Contact with outgroup members can serve as a powerful demonstration of the quality of intergroup norms to other ingroup members. This extended contact of fellow ingroup members with outgroup members is known to positively affect intergroup attitudes. Research has demonstrated a positive relationship between positive extended contact and positive intergroup attitudes—even for those most prone to prejudice, such as those high in authoritarianism. However, little is known about the relationship between negative extended contact and intergroup attitudes, or about its interaction with authoritarianism. With correlational data from seven samples (totaling 2,760 respondents across four countries), we ran an internal meta-analysis examining the relationships of positive and negative extended contact with attitudes towards immigrants for group members of advantaged ethnic-cultural groups. The analysis controlled for direct contact and relevant demographic variables to ensure robustness. We considered right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and its subdimensions as a moderator of these relationships. As expected, positive extended contact showed a stronger relationship with attitudes towards immigrants for high authoritarians. Unexpectedly, negative extended contact showed no interaction with authoritarianism. Put differently, negative extended contact showed a similarly large relationship with intergroup attitudes among high and low authoritarians. These results reveal an extended contact asymmetry: positive intergroup norms created by positive extended contact promote tolerance among authoritarians, whereas negative extended contact does not particularly harm those individuals more. Contrary to our expectations, the analysis of RWA’s subdimensions did not reveal further insights. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed in light of the current debates on norm-setting and intergroup tensions.
AcarB.van AsscheJ.Ardaya VelardeS.GonzalezR.LayS.RaoS.McKeownS. (in press). R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to mixing: Testing novel emotional mediators of intergroup contact effects. Manuscript submitted for publication.
2.
AdornoT. W.Frenkel-BrunswikE.LevinsonD. J.SanfordN. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper.
3.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
4.
AltemeyerB. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press.
5.
AltemeyerB. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Harvard University Press.
6.
ÁrnadóttirK.LolliotS.BrownR.HewstoneM. (2018). Positive and negative intergroup contact: Interaction not asymmetry. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(6), 784–800. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2365
7.
AsbrockF.ChristO.DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2012). Differential effects of intergroup contact for authoritarians and social dominators: A dual process model perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(4), 477–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211429747
AsbrockF.LemmerG.BeckerJ. C.KollerJ.WagnerU. (2014). “Who are these foreigners anyway?” The content of the term foreigner and its impact on prejudice. SAGE Open, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014532819
10.
BarlowF. K.HornseyM. J.HaywardL. E.HoukamauC. A.KangJ.MilojevP.SibleyC. G. (2019). Why do we hold mixed emotions about racial out-groups? A case for affect matching. Psychological Science, 30(6), 917–929. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619844269
11.
BarlowF. K.PaoliniS.PedersenA.HornseyM. J.RadkeH. R. M.HarwoodJ.RubinM.SibleyC. G. (2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1629–1643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212457953
12.
BeckerB. J.WuM.-J. (2007). The synthesis of regression slopes in meta-analysis. Statistical Science, 22(3), 414–429. https://doi.org/10.1214/07-STS243
13.
BeierleinC.AsbrockF.KauffM.SchmidtP. (2014). Die Kurzskala Autoritarismus (KSA-3): ein ökonomisches Messinstrument zur Erfassung dreier Subdimensionen autoritärer Einstellungen. (GESIS-Working Papers, 2014/35). Mannheim: GESIS - Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-426711
14.
BilewiczM.BulskaD.WiniewskiM.FritscheI. (2023). Obedience to authorities is not unconditional: Differential effects of COVID-19 threat on three facets of RWA in Poland and Germany. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(9), Article e12800. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12800
15.
BracegirdleC.ReimerN. K.van ZalkM.HewstoneM.WölferR. (2022). Disentangling contact and socialization effects on outgroup attitudes in diverse friendship networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000240
16.
BrownR.PatersonJ. (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
17.
BruneA.AsbrockF.SibleyC. G. (2016). Meet your neighbours. Authoritarians engage in intergroup contact when they have the opportunity. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 26(6), 567–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2289
18.
ÇetinerŞ. D.van AsscheJ. (2021). Prejudice in Turkey and Belgium: The cross-cultural comparison of correlations of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation with sexism, homophobia, and racism. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 21(1), 1167–1183. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12280
19.
ChristO.HewstoneM.TauschN.WagnerU.VociA.HughesJ.CairnsE. (2010). Direct contact as a moderator of extended contact effects: Cross-sectional and longitudinal impact on outgroup attitudes, behavioral intentions, and attitude certainty. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1662–1674.
20.
CialdiniR. B.KallgrenC. A.RenoR. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5
21.
CrispR. J.TurnerR. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions?: Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. American Psychologist, 64(4), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014718
22.
DahlkeJ. A.WiernikB. M. (2019). Psychmeta: An R package for psychometric meta-analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 43(5), 415–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621618795933
23.
DaviesK.TroppL. R.AronA.PettigrewT. F.WrightS. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 332–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411103
24.
De keersmaeckerJ.van AsscheJ.RoetsA. (2016). Need for closure effects on affective and cognitive responses to culture fusion. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(10), 1294–1306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022116666375
25.
DhontK.RoetsA.van HielA. (2011). Opening closed minds: The combined effects of intergroup contact and need for closure on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 514–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211399101
26.
DhontK.van HielA. (2009). We must not be enemies: Interracial contact and the reduction of prejudice among authoritarians. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(2), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.022
27.
DhontK.van HielA. (2011). Direct contact and authoritarianism as moderators between extended contact and reduced prejudice: Lower threat and greater trust as mediators. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210391121
28.
DuckittJ. (1989). Authoritarianism and group identification: A new view of an old construct. Political Psychology, 10(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791588
29.
DuckittJ. (2022). Authoritarianism: Conceptualisation, research, and new developments. In SibleyC. G.OsborneD. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of political psychology (pp. 177–197). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108779104.013
30.
DuckittJ.BizumicB.KraussS. W.HeledE. (2010). A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism–conservatism–traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31(5), 685–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00781.x
31.
DuncanL. E.PetersonB. E.WinterD. G. (1997). Authoritarianism and gender roles: Toward a psychological analysis of hegemonic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297231005
32.
FunkeF. (2005). The dimensionality of right-wing authoritarianism: Lessons from the dilemma between theory and measurement. Political Psychology, 26(2), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00415.x
33.
GignacG. E.SzodoraiE. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069
34.
GómezÁ.HuiciC. (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
35.
GórskaP.StefaniakA.LipowskaK.MalinowskaK.SkrodzkaM.MarchlewskaM. (2022). Authoritarians go with the flow: Social norms moderate the link between right-wing authoritarianism and outgroup-directed attitudes. Political Psychology, 43(1), 131–152.
36.
GrafS.PaoliniS.RubinM. (2014). Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6), 536–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2052
37.
HaywardL. E.TroppL. R.HornseyM. J.BarlowF. K. (2017). Toward a comprehensive understanding of intergroup contact: Descriptions and mediators of positive and negative contact among majority and minority groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216685291
38.
HetheringtonM.SuhayE. (2011). Authoritarianism, threat, and Americans’ support for the war on terror. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 546–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00514.x
39.
HewstoneM. (1990). The “ultimate attribution error”? A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20(4), 311–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420200404
40.
HewstoneM.SwartH. (2011). Fifty-odd years of inter-group contact: From hypothesis to integrated theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 374–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02047.x
41.
HodsonG. (2009). The puzzling person–situation schism in prejudice research. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(2), 247–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.035
42.
HodsonG. (2011). Do ideologically intolerant people benefit from intergroup contact?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411409025
43.
HodsonG.HarryH.MitchellA. (2009). Independent benefits of contact and friendship on attitudes toward homosexuals among authoritarians and highly identified heterosexuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.558
44.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Sage.
KauffM.BenedaM.PaoliniS.BilewiczM.KotzurP.O’DonnellA. W.StevensonC.WagnerU.ChristO. (2021). How do we get people into contact? Predictors of intergroup contact and drivers of contact seeking. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 38–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12398
47.
KauffM.KotzurP. F.van AsscheJ.SchäferS. J.van ZalkM. H.WagnerU. (2023). A longitudinal test of secondary transfer effects of negative intergroup contact and mediating processes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 53(6), 1172–1190. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2966
48.
KesslerT.CohrsJ. C. (2008). The evolution of authoritarian processes: Fostering cooperation in large-scale groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.73
49.
KornienkoO.Rivas-DrakeD. (2022). Adolescent intergroup connections and their developmental benefits: Exploring contributions from social network analysis. Social Development, 31(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12572
50.
KotzurP. F.WagnerU. (2021). The dynamic relationship between contact opportunities, positive and negative intergroup contact, and prejudice: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 418–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000258
51.
LemmerG.WagnerU. (2015). Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(2), 152–168.
52.
MaunderR. D.DayS. C.WhiteF. A. (2020). The benefit of contact for prejudice-prone individuals: The type of stigmatized outgroup matters. The Journal of Social Psychology, 160(1), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1601608
53.
MavorK. I.LouisW. R.SibleyC. G. (2010). A bias-corrected exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of right-wing authoritarianism: Support for a three-factor structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(1), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.006
54.
MazziottaA.RohmannA.WrightS. C.Tezanos-PintoP. D.LutterbachS. (2015). (How) does positive and negative extended cross-group contact predict direct cross-group contact and intergroup attitudes?European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(5), 653–667. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2110
55.
McConahayJ. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L. (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91–125). Academic Press.
McKeownS.DixonJ. (2017). The “contact hypothesis”: Critical reflections and future directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(1), e12295.
58.
OnraetE.Van HielA.ValckeB.AsscheJ. V. (2021). Reactions towards asylum seekers in the Netherlands: Associations with right-wing ideological attitudes, threat and perceptions of asylum seekers as legitimate and economic. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(2), 1695–1712.
59.
OsborneD.SatherleyN.LittleT. D.SibleyC. G. (2021). Authoritarianism and social dominance predict annual increases in generalized prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(7), 1136–1145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620969608
60.
PaluckE. L.GreenS. A.GreenD. P. (2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25
61.
PaoliniS.HarwoodJ.RubinM. (2010). Negative intergroup contact makes group memberships salient: Explaining why intergroup conflict endures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1723–1738.
62.
PaluckE. L.ShepherdH. (2012). The salience of social referents: A field experiment on collective norms and harassment behavior in a school social network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(6), 899–915. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030015
63.
PaoliniS.McIntyreK. (2019). Bad is stronger than good for stigmatized, but not admired outgroups: Meta-analytical tests of intergroup valence asymmetry in individual-to-group generalization experiments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(1), 3–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317753504
64.
PassiniS. (2017). Different ways of being authoritarian: The distinct effects of authoritarian dimensions on values and prejudice. Political Psychology, 38(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12309
65.
PettigrewT. F. (1991). Normative theory in intergroup relations: Explaining both harmony and conflict. Psychology and Developing Societies, 3(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/097133369100300102
PettigrewT. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.12.002
PettigrewT. F.ChristO.WagnerU.StellmacherJ. (2007). Direct and indirect intergroup contact effects on prejudice: A normative interpretation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(4), 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.11.003
70.
PettigrewT. F.MeertensR. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250106
71.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
72.
PittinskyT. L.RosenthalS. A.MontoyaR. M. (2011). Measuring positive attitudes toward outgroups: Development and validation of the Allophilia Scale. In TroppL. R.MallettR. K. (Eds.), Moving beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive intergroup relations (pp. 41–60). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12319-002
73.
ReeseG. (2012). When authoritarians protect the Earth—Authoritarian submission and proenvironmental beliefs: A pilot study in Germany. Ecopsychology, 4(3), 232–236. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2012.0035
74.
RoetsA.AuE. W. M.Van HielA. (2015). Can Authoritarianism Lead to Greater Liking of Out-Groups? The Intriguing Case of Singapore. Psychological Science, 26(12), 1972–1974.
75.
RStudio Team (2020). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA. http://www.rstudio.com/.
76.
RuparM.GrafS. (2019). Different forms of intergroup contact with former adversary are linked to distinct reconciliatory acts through symbolic and realistic threat. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12565
77.
RussoS.MirisolaA.RoccatoM. (2014). Symbolic threat fosters right-wing authoritarianism only among low authoritarians. TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.2.6
78.
SchäferS. J.KauffM.PratiF.KrosM.LangT.ChristO. (2021). Does negative contact undermine attempts to improve intergroup relations? Deepening the understanding of negative contact and its consequences for intergroup contact research and interventions. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12422
SherifM. (1936). The psychology of social norms. Harper.
81.
SherifM.SherifC. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension; an integration of studies of intergroup relations. Harper.
82.
SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2008). Personality and Prejudice: A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical Review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 248–279.
83.
SteigerJ. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87(2), 245–251.
84.
TauschN.HewstoneM.SchmidK.HughesJ.CairnsE. (2011). Extended contact effects as a function of closeness of relationship with ingroup contacts. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210390534
85.
Tezanos-PintoP.BrattC.BrownR. (2010). What will the others think? In-group norms as a mediator of the effects of intergroup contact. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(3), 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X471020
86.
TroppL. R.PettigrewT. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16(12), 951–957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01643.x
87.
TurnerR. N.HewstoneM.VociA.VonofakouC. (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
88.
TurnerR. N.HodsonG.DhontK. (2020). The role of individual differences in understanding and enhancing intergroup contact. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14(6), Article e12533. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12533
89.
UslanerE. M. (2011). Trust, diversity, and segregation in the United States and the United Kingdom. In SasakiM. S.MarchR. M. (Eds.), Trust. Comparative perspectives (pp. 69–97). Brill.
90.
Van AsscheJ. (2019). Ethnic diversity, ideological climates, and intergroup relations: A Person × Context approach. Psychologica Belgica, 59(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.465
91.
Van AsscheJ.Ardaya VelardeS.van HielA.RoetsA. (2023). Trust is in the eye of the beholder: How perceptions of local diversity and segregation shape social cohesion. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1036646
92.
Van AsscheJ.AsbrockF.DhontK.RoetsA. (2018). The diversity challenge for high and low authoritarians: Multilevel and longitudinal effects through intergroup contact and threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(8), 1163–1179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218764653
93.
Van AsscheJ.BostynD.DardenneB.HansenneM. (2017). Intergroup reconciliation between Flemings and Walloons: The predictive value of cognitive style, authoritarian ideology, and intergroup emotions. Psychologica Belgica, 57(3), 132–155. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.333
94.
Van AsscheJ.DhontK.PettigrewT. F. (2019). The social-psychological bases of far-right support in Europe and the United States. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 385–401.
95.
Van AsscheJ.KoçY.RoetsA. (2019). Religiosity or ideology? On the individual differences predictors of sexism. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.016
96.
Van AsscheJ.RoetsA.DhontK.van HielA. (2014). Diversity and out-group attitudes in the Netherlands: The role of authoritarianism and social threat in the neighbourhood. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(9), 1414–1430. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.876895
97.
Van AsscheJ.RoetsA.DhontK.van HielA. (2016). The association between actual and perceived ethnic diversity: The moderating role of authoritarianism and implications for outgroup threat, anxiety, and mistrust. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(7), 807–817. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2211
98.
Van AsscheJ.RoetsA.HaesevoetsT.NoorM. (2021). “Sorry for Congo, let’s make amends”: Belgians’ ideological worldviews predict attitudes towards apology and reparation for its colonial past. International Review of Social Psychology, 34(1), Article 23. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.486
99.
Van AsscheJ.SwartH.SchmidK.DhontK.Al RamiahA.ChristO.KauffM.RothmannS.SavelkoulM.TauschN.WölferR.ZahreddineS.SaleemM.HewstoneM. (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
100.
Van AsscheJ.van HielA.DhontK.RoetsA. (2019). Broadening the individual differences lens on party support and voting behavior: Cynicism and prejudice as relevant attitudes referring to modern-day political alignments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(1), 190–199. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2377
101.
VezzaliL.HewstoneM.CapozzaD.GiovanniniD.WölferR. (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
102.
VezzaliL.HewstoneM.CapozzaD.TrifilettiE.BernardoG. A. D. (2017). Improving intergroup relations with extended contact among young children: Mediation by intergroup empathy and moderation by direct intergroup contact. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 27(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2292
103.
VezzaliL.StathiS.GiovanniniD.CapozzaD.VisintinE. P. (2015). “And the best essay is. . .”: Extended contact and cross-group friendships at school. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(4), 601–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12110
104.
WallrichL.WestK.RutlandA. (2020). Painting all foreigners with one brush? How the salience of Muslims and refugees shapes judgements. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 8(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v8i1.1283
105.
WangC.CoccoV. M.VezzaliL. (2022). Testing the association of positive and negative extended contact with intergroup contact intentions in China: The mediating role of intergroup anger, empathy, and happiness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52(5), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12860
106.
WangC.HuangF.VezzaliL. (2019). A test of positive and negative extended intergroup contact in a Chinese minority with perceived group norms and intergroup anxiety as mediators. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(7), 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12532
107.
WölferR.ChristO.SchmidK.TauschN.BuchallikF. M.VertovecS.HewstoneM. (2019). Indirect contact predicts direct contact: Longitudinal evidence and the mediating role of intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000146
108.
WölferR.JaspersE.BlaylockD.WigoderC.HughesJ.HewstoneM. (2017). Studying positive and negative direct and extended contact: Complementing self-reports with social network analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(11), 1566–1581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217719732
109.
WrightS. C.AronA.McLaughlin-VolpeT.RoppS. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73
110.
ZhouS.Page-GouldE.AronA.MoyerA.HewstoneM. (2019). The extended contact hypothesis: A meta-analysis on 20 years of research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(2), 132–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318762647
111.
ZingoraT.StarkT. H.FlacheA. (2020). Who is most influential? Adolescents’ intergroup attitudes and peer influence within a social network. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(5), 684–709. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219869460
112.
ZingoraT.VezzaliL.GrafS. (2021). Stereotypes in the face of reality: Intergroup contact inconsistent with group stereotypes changes attitudes more than stereotype-consistent contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(8), 1284–1305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220946816
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.
