of a global (health) crisis, with greater intergroup hostility, the effectiveness of contact on prejudice reduction is not hindered (Adler et al., 2022; Van Assche et al., 2023). However, it should also be noted that positive contact did not yield an effect on realistic threat, suggesting that more enduring (i.e., longitudinal) strategies are still required to alleviate perceived threat from outgroups in challenging contexts.

Furthermore, Study 1 found that the association between direct contact and prejudice toward Chinese people is mediated by intergroup anxiety and partially mediated by outgroup empathy and interpersonal closeness, and that intergroup anxiety is the strongest mediator of the contact–prejudice relationship across the three dimensions (i.e., affective, cognitive, behavioral intentions) of prejudice. Stephan and Stephan’s (1985) contention that intergroup anxiety is most pervasive when the outgroup is perceived as a threat is particularly relevant to improving outgroup bias in crises.

Contrary to predictions, intergroup anxiety and outgroup empathy did not mediate the vicarious contact effects in Study 2. Nevertheless, in partial support of our hypothesis, Study 2 demonstrated that text-based vicarious contact resulted in more positive emotions and less intergroup anxiety in comparison to audio-based vicarious contact, supporting Study 1 findings that intergroup anxiety remains a key variable when improving attitudes toward Chinese people. Study 2 results provide preliminary evidence that audio-based vicarious contact, with its salient outgroup features (e.g., accents), can be negatively evaluated by ingroup members, and thus be less conducive to prejudice reduction.

Limitations and Future Directions

Long-term outcomes in reducing prejudice toward Chinese people were neglected in both studies. Moreover, the vicarious contact conditions tested in Study 2 were significantly shorter than previous vicarious contact involving 1-year-long or 6-week-long programs (Bilali & Vollhardt, 2013; Cameron et al., 2011; Paluck, 2009). These limitations are worth noting since intergroup contact over a longer period has been found to be more effective in improving attitudes (Dovidio et al., 2017; White & Abu-Rayya, 2012). Future research will benefit from employing a longitudinal design to explore the effects of audio- and text-based vicarious contact over time.

Although our research has demonstrated that a health crisis is not a limiting factor to the positive effects of intergroup contact toward the targeted outgroup, other historical and political crises might still reduce the effectiveness of contact in prejudice reduction (Ditlmann & Samii, 2016; Van Assche et al., 2023). Concurrently, even though our research measured realistic threat as an amalgamation of material and physical well-being (e.g., quality of life), we did not directly measure COVID-19 health threat as a standalone variable. Thus, whether health threats from a global crisis could have moderated the mediating effects of intergroup anxiety on the contact–prejudice relationship will need to be tested in future research. Moreover, by building on existing studies, future research could also consider examining the relative effectiveness of contact interventions during different crises (e.g., global warming, political).

Future research may also consider investigating the effects of contact on both minority and majority groups. While intergroup dynamics inherently involve bidirectional interactions, the contact literature has primarily taken a unidirectional approach prioritizing the attitudes of the majority (Shelton, 2000; White, Harvey, & Verrelli, 2015). This subsequently limits the extent to which intergroup harmony can be achieved (McGrane & White, 2007; White, Harvey, & Verrelli, 2015). Thus, given today’s landscape, it may be relevant for contact researchers to also consider the attitudes of Chinese people toward European Australians. Concurrently, features of audio-based contact, such as the accent of the majority outgroup, may not be as negatively salient in the contact situation for minority racial groups. Hence, future research should test whether the various features of audio-based contact compared to text-based contact will have a different impact on the minority’s attitudes toward the majority racial group.

Finally, although our audio-based vicarious contact yielded unfavorable results compared to its text-based counterpart, various researchers have demonstrated the benefits of audio-based contact in other contexts (Bilali & Vollhardt, 2013; Bilali et al., 2016; Paluck, 2009, 2010). More research is needed to delineate the conditions and exact features under which audio-based and text-based contact may bring about positive outgroup attitude change and, by extension, reduce anxiety in ingroup members. While our audio-based vicarious contact decidedly characterized the outgroup member with a nonstandard English accent, there are other group memberships that do not necessarily have a distinctive accent (e.g., sexuality, disability). Another future consideration is to compare vicarious contact to other indirect contact strategies (e.g., E-contact) to test their effectiveness in reducing prejudice and, in doing so, compare text- and audio-based versions of different indirect contact strategies (White, Maunder, & Verrelli, 2020).

Implications and Conclusions

Considering the current anti-Chinese sentiments exasperated by the COVID-19 pandemic, Studies 1 and 2 provided support for the utility of both direct and vicarious contact strategies in reducing prejudice toward Chinese people during a global crisis. This research suggests intergroup anxiety as an important variable to consider when devising future interventions aimed at reducing prejudice toward Chinese people, and provides a preliminary framework for exploring the conditions required to implement a successful vicarious contact intervention via different modes of delivery. Further, Study 2 suggests vicarious contact has the potential to provide real-world solutions to counteract widespread anti-Chinese sentiment incited via Western mass media channels (Borja et al., 2020; Wen et al., 2020), where such vicarious contact involves cooperation and collaboration (Gómez & Huici, 2008). The prospect of depicting a positive and cooperative intergroup interaction between European Australians and Chinese individuals is highly scalable through mass media. Thus, it is crucial that researchers build on the current research’s insights and continue to explore factors and external boundary conditions in which the positive effects of either direct or vicarious contact can be more readily realized. Ultimately, the practical and translational qualities of the current findings may assist policymakers and social psychology scholars in combining efforts to achieve a more harmonious society.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-gpi-10.1177_13684302241231201 – Supplemental material for The power of words and voices: The role of direct and vicarious contact (text vs. audio modalities) in reducing anti-Chinese prejudice

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-gpi-10.1177_13684302241231201 for The power of words and voices: The role of direct and vicarious contact (text vs. audio modalities) in reducing anti-Chinese prejudice by Roberta Chen, Fiona A. White, Michael Deng and Ellen Shi in Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Fiona A. White

Ellen Shi

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Abrams

van

Vyver

Houston

D. M.

Vasiljevic

(2017). Does terror defeat contact? Intergroup contact and prejudice toward Muslims before and after the London bombings. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23(3), 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000167

Acheme

D. E.

(2022). Hearing race: The effects of race and accent on language attitudes and intergroup communication outcomes [Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma]. ShareOk. https://shareok.org/handle/11244/335958

Adler

Hebel-Sela

Leshem

O. A.

Levy

Halperin

(2022). A social virus: Intergroup dehumanization and unwillingness to aid amidst COVID-19 – Who are the main targets? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 86, 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.11.006

Alderson-Day

Fernyhough

(2015). Inner speech: Development, cognitive functions, phenomenology, and neurobiology. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 931–965. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000021

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Al Ramiah

Hewstone

Little

T. D.

Lang

(2014). The influence of status on the relationship between intergroup contact, threat, and prejudice in the context of a nation-building intervention in Malaysia. Journal of Clinical Resolution, 58(7), 1202–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002713492634

Alston

Meleady

Seger

C. R.

(2022). Can past intergroup contact shape support for policies in a pandemic? Processes predicting endorsement of discriminatory Chinese restrictions during the COVID-19 crisis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(1), 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220959710

Amichai-Hamburger

McKenna

K. Y. A.

(2006). The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Interacting via the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(3), 825–843. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00037.x

Ang

Colic-Peisker

(2022). Sinophobia in the Asian century: Race, nation and othering in Australia and Singapore. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 45(4), 718–737. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2021.1921236

10.

Aron

E. N.

Smollan

(1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596

11.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2022). Cultural diversity: Census. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/people-and-communities/cultural-diversity-census/latest-release

12.

Bagci

Guvensoy

Turner

R. N.

White

F. A.

Piyale

Z. E.

(2021). Investigating the role of E-contact and self-disclosure on improving Turkish–Kurdish interethnic relations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(6), 577–593. http://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12760

13.

Banas

J. A.

Bessarabova

Massey

Z. B.

(2020). Meta-analysis on mediated contact and prejudice. Human Communication Research, 46(2–3), 120–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaa004

14.

Barrero

J. M.

Bloom

Davis

S. J.

(2022). Long social distancing (Working Paper No. w30568). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w30568

15.

Biddle

Gray

J. Y.

(2020). The experience of Asian-Australians during the COVID-19 pandemic: Discrimination and wellbeing. Australian National University Centre for Social Research and Methods. https://csrm.cass.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/2020/11/The_experience_of_Asian-Australians_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic.pdf

16.

Bilali

Vollhardt

J. R.

(2013). Priming effects of a reconciliation radio drama on historical perspective-taking in the aftermath of mass violence in Rwanda. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(1), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.08.011

17.

Bilali

Vollhardt

J. R.

Rarick

J. R. D.

(2016). Assessing the impact of a media-based intervention to prevent intergroup violence and promote positive intergroup relations in Burundi. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 26(3), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2246

18.

Binder

Zagefka

Brown

Funke

Kessler

Mummendey

Maquil

Demoulin

Leyens

J.-P.

(2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 843–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013470

19.

Boccanfuso

White

F. A.

Maunder

R. D.

(2021). Reducing transgender stigma via an E-contact intervention. Sex Roles, 84(5–6), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01171-9

20.

Bodenhausen

G. V.

Wyer

R. S.

(1985). Effects of stereotypes on decision making and information-processing strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.2.267

21.

Borja

Jeung

Yellow Horse

Gibson

Gowing

Lin

Navins

Power

(2020). Anti-Chinese rhetoric tied to racism against Asian Americans. Stop AAPI Hate Report. Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council. https://www.asianpacificpolicyandplanningcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Anti-China_Rhetoric_Report_6_17_20.pdf

22.

Brewer

M. B.

Miller

(1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In Miller

Brewer

M. B.

(Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281–302). Academic Press.

23.

Brown

Paterson

(2016). Indirect contact and prejudice reduction: Limits and possibilities. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.005

24.

Budhwani

Sun

(2020). Creating COVID-19 stigma by referencing the novel coronavirus as the “Chinese virus” on Twitter: Quantitative analysis of social media data. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(5), Article e19301. https://doi.org/10.2196/19301

25.

Burke

S. A.

Dovidio

J. F.

LaFrance

Przedworski

J. M.

Perry

S. P.

Phelan

S. M.

Burgess

D. J.

Hardeman

R. R.

Yeazel

M. W.

van Ryn

(2017). Beyond generalized sexual prejudice: Need for closure predicts negative attitudes toward bisexual people relative to gay/lesbian people. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 71, 145–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.02.003

26.

Cameron

Rutland

(2006). Extended contact through story reading in school: Reducing children’s prejudice toward the disabled. Journal of Social Issues, 62(3), 469–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00469.x

27.

Cameron

Rutland

Hossain

Petley

(2011). When and why does extended contact work? The role of high quality direct contact and group norms in the development of positive ethnic intergroup attitudes amongst children. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210390535

28.

Castelli

Carraro

Pavan

Murelli

Carraro

(2012). The power of the unsaid: The influence of nonverbal cues on implicit attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(6), 1376–1393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00903.x

29.

Chinese Canadian National Council for Social Justice. (2022). Another year: Anti-Asian racism across Canada two years into the COVID-19 pandemic. https://ccncsj.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Anti-Asian-Racism-Across-Canada-Two-Years-Into-The-Pandemic_March-2022.pdf

30.

Cocco

V. M.

Bisagno

Di Bernardo

G. A.

Cadamuro

Riboldi

S. D.

Crapolicchio

Trifiletti

Stathi

Vezzali

(2021). Comparing story reading and video watching as two distinct forms of vicarious contact: An experimental intervention among elementary school children. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12404

31.

Crawford

J. T.

Brandt

M. J.

Inbar

Chambers

J. R.

Motyl

(2017). Social and economic ideologies differentially predict prejudice across the political spectrum, but social issues are most divisive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3), 383–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000074

32.

Croucher

S. M.

Nguyen

Rahmani

(2020). Prejudice toward Asian Americans in the COVID-19 pandemic: The effects of social media use in the United States. Frontiers in Communication, 5, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00039

33.

Darling-Hammond

Michaels

E. K.

Allen

A. M.

Chae

D. H.

Thomas

M. D.

Nguyen

T. T.

Mujahid

M. M.

Johnson

R. C.

(2020). After “the China virus” went viral: Racially charged coronavirus coverage and trends in bias against Asian Americans. Health Education & Behavior, 47(6), 870–879. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198120957949

34.

Davies

Tropp

L. R.

Aron

Pettigrew

T. F.

Wright

S. C.

(2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 332–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411103

35.

Dhanani

L. Y.

Franz

(2021). Why public health framing matters: An experimental study of the effects of COVID-19 framing on prejudice and xenophobia in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 269, Article 113572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113572

36.

Di Bernardo

G. A.

Vezzali

Stathi

Cadamuro

Cortesi

(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(1), 3–211. https://www.tpmap.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/24.1.1.pdf

37.

Ditlmann

R. K.

Samii

(2016). Can intergroup contact affect ingroup dynamics? Insights from a field study with Jewish and Arab-Palestinian youth in Israel. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 22(4), 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000217

38.

Dovidio

J. F.

Love

Schellhaas

F. M. H.

Hewstone

(2017). Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 606–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217712052

39.

Ensari

Miller

(2002). The out-group must not be so bad after all: The effects of disclosure, typicality, and salience on intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.313

40.

Ensari

Miller

(2005). Prejudice and intergroup attributions: The role of personalization and performance feedback. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(4), 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430205056467

41.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

42.

Filik

Barber

(2011). Inner speech during silent reading reflects the reader’s regional accent. PLoS One, 6(10), Article e25782. https://doi .org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025782

43.

Gao

(2022). Sinophobia during the Covid-19 pandemic: Identity, belonging, and international politics. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 56(2), 472–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-021-09659-z

44.

Giles

Coupland

(1991). Language: Contexts and consequences. Brooks/Cole.

45.

Gómez

Huici

(2008). Vicarious intergroup contact and the role of authorities in prejudice reduction. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1138741600004169

46.

Gover

A. R.

Harper

S. B.

Langton

(2020). Anti-asian hate crime during the COVID-19 pandemic: Exploring the reproduction of inequality. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 647–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09545-1

47.

Gries

Turcsányi

(2021). Chinese pride and European prejudice: How growing resentment of China cools feelings toward Chinese in Europe. Asian Survey, 61(5), 742–766. https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2021.1397345

48.

Mueller

Nielsen

Shachat

Smyth

(2015). Reducing prejudice through actual and imagined contact: A field experiment with Malawian shopkeepers and Chinese immigrants (Working Papers on East Asian Studies 105). EconPapers. https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/zbwudedao/1052015.htm

49.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. https://www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

50.

Hayward

L. E.

Tropp

L. R.

Hornsey

M. J.

Barlow

F. 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(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216685291

51.

Xie

(2022). The moral filter of patriotic prejudice: How Americans view Chinese in the COVID-19 era. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 119(47), Article e2212183119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2212183119

52.

Hodson

(2011). Do ideologically intolerant people benefit from intergroup contact? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411409025

53.

Hsu

(2023). 2023 being Chinese in Australia: Public opinion in Chinese communities. Lowy Institute. https://interactives.lowyinstitute.org/features/chinese-communities/reports/2023%20Being%20Chinese%20in%20Australia%20Poll%20–%20Lowy%20Institute.pdf

54.

Husnu

Mertan

Cicek

(2018). Reducing Turkish Cypriot children’s prejudice toward Greek Cypriots: Vicarious and extended intergroup contact through storytelling. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(1), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216656469

55.

Hutchison

Rosenthal

H. E. S.

(2011). Prejudice against Muslims: Anxiety as a mediator between intergroup contact and attitudes, perceived group variability and behavioural intentions. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(1), 40–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419871003763312

56.

Ioannou

Al Ramiah

Hewstone

(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

57.

Kachanoff

F. J.

Bigman

Y. E.

Kapsaskis

Gray

(2020). Measuring realistic and symbolic threats of COVID-19 and their unique impacts on well-being and adherence to public health behaviors. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(5), 603–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620931634

58.

Koc

Anderson

J. R.

(2018). Social distance toward Syrian refugees: The role of intergroup anxiety in facilitating positive relations. Journal of Social Issues, 74(4), 790–811. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12299

59.

Lemmer

Wagner

(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

60.

Levin

(2021). Report to the nation: Anti-Asian prejudice and hate crime. Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism. http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp01sq87bx76c

61.

Nicholson

H. L.

Jr. (2021). When “model minorities” became “yellow peril” – Othering and the racialization of Asian Americans in the COVID-19 pandemic. Sociology Compass, 15(2), Article e12849. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12849

62.

Liebkind

McAlister

A. L.

(1999). Extended contact through peer modelling to promote tolerance in Finland. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(5–6), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199908/09)29:5/63.0.CO;2-J

63.

Link

B. G.

Cullen

F. T.

Frank

Wozniak

J. F.

(1987). The social rejection of former mental patients: Understanding why labels matter. The American Journal of Sociology, 92(6), 1461–1500. https://doi.org/10.1086/228672

64.

Maddux

W. W.

Polifroni

Galinsky

A. D.

(2006). When being good is good. . . and bad: Realistic threat explains negativity resulting from the model minority stereotype. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(1), 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207309195

65.

Maunder

R. D.

White

F. A.

Verrelli

(2019). Modern avenues for intergroup contact: Using E-contact and intergroup emotions to reduce stereotyping and social distancing against people with schizophrenia. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(7), 947–963. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218794873

66.

Mazziotta

Mummendey

Wright

S. C.

(2011). Vicarious intergroup contact effects: Applying social–cognitive theory to intergroup contact research. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210390533

67.

McGrane

J. A.

White

F. A.

(2007). Differences in Anglo and Asian Australians’ explicit and implicit prejudice and the attenuation of their implicit in-group bias. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10(3), 204–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2007.00228.x

68.

Misra

P. D.

Goldmann

Yang

L. H.

(2020). Psychological impact of anti-Asian stigma due to the COVID-19 pandemic: A call for research, practice, and policy responses. Psychological Trauma, 12(5), 461–464. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000821

69.

Mousa

(2020). Building social cohesion between Christians and Muslims through soccer in post-ISIS Iraq. Science, 369(6505), 866–870. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb3153

70.

Nguyen

Chen

T. F.

O’Reilly

C. L.

(2012). Evaluating the impact of direct and indirect contact on the mental health stigma of pharmacy students. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47(7), 1087–1098. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-011-0413-5

71.

Nguyen

T. T.

Criss

Dwivedi

Huang

Keralis

Hsu

Phan

Nguyen

L. H.

Yardi

Glymour

M. M.

Allen

A. M.

Chae

D. H.

Gee

G. C.

Nguyen

Q. C.

(2020). Exploring U.S. shifts in anti-Asian sentiment with the emergence of COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), Article 7032. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197032

72.

Ortiz

Harwood

(2007). A social cognitive theory approach to the effects of mediated intergroup contact on intergroup attitudes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(4), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150701626487

73.

Pagotto

Voci

(2013). Direct and mass-mediated contact: The role of different intergroup emotions. TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 20(4), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM20.4.5

74.

Pahlke

Bigler

R. S.

Suizzo

M.-A.

(2012). Relations between colorblind socialization and children’s racial bias: Evidence from European American mothers and their preschool children. Child Development, 83(4), 1164–1179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01770.x

75.

Paluck

E. L.

(2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 574–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0011989

76.

Paluck

E. L.

(2010). Is it better not to talk? Group polarization, extended contact, and perspective taking in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(9), 1170–1185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210379868

77.

Paluck

E. L.

Clark

C. S.

(2020). Can playing together help us live together? Science, 369(6505), 769–770. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb9990

78.

Paluck

E. L.

Green

S. A.

Green

D. P.

(2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25

79.

Paluck

E. L.

Porat

Clark

C. S.

Green

D. P.

(2021). Prejudice reduction: Progress and challenges. Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1), 533–560. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-071620-030619

80.

Pan

Gao

(2021, March 4). Australia needs to embrace “Asianness” as part of “Australianness.” Pursuit. https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/australia-needs-to-embrace-asianness-as-part-of-australianness

81.

Pedersen

Beven

Walker

Griffiths

(2004). Attitudes toward Indigenous Australians: The role of empathy and guilt. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14(4), 233–249. http://doi.org/10.1002/casp.771

82.

Pettigrew

T. F.

(1998). Applying social psychology to international social issues. Journal of Social Issues, 54(4), 663–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01242.x

83.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. 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

84.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. 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

85.

Preuß

Steffens

M. C.

(2021). A video intervention for every straight man: The role of preattitudes and emotions in vicarious-contact effects. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(6), 921–944. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220910462

86.

Rakić

Steffens

M. C.

Mummendey

(2011). Blinded by the accent! The minor role of looks in ethnic categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021522

87.

Reny

T. T.

Barreto

M. A.

(2022). Xenophobia in the time of pandemic: Othering, anti-Asian attitudes, and COVID-19. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 10(2), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2020.1769693

88.

Roberto

K. J.

Johnson

A. F.

Rauhaus

B. M.

(2020). Stigmatization and prejudice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 42(3), 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2020.1782128

89.

Rosenthal

DiMatteo

M. R.

(2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.59

90.

Ruiz

N. G.

Edwards

Lopez

M. H.

(2021). One-third of Asian Americans fear threats, physical attacks and most say violence against them is rising. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/21/one-third-of-asian-americans-fear-threats-physical-attacks-and-most-say-violence-against-them-is-rising/

91.

Schoemann

A. M.

Boulton

A. J.

Short

S. D.

(2017). Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 8(4), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617715068

92.

Shelton

J. N.

(2000). A reconceptualization of how we study issues of racial prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(4), 374–390. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0404_6

93.

Shi

Platow

M. J.

Bar-Tal

Augoustinos

Spears

van Rooy

(2022). Pandemic and prejudice: Revisiting Bogardus’s social distance concept in a time of COVID-19. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221133715

94.

Silver

Devlin

Huang

(2020). Unfavorable views of China reach historic highs in many countries. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/10/06/unfavorable-views-of-china-reach-historic-highs-in-many-countries/

95.

Song

E. E.

(2023). Air pollution coverage, anti-Chinese sentiment, and attitudes towards foreign policy in South Korea. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 28, 571–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-023-09849-z

96.

Son Hing

L. S.

Chung-Yan

G. A.

Hamilton

L. K.

Zanna

M. P.

(2008). A two-dimensional model that employs explicit and implicit attitudes to characterize prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 971–987. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.971

97.

Spencer-Rodgers

McGovern

(2002). Attitudes toward the culturally different: The role of intercultural communication barriers, affective responses, consensual stereotypes, and perceived threat. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(6), 609–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(02)00038-X

98.

Stefaniak

Bilewicz

(2016). Contact with a multicultural past: A prejudice-reducing intervention. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 50, 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.11.004

99.

Stephan

W. G.

(2014). Intergroup anxiety: Theory, research, and practice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(3), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314530518

100.

Stephan

W. G.

Renfro

C. L.

(2002). The role of threat in intergroup relations. In Wagner

Tropp

L. R.

Finchilescu

Tredoux

(Eds.), Improving intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew (pp. 55–72). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444303117.ch5

101.

Stephan

W. G.

Stephan

C. W.

(1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41(3), 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01134.x

102.

Tam

H.-Y.

(2021). Written evidence submitted by End the Virus of Racism. End Violence and Racism Against East & Southeast Asian Communities. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/38684/pdf/

103.

Tan

Lee

Ruppanner

(2022). The nexus between China’s global image and attitudes toward diasporic Chinese: A comparison of Australia and the United States. Journal of Contemporary China. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2022.2127087

104.

Tercan

Bisagno

Cocco

V. M.

Kaçmaz

Turnuklu

Stathi

Vezzali

(2021). Reducing prejudice toward Syrian refugee children: A vicarious contact intervention among Turkish elementary school children. Journal of Community Psychology, 49(2), 564–587. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22480

105.

Tessler

Choi

Kao

(2020). The anxiety of being Asian American: Hate crimes and negative biases during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 636–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09541-5

106.

Tsai

J.-Y.

Phua

Pan

Yang

C.-C.

(2020). Intergroup contact, COVID-19 news consumption, and the moderating role of digital media trust on prejudice toward Asians in the United States: Cross-sectional study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(9), Article e22267. https://doi.org/10.2196/22767

107.

Turner

R. N.

Hewstone

Voci

Vonofakou

(2008). A test of the extended intergroup contact hypothesis: The mediating role of intergroup anxiety, perceived ingroup and outgroup norms, and inclusion of the outgroup in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 843–860. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0011434

108.

Valtorta

R. R.

Baldissarri

Volpato

Andrighetto

(2022). Intergroup biologization and outgroup prejudice in the time of COVID-19. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12831

109.

Van Assche

Swart

Schmid

Dhont

Al Ramiah

Christ

Kauff

Rothmann

Savelkoul

Tausch

Wölfer

Zahreddine

Saleem

Hewstone

(2023). Intergroup contact is reliably associated with reduced prejudice, even in the face of group threat and discrimination. American Psychologist, 78(6), 761–774. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001144

110.

Vezzali

Di Bernardo

G. A.

Stathi

Visintin

E. P.

Hewstone

(2019). Using intercultural videos of direct contact to implement vicarious contact: A school-based intervention that improves intergroup attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(7), 1059–1076. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218809885

111.

Vezzali

Hewstone

Capozza

Giovannini

Wölfer

(2014). Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology, 25(1), 314–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.982948

112.

Vezzali

Stathi

(2020). Using intergroup contact to fight prejudice and negative attitudes: Psychological perspectives (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351136341

113.

Vezzali

Stathi

Giovannini

Capozza

Trifiletti

(2015). The greatest magic of Harry Potter: Reducing prejudice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12279

114.

Voci

Hewstone

(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

115.

Walch

S. E.

Sinkkanen

K. A.

Swain

E. M.

Francisco

Breaux

C. A.

Sjoberg

M. D.

(2012). Using intergroup contact theory to reduce stigma against transgender individuals: Impact of a transgender speaker panel presentation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(10), 2583–2605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00955.x

116.

Walker

Scior

(2013). Tackling stigma associated with intellectual disability among the general public: A study of two indirect contact interventions. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(7), 2200–2210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.03.024

117.

Wen

Aston

Liu

Ying

(2020). Effects of misleading media coverage on public health crisis: A case of the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in China. Anatolia, 31(2), 331–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2020.1730621

118.

White

F. A.

Abu-Rayya

H. M.

(2012). A dual identity–electronic contact (DIEC) experiment promoting short- and long-term intergroup harmony. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 597–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.01.007

119.

White

F. A.

Borinca

Vezzali

Reynolds

K. J.

Lyshol

J. K. B.

Verrelli

Falomir-Pichastor

J. M.

(2020). Beyond direct contact: The theoretical and societal relevance of indirect contact for improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12400

120.

White

F. A.

Harvey

L. J.

Abu-Rayya

H. M.

(2015). Improving intergroup relations in the Internet age: A critical review. Review of General Psychology, 19(2), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000036

121.

White

F. A.

Harvey

L. J.

Verrelli

(2015). Including both voices: A new bidirectional framework for understanding and improving intergroup relations. Australian Psychologist, 50(6), 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12108

122.

White

F. A.

Maunder

Verrelli

(2020). Text-based E-contact: Harnessing cooperative Internet interactions to bridge the social and psychological divide. European Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 76–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2020.1753459

123.

White

F. A.

Verrelli

Maunder

R. D.

Kervinen

(2019). Using electronic contact to reduce homonegative attitudes, emotions, and behavioral intentions among heterosexual women and men: A contemporary extension of the contact hypothesis. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(9), 1179–1191. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1491943

124.

Wilder

D. A.

Shapiro

P. N.

(1989). Role of competition-induced anxiety in limiting the beneficial impact of positive behavior by an out-group member. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.60

125.

Wojcieszak

Warner

B. R.

(2020). Can interplay contact reduce affective polarization? A systematic test of different forms of intergroup contact. Political Communication, 37(6), 789–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1760406

126.

Wright

S. C.

Aron

McLaughlin-Volpe

Ropp

S. A.

(1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73

127.

Qian

Wilkes

(2021). Anti-Asian discrimination and the Asian–White mental health gap during COVID-19. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44(5), 819–835. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2020.1851739

128.

Sun

Cao

Fan

Pan

Yao

(2021). Stigma, discrimination, and hate crimes in Chinese-speaking world amid Covid-19 pandemic. Asian Journal of Criminology, 16(1), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-020-09339-8

129.

(2023). Asian American experience: The illusion of inclusion and the model minority stereotype. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 33(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10481885.2023.2160171

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.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB