Intergroup meta-attitude inaccuracy—the extent to which perceptions of outgroup views towards the ingroup diverge from what outgroup members actually think—fuels intergroup hostility, yet research on its precursors is scarce. Through four correlational studies, we examined whether and how intergroup contact predicts meta-attitude (in)accuracy in three conflict contexts: Black–White British in the United Kingdom (UK), Turks–Kurds in Turkey, and Catholics–Protestants in Northern Ireland. Regardless of context or status, all groups perceived themselves to be evaluated more negatively by the outgroup than they really were. Positive contact predicted increased meta-attitude accuracy (through increased shared reality) which was, in turn, associated with more positive outgroup attitudes. The role of negative contact and affective mediators (such as intergroup anxiety and fear) was not consistent and depended on group and context. The use of positive intergroup contact as a potential rectifier of overestimated negative meta-attitudes in conflict contexts is discussed.
AbersonC. L.HaagS. C. (2007). Contact, perspective taking, and anxiety as predictors of stereotype endorsement, explicit attitudes, and implicit attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207074726
2.
AdraA.LiM.BaumertA. (2020). What they think of us: Meta-beliefs and solidarity-based collective action among the advantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(6), 1292–1305. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2675
3.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
4.
BagciS. C.ÇelebiE. (2017). Cross-group friendships and outgroup attitudes among Turkish–Kurdish ethnic groups: Does perceived interethnic conflict moderate the friendship–attitude link?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(2), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12413
5.
BagciS. C.GungorH. (2019). Associations between perceived positive and negative parental contact and adolescents’ intergroup contact experiences. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 69, 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.01.002
6.
BagciS. C.GuvensoyI.TurnerR. N.WhiteF. A.PiyaleZ. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12760
7.
BagciS. C.PiyaleZ. E.KaraköseS.ŞenE. (2018). Collective victimhood beliefs among majority and minority groups: Links to ingroup and outgroup attitudes and attribution of responsibility for conflict. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 66, 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.05.003
8.
BagciS. C.StathiS.Golec de ZavalaA. (2023). Social identity threat across group status: Links to psychological well-being and intergroup bias through collective narcissism and ingroup satisfaction. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 29(2), 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000509
9.
BagciS. C.StathiS.PiyaleZ. E. (2019). When imagining intergroup contact mobilizes collective action: The perspective of disadvantaged and advantaged groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 69, 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.12.003
10.
BagciS. C.VerkuytenM.CanpolatE. (2023). When they want to take away what is “ours”: Collective ownership threat and negative reactions towards refugees. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(5), 1032–1052. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221084232
11.
BarlowF. K.HornseyM. J.ThaiM.SenguptaN. K.SibleyC. G. (2013). The wallpaper effect: The contact hypothesis fails for minority group members who live in areas with a high proportion of majority group members. PLoS One, 8(12), Article e82228. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082228
12.
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
13.
Bar-TalD. (2011). Intergroup conflicts and their resolution: A social psychological perspective. Psychology Press.
14.
Bar-TalD.Chernyak-HaiL.SchoriN.GundarA. (2009). A sense of self-perceived collective victimhood in intractable conflicts. International Review of the Red Cross, 91(874), 229–258. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383109990221
15.
Bar-TalD.HameiriB. (2020). Interventions to change well-anchored attitudes in the context of intergroup conflict. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14(7), Article e12534. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12534
16.
BilaliR.ÇelikA. B.OkE. (2014). Psychological asymmetry in minority–majority relations at different stages of ethnic conflict. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 43(Pt. B), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.09.002
17.
BoothbyE. J.CooneyG.SandstromG. M.ClarkM. S. (2018). The liking gap in conversations: Do people like us more than we think?Psychological Science, 29(11), 1742–1756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618783714
BrownR.GonzálezR.ZagefkaH.ManziJ.ČehajićS. (2008). Nuestra culpa: Collective guilt and shame as predictors of reparation for historical wrongdoing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.75
20.
BruneauE.HameiriB.Moore-BergS. L.KteilyN. (2021). Intergroup contact reduces dehumanization and meta-dehumanization: Cross-sectional, longitudinal, and quasi-experimental evidence from 16 samples in five countries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(6), 906–920. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220949004
21.
CarlsonE. N. (2016). Meta-accuracy and relationship quality: Weighing the costs and benefits of knowing what people really think about you. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(2), 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000107
22.
CarlsonE. N.ElsaadawyN. (2021). Figuring out how others see us: The formation of accurate meta-perceptions. In LetzringT. D.SpainJ. S. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of accurate personality judgment (pp. 173–191). Oxford University Press.
Cheung-BlundenV.BlundenB. (2008). The emotional construal of war: Anger, fear, and other negative emotions. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 14(2), 123–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10781910802017289
25.
ConleyT. D.RabinowitzJ. L.MatsickJ. L. (2016). U.S. Ethnic minorities’ attitudes towards Whites: The role of shared reality theory in intergroup relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2129
26.
DovidioJ. F.Ten VergertM.StewartT. L.GaertnerS. L.JohnsonJ. D.EssesV. M.RiekB. M.PearsonA. R. (2004). Perspective and prejudice: Antecedents and mediating mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(12), 1537–1549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271177
27.
ElsaadawyN.CarlsonE. N. (2022). Is meta-accuracy consistent across levels of acquaintanceship?Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(1), 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211018151
28.
ElsaadawyN.CarlsonE. N.HumanL. J. (2021). Who influences meta-accuracy? It takes two to know the impressions we make. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(1), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000376
29.
EssesV. M.HaddockG.ZannaM. P. (1993). Values, stereotypes, and emotions as determinants of intergroup attitudes. In Affect, cognition and stereotyping (pp. 137–166). Academic Press.
FernbachP. M.van BovenL. (2022). False polarization: Cognitive mechanisms and potential solutions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.06.005
32.
FreyF. E.TroppL. R. (2006). Being seen as individuals versus as group members: Extending research on meta-perception to intergroup contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_5
33.
HalperinE. (2008). Group-based hatred in intractable conflict in Israel. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(5), 713–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002708314665
34.
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
35.
HewstoneM.HughesJ. (2015). Reconciliation in Northern Ireland: The value of intergroup contact. British Journal of Psychology International, 12(3), 65–67. https://doi.org/10.1192/S2056474000000453
36.
HirschiQ.WilsonT. D.GilbertD. T. (2022). Speak up! Mistaken beliefs about how much to talk in conversations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221104927
37.
HodsonG.CrispR. J.MeleadyR.EarleM. (2018). Intergroup contact as an agent of cognitive liberalization. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(5), 523–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617752324
38.
HumanL. J.CarlsonE. N.GeukesK.NestlerS.BackM. D. (2020). Do accurate personality impressions benefit early relationship development? The bidirectional associations between accuracy and liking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(1), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000214
39.
KendeJ.PhaletK.van den NoortgateW.KaraA.FischerR. (2018). Equality revisited: A cultural meta-analysis of intergroup contact and prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(8), 887–895. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617728993
40.
KennyD. A.DePauloB. M. (1993). Do people know how others view them? An empirical and theoretical account. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.145
41.
KoudenburgN. (2018). Regulating shared reality with micro-dynamics in the form of conversation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 23, 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.12.002
42.
KteilyN.HodsonG.BruneauE. (2016). They see us as less than human: Meta-dehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(3), 343–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000044
43.
LandryA. P.SchoolerJ. W.WillerR.SeliP. (2023). Reducing explicit blatant dehumanization by correcting exaggerated meta-perceptions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 14(4), 407–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221099146
44.
LeesJ.CikaraM. (2020). Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0766-4
45.
LeesJ.CikaraM. (2021). Understanding and combating misperceived polarization. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 376(1822). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0143
46.
LetzringT. D.ColmanD. E.KrzyzaniakS. L.RobertsB. W. (2020). Realistic accuracy model. In CarducciB. J.NaveC. S.MioJ. S.RiggioR. E. (Eds.), The Wiley encyclopedia of personality and individual differences: Models and theories (pp. 341–349). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119547143.ch57
47.
LetzringT. D.WellsS. M.FunderD. C. (2006). Information quantity and quality affect the realistic accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.111
48.
LutterbachS.BeelmannA. (2020). Positive and negative intergroup contact and shared reality: Contact effects among host society and refugees. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(1), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2601
49.
MackieD. M.DevosT.SmithE. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 602–616. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.602
50.
MallettR. K.HuntsingerJ. R.SinclairS.SwimJ. K. (2008). Seeing through their eyes: When majority group members take collective action on behalf of an outgroup. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11(4), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430208095400
Mendoza-DentonR.DowneyG.PurdieV.DavisA.PietrzakJ. (2002). Sensitivity to status-based rejection: Implications for African American students’ college experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 896–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.896
53.
MernykJ. S.PinkS. L.DruckmanJ. N.WillerR. (2022). Correcting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans’ support for partisan violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 119(16), Article e2116851119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2116851119
54.
MillerD. A.SmithE. R.MackieD. M. (2004). Effects of intergroup contact and political predispositions on prejudice: Role of intergroup emotions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(3), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430204046109
55.
Moore-BergS. L.Ankori-KarlinskyL. O.HameiriB.BruneauE. (2020). Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 117(26), 14864–14872. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001263117
56.
Moore-BergS. L.HameiriB. (2024). Improving intergroup relations with meta-perception correction interventions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(3), 190–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2024.01.008
NoorM.VollhardtJ. R.MariS.NadlerA. (2017). The social psychology of collective victimhood. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(2), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2300
59.
Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE). (2007). Annual report. http://www.nicie.org/archive/NICIE%2020062007%20Annual%20Report.pdf
60.
O’BrienT. C.LeidnerB.TroppL. R. (2018). Are they for us or against us? How intergroup metaperceptions shape foreign policy attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(6), 941–961. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216684645
61.
OwuamalamC. K.TarrantM.FarrowC. V.ZagefkaH. (2013). The effect of metastereotyping on judgements of higher-status outgroups when reciprocity and social image improvement motives collide. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 45(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030012
62.
Page-GouldE.Mendoza-DentonR.TroppL. R. (2008). With a little help from my cross-group friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1080–1094. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1080
63.
PaoliniS.HarwoodJ.HewstoneM.NeumannD. L. (2018). Seeking and avoiding intergroup contact: Future frontiers of research on building social integration. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(12), Article e12422. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12422
64.
PauketatJ. V.MackieD. M.TauschN. (2020). Group-based meta-emotion and emotion responses to intergroup threat. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(2), 494–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12364
65.
PavetichM.StathiS. (2021a). Investigating antecedents of Islamophobia: The role of perceived control over terrorism, threat, meta-dehumanization, and dehumanization. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 31(4), 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2512
66.
PavetichM.StathiS. (2021b). Meta-humanization reduces prejudice, even under high intergroup threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(3), 651–671. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000259
67.
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
68.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504
69.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R.WagnerU.ChristO. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001
70.
PutraI. E. (2014). The role of ingroup and outgroup meta-prejudice in predicting prejudice and identity undermining. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 20(4), 574–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000068
71.
PutraI. E.WagnerW. (2017). Prejudice in interreligious context: The role of metaprejudice and majority–minority status. Journal of Community and Applied Psychology, 27(3), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2305
72.
RohrerJ. M.HünermundP.ArslanR. C.ElsonM. (2022). That’s a lot to process! Pitfalls of popular path models. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459221095827
73.
RuggeriK.VećkalovB.BojanićL.AndersenT. L.Ashcroft-JonesS.AyacaxliN.Barea-ArroyoP.BergeM. L.BjørndalL. D.BursalıoğluA.BühlerV.ČadekM.ÇetinçelikM.ClayG.Cortijos-BernabeuA.DamnjanovićK.DugueT. M.EsbergM.Esteban-SernaC. & FolkeT. (2021). The general fault in our fault lines. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(10), 1369–1380. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01092-x
74.
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
75.
SchmittM. T.BranscombeN. R. (2002). The meaning and consequences of perceived discrimination in disadvantaged and privileged social groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 167–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000058
76.
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
77.
SheltonJ. N.RichesonJ. A. (2006). Ethnic minorities’ racial attitudes and contact experiences with White people. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(1), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.12.1.149
78.
SpanovicM.LickelB.DensonT. F.PetrovicN. (2010). Fear and anger as predictors of motivation for intergroup aggression: Evidence from Serbia and Republika Srpska. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(6), 725–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210374483
79.
StathiS.Di BernardoG. A.VezzaliL.PendletonS.TroppL. R. (2020). Do they want contact with us? The role of intergroup contact meta-perceptions on positive contact and attitudes. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 30(5), 461–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2452
80.
StathiS.PavetichM.Di BernardoG. A.CadamuroA.CoccoV. M.VezzaliL. (2020). Intergroup fears and concerns among minority and majority groups: Implications for contact and attitudes. Journal of Community Psychology, 48(3), 1010–1027. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22322
81.
StephanW. G. (2014). Intergroup anxiety: Theory, research, and practice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(3), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314530518
TassinariM.AulbachM. B.HarjunenV. J.CoccoV. M.VezzaliL.Jasinskaja-LahtiI. (2024). The effects of positive and negative intergroup contact in virtual reality on outgroup attitudes: Testing the contact hypothesis and its mediators. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 27(8), 1773–1798. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241237747
84.
TechakesariP.BarlowF. K.HornseyM. J.SungB.ThaiM.ChakJ. L. (2015). An investigation of positive and negative contact as predictors of intergroup attitudes in the United States, Hong Kong, and Thailand. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(3), 454–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115570313
85.
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
86.
TurnerR. N.TamT.HewstoneM.KenworthyJ.CairnsE. (2013). Contact between Catholic and Protestant schoolchildren in Northern Ireland. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(S2), 216–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12018
87.
UluğÖ. M.LickelB.LeidnerB.HirschbergerG. (2021). How do conflict narratives shape conflict- and peace-related outcomes among majority group members? The role of competitive victimhood in intractable conflicts. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(5), 797–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220915771
88.
VazireS. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017908
89.
VezzaliL. (2017). Valence matters: Positive meta-stereotypes and interethnic interactions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157(2), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1208140
90.
VisintinE. P.BrylkaA.GreenE. G.MähönenT. A.Jasinskaja-LahtiI. (2016). The dynamics of interminority extended contact: The role of affective and cognitive mediators. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(4), 467–478. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000089
91.
VollhardtJ. R. (2015). Inclusive victim consciousness in advocacy, social movements, and intergroup relations: Promises and pitfalls. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 89–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12011
92.
VorauerJ. D.HunterA. J.MainK. J.RoyS. A. (2000). Meta-stereotype activation: Evidence from indirect measures for specific evaluative concerns experienced by members of dominant groups in intergroup interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.690
93.
VorauerJ. D.MainK. J.O’ConnellG. B. (1998). How do individuals expect to be viewed by members of lower status groups? Content and implications of meta-stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 917–937. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.917
94.
WestK.GreenlandK.van LaarC. (2021). Implicit racism, colour blindness, and narrow definitions of discrimination: Why some White people prefer “All Lives Matter” to “Black Lives Matter.”British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(4), 1136–1153. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12458
95.
WhiteF. A.TurnerR. N.VerrelliS.HarveyL. J.HannaJ. R. (2019). Improving intergroup relations between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland via E-contact. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2515
96.
YılmazO.CesurS.BayadA. (2018). Türklerin ve Kürtlerin birbirlerine karşı olumsuz tutumlarının bazı psikolojik değişkenlerle ilişkisi [Psychological correlates of negative attitudes of Turks and Kurds toward one another]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 21, 82–99. https://bit.ly/2ZEA2qt
97.
ZhouJ.DovidioJ.WangE. (2013). How affectively-based and cognitively-based attitudes drive intergroup behaviours: The moderating role of affective–cognitive consistency. PLoS One, 8(11), Article e82150. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082150
98.
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.
