The Contact Hypothesis in Inter-group Relations

The contact hypothesis
Starting point
The Cognitive Perspective
The traditional approach characterizes inter-group
relations and intergroup perceptions as a process  of
‘autistic hostility’ (Newcomb, 1947)
The Cognitive Perspective
That is, a self-amplifying cycle of antagonism, separation,
and 
unrealistic
 negative attributions
Inter-group hostility leads to avoidance which in turn
leads both to more extreme negative perceptions and to
an inability to test those perceptions against reality
The Cognitive Perspective
The traditional approach claims that
A) initial inter-group perceptions unrealistic
Stereotypes and Prejudice are based upon erroneous
beliefs
The Cognitive Perspective
The traditional approach claims that
B) inter-group interactions would end up providing
individuals with accurate group perceptions
Hence, our experiences in the the world would change
our view of the word
The Cognitive Perspective
The traditional approach claims that
C) the inter-group relations would allow us to gather
more accurate impressions of group members in the hic
et nun
Hence, we could revise our beliefs about that group
(generalization)
The Cognitive Perspective
How to change stereotypes and reduce
prejudices…
A guideline
The Cognitive Perspective
Sociological observations:
Brophy (1946):
After the US Merchant Marine began desegregating,
the more voyages the White seamen took with Blacks,
the more positive their racial attitudes became
The Cognitive Perspective
Sociological observations:
Kephart (1957):
White police officers who worked with Black
colleagues later objected less to having Blacks join
their police districts, teaming with a Black partner, and
taking orders from Black officers.
The Cognitive Perspective
Precursory: Sociologists – Williams (1947)
The reduction of intergroup tensions
He noted that intergroup contact would maximally
reduce prejudice when the two groups share similar
status, interests and when the situation fosters personal,
intimate intergroup contact
It constitutes an initial formulation of intergroup contact
theory
The Cognitive Perspective
Research tests the theory in field studies –quasi
experimental research
Deutsch & Collins (1951) –intimate contact-
Two housing projects in Newark assigned Black and White
residents to separate buildings
Two comparable housing projects in NY City
desegregated residents by making apartment
assignments irrespectively of race
The Cognitive Perspective
Deutsch & Collins (1951)
The authors found that White women in the
desegregated projects had far more optimal contact
with their Black neighbors
White women in the desegregated projects held their
Black neighbors in higher esteem and expressed greater
support for interracial housing
(attitude change in the hic et nun setting)
The Cognitive Perspective
Allport (1954)
Introduced the most influential statement of intergroup
contact theory in the Nature of Prejduice
Allport’s formulation stated that contact between groups
under optimal conditions could effectively reduce inter-
group prejudice
The Cognitive Perspective
Allport (1954)
Inter-group contact reduces prejudice when four
features of the contact situation are present:
Equal status between groups
Common goals
Intergroup cooperation
Support of the authorities, law, or custom
The Cognitive Perspective
Allport (1954)
Allports’ formulation has been confirmed by different
research, concerning different groups, different
cultural context
The Cognitive Perspective
Research that has stemmed from the initial formulation
adds a variety of ‘new’ variables that enhance the
power of the inter-group contact in reducing prejudice
(like a new recipe…)
The Cognitive Perspective
Just an example…
Shook & Fazio (2008)
College students assigned to same-race and different-
race room.
Longitudinal test, between no-contact and contact
condition
The Cognitive Perspective
Shook & Fazio (2008)
Explicit inter-group anxiety
definition
Implicit evaluative priming
refresh
The Cognitive Perspective
Explicit inter-group anxiety
“People often feel uncomfortable when interacting with
others who belong to a different social group than they do.
Intergroup anxiety is the term used to describe this
discomfort. When interacting with members of a different
social group (called an outgroup), people often anticipate
a variety of negative outcomes, such as being taken
advantage of or rejected. In extreme cases, they may be
concerned that outgroup members will physically harm
them”.
The Cognitive Perspective
Implicit evaluative priming
Priming valutativo
Prime (Arabo) --> risposta valutativa
Target (verme) --> risposta valutativa
Se la risposta valutativa è compatibile (incompatibile) con
quella sollecitata dal prime, allora facilitazione (inibizione) della
risposta al target
PP: AA vs EA
FASE 1
Classificazione di parole 12 positive vs. 12 negative
DV = RTs
Fase 2
Classificazione delle medesime parole
Prime: foto AA vs foto EA
Quindi ogni target era preceduto una volta da prime AA e da
prime EA
DV = RTs
Prime : reazione valutativa
Target: reazione valutativa
Relazione tra le due reazioni
Congruente: speed up
Incongruente: slow down
The Cognitive Perspective
Just an example…
Shook & Fazio (2008)
College students assigned to same-race and different-
race room.
Longitudinal test, between no-contact and contact
condition
The Cognitive Perspective
Shook & Fazio (2008)
Explicit inter-group anxiety
definition
Implicit evaluative priming
refresh
The Cognitive Perspective
The Cognitive Perspective
The Cognitive Perspective
Shook & Fazio (2008)
Inter-group contact reduces inter-group anxiety and
implicit inter-group bias
The Cognitive Perspective
Henry & Hardin (2006)
EXP 1: White & Black // EXP 2: Christians & Muslism
EXP 1. Feeling thermometer  (feeling: very unfavorable vs.
very favorable)
Definition
EXP 2. Warmth attiribution
Definition
The Cognitive Perspective
EXP 1. Feeling thermometer  (feeling: very unfavorable vs.
very favorable)
A feeling thermometer, or a thermometer scale, is a
procedure used in survey research to measure feeling.
Respondents are given instructions to express their feelings in
numbers using the thermometer for temperatures as a
reference or an analogy. Positive feelings are labelled as
warm feelings and negative feelings are equivalent to cold
feelings. It aims to measure the direction of the attitude and
also to assess the degree or intensity of the feeling (Alwin,
2007, p. 188).
The Cognitive Perspective
Esempio:
Qui di seguito troverai qualcosa che sembra un
termomemtro. Vorremmo che tu usassi questo
termometro per indicare il tuo atteggiamento nei
confronti delle persone straniere. Se hai un
atteggiamento favorevole nei confronti delle persone
straniere, attribuirai un punteggio tra il valore 50° e 100°
che dipende da quanto sei favorevole nei loro
confronti. Se hai un atteggiamento sfavorevole nei
confronti delle persone straniere, attribuirai un
punteggio tra il valore 0° e 50° che dipende da quanto
sei sfavorevole nei loro confronti. Le etichette associate
ai gradi del termometro ti aiuteranno a indicare il tuo
atteggiamento nei confronti delle persone straniere sul
termometro. I valori intermedi, sebbene sprovvistiti di
etichette, ti permetteranno di modulare la tua risposta.
Sentiti libero di usare qualsiasi numero tra 0° e 100°. Ti
chiediamo di essere il più possibile sincero.
The Cognitive Perspective
Henry & Hardin (2006)
EXP 1: White & Black // EXP 2: Christians & Muslism
EXP 1. Feeling thermometer  (feeling: very unfavorable vs.
very favorable)
Definition
EXP 2. Warmth attiribution
Definition
The Cognitive Perspective
The Cognitive Perspective
Henry & Hardin (2006)
The stronger is the contact, the lower is the intergroup
bias, both on the feeling thermometer (EXP1) and on the
warmth attribution (EXP 2).
The Cognitive Perspective
Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)
515 individual studies
717 independent samples
Combined 250.089 individuals
From 38 nations
The Cognitive Perspective
Effect size range from -.205 to -.214
Almost intermediate effect
Intergroup contact 
generally
 relates negatively and
significantly to prejudice
The higher the contact, the lower the prejudice
The Cognitive Perspective
Limits:
Why does the intergroup contact reduce prejudices?
Which is the process that leads inter-group contact to
reduce prejudice?
The Cognitive Perspective
Limits:
Previous studies has measured very often inter-group
contact.
What happens when inter-group contact is
manipulated?
Which type of exemplars one should come across to
change his/her prejudice?
The Cognitive Perspective
Need for a cognitive model or inter-group model that
can account for the observed effects (and null effects,
see the effect size of the meta-analyses)
Slide Note
Embed
Share

The contact hypothesis explores inter-group relations from a cognitive perspective, highlighting how initial stereotypes and prejudices can be challenged and changed through positive interactions. It emphasizes the importance of contact in altering perceptions and reducing prejudice, as demonstrated by sociological studies. By engaging in inter-group interactions, individuals can gain more accurate impressions and revise their beliefs about different groups, leading to more positive attitudes and outcomes.

  • Contact Hypothesis
  • Inter-group Relations
  • Cognitive Perspective
  • Stereotype Reduction
  • Prejudice Reduction

Uploaded on Sep 24, 2024 | 0 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The contact hypothesis Starting point

  2. The Cognitive Perspective The traditional approach characterizes inter-group relations and intergroup perceptions as a process of autistic hostility (Newcomb, 1947)

  3. The Cognitive Perspective That is, a self-amplifying cycle of antagonism, separation, and unrealistic negative attributions Inter-group hostility leads to avoidance which in turn leads both to more extreme negative perceptions and to an inability to test those perceptions against reality

  4. The Cognitive Perspective The traditional approach claims that A) initial inter-group perceptions unrealistic Stereotypes and Prejudice are based upon erroneous beliefs

  5. The Cognitive Perspective The traditional approach claims that B) inter-group interactions would end up providing individuals with accurate group perceptions Hence, our experiences in the the world would change our view of the word

  6. The Cognitive Perspective The traditional approach claims that C) the inter-group relations would allow us to gather more accurate impressions of group members in the hic et nun Hence, we could revise our beliefs about that group (generalization)

  7. The Cognitive Perspective How to change stereotypes and reduce prejudices A guideline

  8. The Cognitive Perspective Sociological observations: Brophy (1946): After the US Merchant Marine began desegregating, the more voyages the White seamen took with Blacks, the more positive their racial attitudes became

  9. The Cognitive Perspective Sociological observations: Kephart (1957): White police officers who worked with Black colleagues later objected less to having Blacks join their police districts, teaming with a Black partner, and taking orders from Black officers.

  10. The Cognitive Perspective Precursory: Sociologists Williams (1947) The reduction of intergroup tensions He noted that intergroup contact would maximally reduce prejudice when the two groups share similar status, interests and when the situation fosters personal, intimate intergroup contact It constitutes an initial formulation of intergroup contact theory

  11. The Cognitive Perspective Research tests the theory in field studies quasi experimental research Deutsch & Collins (1951) intimate contact- Two housing projects in Newark assigned Black and White residents to separate buildings Two comparable housing projects in NY City desegregated residents by making apartment assignments irrespectively of race

  12. The Cognitive Perspective Deutsch & Collins (1951) The authors found that White women in the desegregated projects had far more optimal contact with their Black neighbors White women in the desegregated projects held their Black neighbors in higher esteem and expressed greater support for interracial housing (attitude change in the hic et nun setting)

  13. The Cognitive Perspective Allport (1954) Introduced the most influential statement of intergroup contact theory in the Nature of Prejduice Allport s formulation stated that contact between groups under optimal conditions could effectively reduce inter- group prejudice

  14. The Cognitive Perspective Allport (1954) Inter-group contact reduces prejudice when four features of the contact situation are present: Equal status between groups Common goals Intergroup cooperation Support of the authorities, law, or custom

  15. The Cognitive Perspective Allport (1954) Allports formulation has been confirmed by different research, concerning different groups, different cultural context

  16. The Cognitive Perspective Research that has stemmed from the initial formulation adds a variety of new variables that enhance the power of the inter-group contact in reducing prejudice (like a new recipe )

  17. The Cognitive Perspective Just an example Shook & Fazio (2008) College students assigned to same-race and different- race room. Longitudinal test, between no-contact and contact condition

  18. The Cognitive Perspective Shook & Fazio (2008) Explicit inter-group anxiety definition Implicit evaluative priming refresh

  19. The Cognitive Perspective Explicit inter-group anxiety People often feel uncomfortable when interacting with others who belong to a different social group than they do. Intergroup anxiety is the term used to describe this discomfort. When interacting with members of a different social group (called an outgroup), people often anticipate a variety of negative outcomes, such as being taken advantage of or rejected. In extreme cases, they may be concerned that outgroup members will physically harm them .

  20. The Cognitive Perspective Implicit evaluative priming

  21. Priming valutativo Prime (Arabo) --> risposta valutativa Target (verme) --> risposta valutativa Se la risposta valutativa compatibile (incompatibile) con quella sollecitata dal prime, allora facilitazione (inibizione) della risposta al target

  22. PP: AA vs EA FASE 1 Classificazione di parole 12 positive vs. 12 negative DV = RTs

  23. Fase 2 Classificazione delle medesime parole Prime: foto AA vs foto EA Quindi ogni target era preceduto una volta da prime AA e da prime EA DV = RTs

  24. Prime : reazione valutativa Target: reazione valutativa Relazione tra le due reazioni Congruente: speed up Incongruente: slow down

  25. The Cognitive Perspective Just an example Shook & Fazio (2008) College students assigned to same-race and different- race room. Longitudinal test, between no-contact and contact condition

  26. The Cognitive Perspective Shook & Fazio (2008) Explicit inter-group anxiety definition Implicit evaluative priming refresh

  27. The Cognitive Perspective

  28. The Cognitive Perspective

  29. The Cognitive Perspective Shook & Fazio (2008) Inter-group contact reduces inter-group anxiety and implicit inter-group bias

  30. The Cognitive Perspective Henry & Hardin (2006) EXP 1: White & Black // EXP 2: Christians & Muslism EXP 1. Feeling thermometer (feeling: very unfavorable vs. very favorable) Definition EXP 2. Warmth attiribution Definition

  31. The Cognitive Perspective EXP 1. Feeling thermometer (feeling: very unfavorable vs. very favorable) A feeling thermometer, or a thermometer scale, is a procedure used in survey research to measure feeling. Respondents are given instructions to express their feelings in numbers using the thermometer for temperatures as a reference or an analogy. Positive feelings are labelled as warm feelings and negative feelings are equivalent to cold feelings. It aims to measure the direction of the attitude and also to assess the degree or intensity of the feeling (Alwin, 2007, p. 188).

  32. The Cognitive Perspective Esempio: Qui di seguito troverai qualcosa che sembra un termomemtro. Vorremmo che tu usassi questo termometro per indicare il tuo atteggiamento nei confronti delle persone straniere. Se hai un atteggiamento favorevole nei confronti delle persone straniere, attribuirai un punteggio tra il valore 50 e 100 che dipende da quanto sei favorevole nei loro confronti. Se hai un atteggiamento sfavorevole nei confronti delle persone straniere, attribuirai un punteggio tra il valore 0 e 50 che dipende da quanto sei sfavorevole nei loro confronti. Le etichette associate ai gradi del termometro ti aiuteranno a indicare il tuo atteggiamento nei confronti delle persone straniere sul termometro. I valori intermedi, sebbene sprovvistiti di etichette, ti permetteranno di modulare la tua risposta. Sentiti libero di usare qualsiasi numero tra 0 e 100 . Ti chiediamo di essere il pi possibile sincero.

  33. The Cognitive Perspective Henry & Hardin (2006) EXP 1: White & Black // EXP 2: Christians & Muslism EXP 1. Feeling thermometer (feeling: very unfavorable vs. very favorable) Definition EXP 2. Warmth attiribution Definition

  34. The Cognitive Perspective

  35. The Cognitive Perspective Henry & Hardin (2006) The stronger is the contact, the lower is the intergroup bias, both on the feeling thermometer (EXP1) and on the warmth attribution (EXP 2).

  36. The Cognitive Perspective Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) 515 individual studies 717 independent samples Combined 250.089 individuals From 38 nations

  37. The Cognitive Perspective Effect size range from -.205 to -.214 Almost intermediate effect Intergroup contact generally relates negatively and significantly to prejudice The higher the contact, the lower the prejudice

  38. The Cognitive Perspective Limits: Why does the intergroup contact reduce prejudices? Which is the process that leads inter-group contact to reduce prejudice?

  39. The Cognitive Perspective Limits: Previous studies has measured very often inter-group contact. What happens when inter-group contact is manipulated? Which type of exemplars one should come across to change his/her prejudice?

  40. The Cognitive Perspective Need for a cognitive model or inter-group model that can account for the observed effects (and null effects, see the effect size of the meta-analyses)

More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#