The secondary transfer effect (STE) suggests that contact with members of an (primary) outgroup generalizes, affecting attitudes towards uninvolved (secondary) outgroups. The literature suggests contextually different processes by outgroup similarity. Our three-wave longitudinal study is the first piece of STE research that applies random intercept cross-legged panel models to explore this contextuality, tackling several research deficiencies: (a) the overfocus on positive contact, (b) reliance on cross-sectional designs, (c) limited knowledge regarding underlying processes, (d) scarcity of comparative studies investigating mediators or intergroup settings jointly. We study three STE mediators from positive and negative contact (attitude generalization, multiculturalism, primary outgroup threat) across different primary outgroups (Muslims, n = 385; Sinti and Roma, n = 396), keeping contextual setting (Germany), temporal setting (2016–2017), and secondary outgroup (refugees) constant. While between-person rank differences emerged, we found no evidence for the theorized within-person changes over time, and we discuss this in terms of theoretical, methodological, and contextual interpretations.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
2.
AsbrockF. (2010). Stereotypes of social groups in Germany in terms of warmth and competence. Social Psychology, 41(2), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000011
3.
BoinJ.FuochiG.VociA.HewstoneM. (2024). The intra-individual power of contact: Investigating when, how and why intergroup contact and intergroup outcomes fluctuate together. European Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 298–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3016
4.
BosnjakM.DannwolfT.EnderleT.SchaurerI.StruminskayaB.TannerA.WeyandtK. W. (2017). Establishing an open probability-based mixed mode panel of the general population in Germany: The GESIS Panel. Social Science Computer Review, 36(1), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317697949
5.
CananC.ForoutanN. (2016). Deutschland postmigrantisch III Migrantische Perspektiven auf Deutsche Identitäten – Einstellungen von Personen mit und ohne Migrationshintergrund zu nationaler Identität in Deutschland. [Germany post-migrantic III Perspectives of migrants regarding German identities – attitudes of people with and without migration background regarding national identity in Germany]. Berliner Institut für Empirische Integrations und Migrationsforschung. https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/20575/Deutschland-postmigrantisch-3.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
6.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.KwanV. S. Y.GlickP.DemoulinS.LeyensJ.-P.BondM. H.CroizetJ. C.EllemersN.SleebosE.HtunT. T.KimH. J.MaioG.PerryJ.PetkovaK.TodorovV.Rodríguez-BailónR.MoralesE.MoyaM.. . . ZieglerR. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(Pt. 1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608x314935
7.
EbbelerC. (2020). Lateral attitude change in social groups. The role of group similarity and individual differences [Doctoral dissertation, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn]. Universität Bonn bonndoc. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11811/8869.3
8.
EndM. (2014). Antiziganismus in der deutschen Öffentlichkeit. Strategien und Mechanismen medialer Kommunikation [Antiziganism in the German public. Strategies and mechanisms of media communication]. Neumann Druck.
FiskeS. T. (2018). Stereotype content: Warmth and competence endure. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417738825
12.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
FriehsM.-T.BracegirdleC.ReimerN. K.WölferR.SchmidtP.WagnerU.HewstoneM. (2023). The between-person and within-person effects of intergroup contact on outgroup attitudes: A multi-context examination. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231153017
16.
FuchsL. M.FanY.von ScheveC. (2020). Value differences between refugees and German citizens: Insights from a representative survey. International Migration, 59(5), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12795
GoffmanE. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice Hall.
19.
GrigoryevD.FiskeS. T.BatkhinaA. (2019). Mapping ethnic stereotypes and their antecedents in Russia: The stereotype content model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1643. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01643
20.
HenschelN. T.DerksenC. (2023). The negative secondary transfer effect: Comparing proposed mediation theories. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(6), 1271–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221105822
21.
HenschelN. T.KöttingL. (2023). Generalizing for negative contact: The causal sequence problem and proposed mechanisms of (negative) secondary transfer effects. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 92(10), Article 101751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2022.101751
22.
KauffM.KotzurP. F.van AsscheJ.SchäferS. J.van ZalkM. H. W.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
23.
KendeA.HadaricsM.BigazziS.BozaM.KunstJ. R.LantosN. A.LášticováB.MinsecuA.PivettiM.UrbiolaA. (2021). The last acceptable prejudice in Europe? Anti-Gypsyism as the obstacle to Roma inclusion. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(3), 388–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220907701
24.
KervynN.FiskeS.YzerbytV. (2015). Forecasting the primary dimension of social perception: Symbolic and realistic threats together predict warmth in the stereotype content model. Social Psychology, 46(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000219
25.
KotzurP. F.FriehsM.-T.van ZalkM. H. W. (2019). Stereotype content of refugee subgroups in Germany. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(7), 1344–1358. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2585
26.
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
LolliotS. D.SchmidK.HewstoneM.Al RamiahA.TauschN.SwartH. (2013). Generalized effects of intergroup contact: The secondary transfer effect. In HodsonG.HewstoneM. (Eds.), Advances in intergroup contact (pp. 81–112). Psychology Press.
29.
MaderM.SchoenH. (2019). The European refugee crisis, party competition, and voters’ responses in Germany. West European Politics, 42(1), 68–90. https://doi.org/10.108001402382.2018.1590484
30.
MähönenT. A.Jasinskaja-LahtiI. (2016). Ramifications of positive and negative contact experiences among remigrants from Russia to Finland. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(2), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000059
PettigrewT. F. (1998). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(2), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297232006
34.
PettigrewT. F. (2009). Secondary transfer effect of contact: Do intergroup contact effects spread to noncontacted outgroups?Social Psychology, 40(2), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335.40.2.55
35.
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
36.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytical tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504
37.
SchmidK.HewstoneM.TauschN. (2014). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact via social identity complexity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(3), 443–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12045
38.
SegerC. R.BanerjiI.ParkS. H.SmithE. R.MackieD. M. (2017). Specific emotions as mediators of the effect of intergroup contact on prejudice: Findings across multiple participant and target groups. Cognition and Emotion, 31(5), 923–936. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1182893
39.
SenguptaN. K.ReimerN. K.SibleyC. G.BarlowF. K. (2023). Does intergroup contact foster solidarity with the disadvantaged? A longitudinal analysis across 7 years. American Psychologist, 78(6), 750–760. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001079
40.
SommerK.KühneR. (2021). Stereotyping of Muslims in Germany: How the presumed influence of media stereotypes on others influences attitudes and behavioral intentions toward Muslims. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 98(2), 478–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020923602
41.
StanciuA.CohrsJ. C.HankeK.GavreliucA. (2017). Within-culture variation in the content of stereotypes: Application and development of the stereotype content model in an Eastern European culture. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157(5), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1262812
42.
StephanW. G.YbarraO.MorrisonK. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In NelsonT. D. (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 43–59). Routledge.
43.
ÜnverH.ÇakalH.GülerM.TroppL. R. (2021). Support for rights of Syrian refugees in Turkey: The role of secondary transfer effects in intergroup contact. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 32(2), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2562
44.
ÜnverH.ÇakalH.ÖzkanZ.KizikB.EraslanE. G. (2022). A review on the secondary transfer effect of intergroup contact. ODU Journal of Social Science Research, 12(2), 1461–1500. https://doi.org/10.48146/odusobiad.1081427
45.
VezzaliL.Di BernardoG. A.CoccoV. M.StathiS.CapozzaD. (2021). Reducing prejudice in the society at large: A review of the secondary transfer effect and directions for future research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(3), Article e12583. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12583
ZingoraT.GrafS. (2019). Marry who you love: Intergroup contact with gay people and another stigmatized minority is related to voting on the restriction of gay rights through threat. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(11), 684–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12627
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.
