The “contact hypothesis”: Critical reflections
Pettigrew and Tropp's (2006) influential meta‐analytic review, which suggested that the vast
majority of previous studies (around 94%) have evidenced a negative relationship between
contact and prejudice(contact hypothesis). It also suggested that this finding may hold even
when contact does not occur under the ideal conditions that Allport (1954) recommended as
vital to its success (e.g., equality of status between participants).
CRITIQUES OF THE CONTACT HYPOTHESIS
Negative contact experiences have the potential to exacerbate rather than improve
intergroup relations.
Until fairly recently, however, empirical work on contact has overwhelmingly prioritized
positive and structured forms of intergroup encounters and interactions, arguably leading to
a somewhat idealistic vision of the realities of contact in ordinary situations
- Barlow et al. (2012) similarly reported that the prejudice‐increasing effects of
negative contact outweighed the prejudice‐reducing effects of positive contact: a
finding they dubbed the “contact caveat.”
- Graf et al. (2014) found that positive contact experiences were more commonly
reported than negative contact experiences; however, negative contact had a
stronger overall relationship with prejudice
- Offering a potential explanation for the seemingly stronger impact of negative
contact on intergroup attitudes, Paolini, Harwood, and Rubin (2010) point out
that such contact is particularly likely to heighten category salience, thereby
leading participants to view others as exemplars of groups rather than unique
individuals. stronger for negative than for positive contact experience
Most psychological research on contact published over the past decade has relied on one of
two methodological approaches, usually focusing on structured contact and explicit, self‐
reported, contact experiences. So survey or experimental methods. in those methods the
focus lies on structured contact but in rl contact is often circumscribed by informal practices
of (re)segregation.
segregation has proven to be resilient blockages in intergroup communication, people
remain racially segregated, unsuccessful intergroup contact
- intergroup threat plays a central role in informing individuals' choices to avoid
interaction with others, with individuals acting in ways that establish in‐group “comfort
zones
- desire to reinforce existing group identities in order to maintain social differentiation
and positive distinctiveness
once basic patterns of segregation are established, they tend to become routinized, quietly
shaping intergroup attitudes on an ongoing basis
They show that in supposedly desegregated spaces, members of different groups often
segregate themselves from one another, the problem of “illusory” contact.
2.2 was lastig
There are two models in thise kind of research.
- A prejudice reduction model based primarily on getting members of historically
disadvantaged groups to develop more positive attitudes toward others
, - A collective action model based primarily on mobilizing the disadvantaged to
challenge the status quo
Historically, it was seen as something that goes complementary, but Wright said there may
set something in motion social psychological processes that work in opposing directions.
- The prejudice reduction model encourages dominant group bigots to like others
more, based on the assumption that this process gradually reduces wider patterns of
discrimination. It informs interventions that typically seek to diminish the salience of
group boundaries, differences and identities, thus creating social harmony.
- By contrast, the collective action model encourages subordinate group members to
acknowledge intergroup inequalities, experience a sense of injustice, and become
angry enough to participate in collective action. This process tends to decrease
rather than increase intergroup harmony by creating the conditions under which
dominant group privilege is challenged by subordinate group activism.
The underlying tensions between these two models change have led some researchers to
argue that prejudice reduction interventions may exert a “sedative effect” on the collective
resistance of historically disadvantaged groups to social inequality, even to the point of
encouraging them to acquiesce in their own exploitation.
exemple: (1) contact between whites and blakcs diminishes Black South Africans' readiness
to recognize the persistence of racial discrimination in the post‐apartheid era, view
hierarchical power relations as more legitimate relative to participants who experienced
either no contact or contact. (2) Latin American respondents who had more contact with
Whites tended to express less willingness to work together with Blacks for a common
political cause.
Positive contact in one context at a given point in time tends to increase the likelihood that
individuals will open themselves up to positive contact in other contexts and at other times,
arguably by decreasing intergroup anxiety and prejudice. negative contact experiences may
work in the opposite direction.
Pettigrew and Tropp's (2006) influential meta‐analytic review, which suggested that the vast
majority of previous studies (around 94%) have evidenced a negative relationship between
contact and prejudice(contact hypothesis). It also suggested that this finding may hold even
when contact does not occur under the ideal conditions that Allport (1954) recommended as
vital to its success (e.g., equality of status between participants).
CRITIQUES OF THE CONTACT HYPOTHESIS
Negative contact experiences have the potential to exacerbate rather than improve
intergroup relations.
Until fairly recently, however, empirical work on contact has overwhelmingly prioritized
positive and structured forms of intergroup encounters and interactions, arguably leading to
a somewhat idealistic vision of the realities of contact in ordinary situations
- Barlow et al. (2012) similarly reported that the prejudice‐increasing effects of
negative contact outweighed the prejudice‐reducing effects of positive contact: a
finding they dubbed the “contact caveat.”
- Graf et al. (2014) found that positive contact experiences were more commonly
reported than negative contact experiences; however, negative contact had a
stronger overall relationship with prejudice
- Offering a potential explanation for the seemingly stronger impact of negative
contact on intergroup attitudes, Paolini, Harwood, and Rubin (2010) point out
that such contact is particularly likely to heighten category salience, thereby
leading participants to view others as exemplars of groups rather than unique
individuals. stronger for negative than for positive contact experience
Most psychological research on contact published over the past decade has relied on one of
two methodological approaches, usually focusing on structured contact and explicit, self‐
reported, contact experiences. So survey or experimental methods. in those methods the
focus lies on structured contact but in rl contact is often circumscribed by informal practices
of (re)segregation.
segregation has proven to be resilient blockages in intergroup communication, people
remain racially segregated, unsuccessful intergroup contact
- intergroup threat plays a central role in informing individuals' choices to avoid
interaction with others, with individuals acting in ways that establish in‐group “comfort
zones
- desire to reinforce existing group identities in order to maintain social differentiation
and positive distinctiveness
once basic patterns of segregation are established, they tend to become routinized, quietly
shaping intergroup attitudes on an ongoing basis
They show that in supposedly desegregated spaces, members of different groups often
segregate themselves from one another, the problem of “illusory” contact.
2.2 was lastig
There are two models in thise kind of research.
- A prejudice reduction model based primarily on getting members of historically
disadvantaged groups to develop more positive attitudes toward others
, - A collective action model based primarily on mobilizing the disadvantaged to
challenge the status quo
Historically, it was seen as something that goes complementary, but Wright said there may
set something in motion social psychological processes that work in opposing directions.
- The prejudice reduction model encourages dominant group bigots to like others
more, based on the assumption that this process gradually reduces wider patterns of
discrimination. It informs interventions that typically seek to diminish the salience of
group boundaries, differences and identities, thus creating social harmony.
- By contrast, the collective action model encourages subordinate group members to
acknowledge intergroup inequalities, experience a sense of injustice, and become
angry enough to participate in collective action. This process tends to decrease
rather than increase intergroup harmony by creating the conditions under which
dominant group privilege is challenged by subordinate group activism.
The underlying tensions between these two models change have led some researchers to
argue that prejudice reduction interventions may exert a “sedative effect” on the collective
resistance of historically disadvantaged groups to social inequality, even to the point of
encouraging them to acquiesce in their own exploitation.
exemple: (1) contact between whites and blakcs diminishes Black South Africans' readiness
to recognize the persistence of racial discrimination in the post‐apartheid era, view
hierarchical power relations as more legitimate relative to participants who experienced
either no contact or contact. (2) Latin American respondents who had more contact with
Whites tended to express less willingness to work together with Blacks for a common
political cause.
Positive contact in one context at a given point in time tends to increase the likelihood that
individuals will open themselves up to positive contact in other contexts and at other times,
arguably by decreasing intergroup anxiety and prejudice. negative contact experiences may
work in the opposite direction.
