Allport specified four conditions for optimal intergroup contact: equal group status within the situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation and authority support. Varied research supports the hypothesis, but four problems remain. 1. A selection bias limits cross-sectional studies, since prejudiced people avoid intergroup contact. Yet research finds that the positive effects of cross-group friendship are larger than those of the bias. 2. Writers overburden the hypothesis with facilitating, but not essential, conditions. 3. The hypothesis fails to address process. The chapter proposes four processes: learning about the outgroup, changed behavior, affective ties, and ingroup reappraisal. 4. The hypothesis does not specify how the effects generalize to other situations, the outgroup or uninvolved outgroups. Acting sequentially, three strategies enhance generalizationodecategorization, salient categorization, and recategorization. Finally, both individual differences and societal norms shape intergroup contact effects. The chapter outlines a longitudinal intergroup contact theory. It distinguishes between essential and facilitating factors, and emphasizes different outcomes for different stages of contact.

http://majorsmatter.net/race/Readings/Pettigrew%201998.pdf

Intergroup contact theory

Allport (1954) recognized that attachment to one's ingroups does not necessarily require hostility toward outgroups. Yet the prevailing approach to the study of ethnocentrism, ingroup bias, and prejudice presumes that ingroup love and outgroup hate are reciprocally related. Findings from both cross-cultural research and laboratory experiments support the alternative view that ingroup identification is independent of negative attitudes toward outgroups and that much ingroup bias and intergroup discrimination is motivated by preferential treatment of ingroup members rather than direct hostility toward outgroup members. Thus to understand the roots of prejudice and discrimination requires first of all a better understanding of the functions that ingroup formation and identification serve for human beings. This article reviews research and theory on the motivations for maintenance of ingroup boundaries and the implications of ingroup boundary protection for intergroup relations, conflict, and conflict prevention.

/pdf/the-psychology-of-prejudice-ingroup-love-and-outgroup-hate-4rnxayadwm.pdf

The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love and Outgroup Hate?

http://smithlasc.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/1/1/26117566/stereotype_threat_intelligence.pdf

Reducing the Effects of Stereotype Threat on African American College Students by Shaping Theories of Intelligence

The extended contact hypothesis proposes that knowledge that an in-group member has a close relationship with an out-group member can lead to more positive intergroup attitudes. Proposed mechanisms are the in-group or out-group member serving as positive exemplars and the inclusion of the out-group member's group membership in the self. In Studies I and 2, respondents knowing an in-group member with an out-group friend had less negative attitudes toward that out-group, even controlling for disposition.il variables and direct out-group friendships. Study 3, with constructed intergroup-conflict situations (on the robbers cave model). found reduced negative out-group attitudes after participants learned of cross-group friendships. Study 4, a minimal group experiment, showed less negative out-group attitudes for participants observing an apparent in-group-out-group friendship. The intergroup contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954; Williams, 1947) proposes that under a given set of circumstances contact between members of different groups reduces existing negative intergroup attitudes. Some recent research (reviewed below) suggests that the effect may be most clearly associated with the specific contact of a friendship relationship. The extended contact hypothesis, which we introduce here, proposes that knowledge that an in-group member has a close relationship with an out-group member can lead to more positive intergroup attitudes. This article presents the rationale for the extended contact effect, including three mechanisms by which it may operate, and four methodologically diverse studies to demonstrate the phenomenon.

The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice.

Publisher Summary This chapter begins with a re-presentation of Allport's classic hypothesis and shows—with reference to recent cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys— laboratory experiments, and meta-analysis, that many of his original propositions have capably withstood the test of time. It examines Brewer and Miller's, and Gaertner and Dovidio's attempts to extend the contact hypothesis, in both of which categorization processes play a key role. This approach sets the stage for the model, first published in 1986 by Hewstone and Brown. In that model, emphasis was given on identifying the conditions that would allow the generalization of attitudes and behavior change beyond the specific context in which the contact occurs. The chapter discusses the developments of contact theory that occurred in the 1980s and reviews the empirical research instigated by the Hewstone–Brown model. It also reviews the progress to date and attempts a theoretical integration of these models in the light of the large volume of research that they have stimulated.

An integrative theory of intergroup contact

This paper develops, measures, and tests two types of intergroup prejudice—blatant and subtle. Blatant prejudice is the traditional, often studied form; it is hot, close and direct. Subtle prejudice is the modern form; it is cool, distant and indirect. Using data from seven independent national samples from western Europe, we constructed 10-item scales in four languages to measure each of these varieties of prejudice. We report the properties, structure and correlates of both scales across the seven samples, and make initial checks on their validity. The cross-nationally consistent results support the value of the blatant-subtle distinction as two varieties of prejudice. While they share many correlates, their distinctive differences suggest better specification of these correlates of prejudice. And the blatant-subtle distinction also aids in more precise specification of the effects of prejudice on attitudes toward immigrants. The paper closes with a normative interpretation of Subtle Prejudice.

Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe

Is subtle prejudice really prejudice

Les AA. s'efforcent de montrer que de nouvelles formes de prejuges ethniques se manifestent au sein de l'opinion publique en France, en Allemagne, en Grande-Bretagne, aux Pays-Bas et en Amerique du Nord. Ils estiment que les prejuges deliberement hostiles tendent a etre supplantes par des formes plus subtiles. Ils presentent un certain nombre de donnees collectees en 1988 et examinent l'influence du niveau d'instruction, du conservatisme politique, de l'engagement politique, de l'appartenance a un milieu defavorise en ce domaine

Is Subtle Prejudice Really Prejudice

Using three diverse European surveys, we test the relationship between relative deprivation (RD) and anti-immigrant prejudice. We find that both group relative deprivation (GRD) and individual relative deprivation (IRD) are found primarily among working-class respondents who are politically alienated. We also find that GRD, but not IRD, serves as a proximal correlate of prejudice. IRD's effects on prejudice are largely mediated through GRD. In addition, GRD partially mediates the effects of such distal predictors of prejudice as education and family income. Finally, blaming the victim mediates in part the GRD link with prejudice. These results lead to a socially situated path model of RD's effects on prejudice with public policy implications.

Relative deprivation and intergroup prejudice

Outgroup prejudice has been a major area for social psychological applications. Yet European social psychology has not widely studied prejudice against the continent's new minorities. These groups provide a useful comparison with which to test generalizations concerning prejudice derived largely on African-Americans. This chapter advances two interrelated hypotheses: (1) The universality hypothesis predicts that social psychological factors operate in similar ways across nations and target groups though the macro-contexts vary widely; (2) the mediation hypothesis predicts that key social psychological predictors of prejudice serve as critical mediators of the effects on prejudice of social factors. We test these hypotheses and more specific phenomena with analyses of the rich data of the 1988 Euro-Barometer 30 survey. We find considerable support for both hypotheses. There are remarkable consistencies, with some distinctive features, in prejudice phenomena that operate across nations and outgroups. The ch...

Roel W. Meertens

Papers

Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe

Is subtle prejudice really prejudice

Is Subtle Prejudice Really Prejudice

Relative deprivation and intergroup prejudice

Outgroup prejudice in western Europe.