A widely researched panacea for reducing intergroup prejudice is the contact hypothesis. However, few longitudinal studies can shed light on the direction of causal processes: from contact to prejudice reduction (contact effects) or from prejudice to contact reduction (prejudice effects). The authors conducted a longitudinal field survey in Germany, Belgium, and England with school students. The sample comprised members of both ethnic minorities (n = 512) and ethnic majorities (n = 1,143). Path analyses yielded both lagged contact effects and prejudice effects: Contact reduced prejudice, but prejudice also reduced contact. Furthermore, contact effects were negligible for minority members. These effects were obtained for 2 indicators of prejudice: negative intergroup emotions and desire for social distance. For both majority and minority members, contact effects on negative emotions were stronger when outgroup contacts were perceived as being typical of their group. Contact effects were also mediated by intergroup anxiety. This mediating mechanism was impaired for minority members because of a weakened effect of anxiety on desire for social distance. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

This study examined the impact of the acculturation strategy preferences of both immigrants and host society on intergroup relations. It was expected that integration would lead to the best outcome for both groups. Moreover, it was tested whether the relative 'fit' between host society and immigrant strategy preference would predict intergroup relations. The predictive power of two different operationalisations of fit was compared. School students (193 German host society members and 128 immigrants to Germany) participated in a questionnaire study. Findings revealed that both acculturation strategies of one group and relative 'fit' between immigrant and host society strategy preference were predictive of intergroup relations. In general, a strategy of integration was associated with more favourable intergroup relations in both groups, and a mismatch between host and immigrant preferred strategies yielded the most negative outcomes.

Three studies examined the hypothesis that collective guilt and shame have different consequences for reparation. In 2 longitudinal studies, the ingroup was nonindigenous Chileans (Study 1: N = 124/120, lag = 8 weeks; Study 2: N = 247/137, lag = 6 months), and the outgroup was Chile's largest indigenous group, the Mapuche. In both studies, it was found that collective guilt predicted reparation attitudes longitudinally. Collective shame had only cross-sectional associations with reparation and no direct longitudinal effects. In Study 2, collective shame moderated the longitudinal effects of collective guilt such that the effects of guilt were stronger for low-shame respondents. In Study 3 (N = 193 nonindigenous Chileans), the cross-sectional relationships among guilt, shame, and reparation attitudes were replicated. The relationship between shame and reparation attitudes was mediated by a desire to improve the ingroup's reputation.

Two studies were carried out in England to investigate the role of essentialist national group definitions in determining the effect of national identification on prejudice towards immigrants, and asylum seekers in particular. It was expected that the relationship between national identification and prejudice would depend on the degree to which participants endorse an essentialist ('ethnic') definition of their nationality. Consistent with this, Study 1 (N=154) found that national identification is associated with negativity towards asylum seekers only among individuals who endorse an essentialist conception of the group, and shows no significant association with prejudice among those who reject such a conception. Study 2 (N=219) used a longitudinal design conducted over 6 weeks, allowing cross-lagged analysis of causality between essentialism, identification, and behavioural intentions towards asylum seekers. A causal effect of essentialism on willingness to support a group acting against asylum seekers was observed, with no significant causal effect in the reverse direction. The reverse causal direction was observed in the case of support for a group seeking to support asylum seekers, with intended behaviours determining essentialism. The results are discussed in terms of the importance of group definitions in the study of in-group affiliations and prejudice.

The effect of the cause of a disaster, i.e. whether it was perceived to be caused by human or natural factors, on willingness to donate money to disaster victims was examined. In Study 1 (N ¼ 76), the cause of a fictitious disaster was experimentally varied. In Study 2 (N ¼ 219), participants were asked about their views regarding donations to two real-life disasters, one of which was perceived to be naturally caused while the other one was perceived to be caused by humans. In Study 3 (N ¼ 115), the cause of a fictitious disaster was experimentally varied, but this time measures of the proposed psychological mediators of the effect on donations were included, namely perceived victim blame and the extent to which victims were thought to make an effort to help themselves. A measure of real donation behaviour was also added. In Study 4 (N ¼ 196), the proposed psychological mediators were manipulated directly, and the effect of this on donations was monitored. Across all studies, more donations were elicited by naturally caused rather than humanly caused disasters. This difference was driven by a perception that the victims of natural disasters are to be blamed less for their plight, and that they make more of an effort to help themselves. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.