The digitalization of media creates an environment for users to engage in indirect contact with outgroup members whom they would otherwise not make contact with in real life. This research investigated how vicarious contact (observing intergroup interactions) via user comments on news articles reduced readers’ prejudice against outgroups and the moderating roles of direct contact in such effects. An online experiment (N = 700) demonstrated that for participants with limited positive direct contact with HIV-positive individuals, positive vicarious contact with HIV-positive individuals via user comments increased their intentions to interact with HIV-positive individuals. In contrast, for those with more positive direct contact, positive attitudes toward HIV-positive individuals decreased with positive vicarious contact. For participants with abundant negative direct contact with Asians, positive vicarious contact with Asians via user comments decreased their intentions to interact with Asians. The findings advance the understanding of the effects of user-generated comments on news readers’ interpretation and understanding of news content and provide practical guidance for reducing intergroup prejudice.
AllportGWClarkKPettigrewT (1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
2.
Amichai-HamburgerY (2012) Reducing intergroup conflict in the digital age. In: GilesH (ed) The Handbook of Intergroup Communication. London: Routledge, 181–193.
3.
Amichai-HamburgerYMcKennaKYA (2006) The contact hypothesis reconsidered: interacting via the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication11(3): 825–843.
4.
ÁrnadóttirKKendeJPhaletK, et al. (2022) The interplay of positive and negative intergroup contact: experiences of Latino/a Youth in the US. International Journal of Intercultural Relations86: 190–202.
5.
BanduraA (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6.
BarlowFKPaoliniSPedersenA, et al. (2012) The contact caveat: negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin38(12): 1629–1643.
7.
BrownRHewstoneM (2005) An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In: ZannaMP (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier Academic Press, 255–343.
8.
ChristOHewstoneMTauschN, et al. (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 Bulletin36(12): 1662–1674.
9.
CrispRJTurnerRN (2012) The imagined contact hypothesis. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology46: 125–182.
10.
DaiYShiJ (2022) Vicarious interactions in online support communities: the roles of visual anonymity and social identification. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication27(3).
11.
DaiYWaltherJB (2018) Vicariously experiencing parasocial intimacy with public figures through observations of interactions on social media. Human Communication Research44(3): 322–342.
12.
DixonTL (2006) Psychological reactions to crime news portrayals of black criminals: understanding the moderating roles of prior news viewing and stereotype endorsement. Communication Monographs73(2): 162–187.
13.
DixonTL (2016) Understanding how the internet and social media accelerate racial stereotyping and social division: the socially mediated stereotyping model. In: LindRA (ed) Race and Gender in Electronic Media. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis, 161–178.
14.
FazioRHZannaMP (1981) Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. In: BerkowitzL (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 161–202.
15.
GorhamBW (2006) News media’s relationship with stereotyping: the linguistic intergroup bias in response to crime news. Journal of Communication56(2): 289–308.
16.
HarwoodJ (2010) The contact space: a novel framework for intergroup contact research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology29(2): 147–177.
17.
HarwoodJJoyceNChenCY, et al. (2017) Effects of past and present intergroup communication on perceived fit of an outgroup member and desire for future intergroup contact. Communication Research44(4): 530–555.
18.
HaslerBSAmichai-HamburgerY (2013) Online intergroup contact. In: Amichai-HamburgerY (ed) The Social Net: Understanding Our Online Behaviour. Oxford: OUP Oxford, 220–252.
19.
HastingsC (2022) Writing for digital news about HIV criminalization in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie59(2): 181–199.
20.
HayesA (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
21.
HaywardLETroppLRHornseyMJ, et al. (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 Bulletin43(3): 347–364.
22.
HsuehMYogeeswaranKMalinenS (2015) “Leave your comment below”: can biased online comments influence our own prejudicial attitudes and behaviors?Human Communication Research41(4): 557–576.
23.
JoyceNHarwoodJ (2014) Improving intergroup attitudes through televised vicarious intergroup contact: social cognitive processing of ingroup and outgroup information. Communication Research41(5): 627–643.
24.
KimNWojcieszakM (2018) Intergroup contact through online comments: effects of direct and extended contact on outgroup attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior81: 63–72.
25.
KimNFishkinJSLuskinRC (2018) Intergroup contact in deliberative contexts: evidence from deliberative polls. Journal of Communication68(6): 1029–1051.
26.
LeeE-J (2012) That’s not the way it is: how user-generated comments on the news affect perceived media bias. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication18(1): 32–45.
27.
LeeE-JJangYJ (2010) What do others’ reactions to news on Internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality Perception. Communication Research37(6): 825–846.
28.
LeeE-JKimHSChoJ (2017) How user comments affect news processing and reality perception: activation and refutation of regional prejudice. Communication Monographs84(1): 75–93.
29.
LeeE-JJangYJChungM (2021) When and how user comments affect news readers’ personal opinion: perceived public opinion and perceived news position as mediators. Digital Journalism9(1): 42–63.
30.
LuhmannN (2000) The Reality of the Mass Media. Redwood, CA: Stanford University Press.
31.
MarwickAEBoydD (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society13(1): 114–133.
32.
MazziottaAMummendeyAWrightSC (2011) Vicarious intergroup contact effects: applying social-cognitive theory to intergroup contact research. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations14(2): 255–274.
OliverAGCampbellRGraffinS, et al. (2023) Media coverage of earnings announcements: how newsworthiness shapes media volume and tone. Journal of Management49(4): 1213–1245.
35.
O’SullivanPBCarrCT (2018) Masspersonal communication: a model bridging the mass-interpersonal divide. New Media & Society20(3): 1161–1180.
36.
PaoliniSHarwoodJRubinM (2010) Negative intergroup contact makes group memberships salient: explaining why intergroup conflict endures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin36(12): 1723–1738.
37.
PaoliniSHarwoodJRubinM, et al. (2014) Positive and extensive intergroup contact in the past buffers against the disproportionate impact of negative contact in the present. European Journal of Social Psychology44(6): 548–562.
38.
PettigrewTFTroppLRWagnerU, et al. (2011) Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations35(3): 271–280.
39.
PreußSSteffensMC (2021) A video intervention for every straight man: the role of preattitudes and emotions in vicarious-contact effects. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations24(6): 921–944.
40.
RenyTTBarretoMA (2022) Xenophobia in the time of pandemic: othering, anti-Asian attitudes, and COVID-19. Politics, Groups, and Identities10(2): 209–232.
41.
RoweI (2015) Civility 2.0: a comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society18(2): 121–138.
42.
RuizCDomingoDMicóJL, et al. (2011) Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics16(4): 463–487.
43.
SchäferSJSimsekMJaspersE, et al. (2022) Dynamic contact effects: individuals’ positive and negative contact history influences intergroup contact effects in a behavioral game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology123(1): 107–122.
44.
SchemerCMeltzerCE (2020) The impact of negative parasocial and vicarious contact with refugees in the media on attitudes toward refugees. Mass Communication & Society23(2): 230–248.
45.
ShiJDaiY (2023) Audience–campaign planner interaction in social media communication campaigns: how it influences intended campaign responses in the observing audience. Human Communication Research49(3): 296–309.
VezzaliLStathiSGiovanniniD (2012) Indirect contact through book reading: improving adolescents’ attitudes and behavioral intentions toward immigrants. Psychology in the Schools49(2): 148–162.
48.
VezzaliLHewstoneMCapozzaD, et al. (2014) Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology25(1): 314–389.
49.
VezzaliLHewstoneMCapozzaD, et al. (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 Psychology27(1): 35–49.
50.
WeiselOBöhmR (2015) “Ingroup love” and “outgroup hate” in intergroup conflict between natural groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology60: 110–120.
51.
WhiteFABorincaIVezzaliL, et al. (2021) Beyond direct contact: the theoretical and societal relevance of indirect contact for improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues77(1): 132–153.
52.
WrightSCAronAMcLaughlin-VolpeT, et al. (1997) The extended contact effect: knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology73(1): 73–90.
53.
WuCShafferDR (1987) Susceptibility to persuasive appeals as a function of source credibility and prior experience with the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology52(4): 677–688.
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.
