This contribution examines the role of vicarious contact (observing in-group members having successful cross-group contact) as a tool to improve intergroup relations. Expanding previous research on indirect intergroup contact, vicarious contact (1) integrates and applies concepts of social-cognitive theory ( Bandura, 1986 ) to the field of intergroup contact research; (2) broadens the study of indirect contact effects to the observation of successful cross-group interactions; and (3) proposes to increase people’s intention for direct cross-group contact. Two video-based experiments indicate that vicarious contact improves attitudes towards the out-group and increases participants’ willingness to engage in direct cross-group contact. These studies provide evidence that the relation between vicarious contact and intergroup attitudes (and willingness to engage in direct contact) is sequentially mediated by self-efficacy expectancy and perceived intergroup uncertainty. Implications of these findings for further research on the (indirect) contact hypothesis and their application will be discussed.

Knowing that fellow ingroup members have cross‐group contact can affect how people think, feel, and behave towards an out‐group. Previous research on extended contact focused almost exclusively on positive cross‐group interactions, neglecting the fact that extended contact can also be negative. In this contribution, we introduce negative extended contact and investigate how both forms of extended contact predict direct cross‐group contact and intergroup attitudes. In two cross‐sectional studies (N1 = 286, N2 = 237), we found evidence that positive and negative extended contact uniquely predict intergroup attitudes, and that direct cross‐group contact mediates this effect. In Study 2, we also provide initial evidence that extended contact might either prepare for or impair direct contact by changing ingroup norms and intergroup self‐efficacy, which in turn influence feelings of intergroup anxiety.

In the aftermath of the Liberian civil wars, we investigated whether it is possible to systematically influence how people construe their group's role during the conflict and how this affects intergroup emotions and behavioral intentions. In a field experiment, 146 participants were randomly assigned to think about incidents of violence during the war that were either committed by fellow ingroup members (perpetrator‐focus) or against fellow ingroup members (victim‐focus). Adopting a perpetrator‐focus led to greater willingness to engage in cross‐group contact, greater need for acceptance, and greater intergroup empathy. The focus manipulation did not affect participants' need for empowerment. Key message: Appraising the ingroup as “victim” or “perpetrator” after conflicts with reciprocal harmdoing is largely a matter of psychological construction. A promising avenue for promoting positive cross‐group contact consists in widening the ingroup's victim role by also remembering the harm that the ingroup inflicted upon others. This amplifies the need of acceptance, which leads to greater intergroup empathy and greater willingness to engage in cross‐group contact. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

In conflicts with reciprocal violence, individuals belong to a group that has been both perpetrator and victim. In a field experiment in Liberia, West Africa, we led participants (N = 146) to focus on their group as either perpetrator or victim in order to investigate its effect on orientation towards inter‐group reconciliation or revenge. Compared to a perpetrator focus, a victim focus led to slightly more revenge orientation and moderately less reconciliation orientation. The effect of the focus manipulation on revenge orientation was fully mediated, and reconciliation orientation partly mediated, by viewing the in‐group's social‐image as at risk. Independent of perpetrator or victim focus, shame (but not guilt) was a distinct explanation of moderately more reconciliation orientation. This is consistent with a growing body of work demonstrating the pro‐social potential of shame. Taken together, results suggest how groups in reciprocal conflict might be encouraged towards reconciliation and away from revenge by feeling shame for their wrongdoing and viewing their social‐image as less at risk. As victims and perpetrators are widely thought to have different orientations to inter‐group reconciliation and revenge, we suggest that work on reciprocal conflicts should account for the fact that people can belong to a group that has been both perpetrator and victim.

No abstract