One of the most exciting developments in intergroup contact theory is the idea that a certain type of contact, cross-group friendship, might be particularly effective at reducing prejudice. In this chapter we review research on two types of cross-group friendship. Direct cross-group friendship refers to friendships that develop between members of different groups. Extended cross-group friendship, on the other hand, refers to vicarious experience of cross-group friendship, the mere knowledge that other ingroup members have cross-group friends. We consider the relationship between both types of cross-group friendship and prejudice and the processes that mediate and moderate these relationships. The research highlights the respective strengths and weaknesses of direct and extended cross-group friendship and illustrates how they might be practically combined in efforts to improve intergroup relations

In this article, we outline a new implementation of intergroup contact theory: imagined intergroup contact. The approach combines 50 years of research into the effects of contact with recent advances in social cognition. It represents both a versatile experimental paradigm for investigating the extended and indirect impacts of social contact, as well as a flexible and effective tool for practitioners and policy makers in their efforts to promote tolerance for multicultural diversity. We describe the theoretical basis for imagined contact effects, document emerging empirical support, and provide a practical guide for researchers wishing to adopt the paradigm. Finally, we discuss the potential application of imagined contact in educational contexts, and how it could be integrated with existing approaches to provide maximally effective strategies for improving intergroup relations.

Across two studies ( NStudy 1 = 101; NStudy 2 = 262) conducted among children in the UK, we incorporate Bandura’s (1986) self-efficacy theory to intergroup contact literature and introduce the new construct of cross-ethnic friendship self-efficacy (CEFSE), the belief that one can successfully form and maintain high-quality cross-ethnic friendships. Study 1 examined whether sources of CEFSE beliefs (prior contact, indirect contact, social norms, and intergroup anxiety) predicted higher quality cross-ethnic friendships through CEFSE. Study 2 replicated Study 1 and extended it by including perceived parental cross-ethnic friendship quality as a further predictor. In both studies, sources of self-efficacy beliefs (except social norms) were related to CEFSE, which predicted higher quality cross-ethnic friendships. Study 2 demonstrated that parental cross-ethnic friendships had direct and indirect associations with children’s cross-ethnic friendships through sources of CEFSE and CEFSE beliefs. Findings are discussed in the light of self-efficacy and intergroup contact theories.

Intergroup contact can be as casual as members of different groups walking past one another on the street or as intimate as developing cross-group friendships or romantic relationships. To date, however, the majority of intergroup contact research has focused on examining the effects of contact through self-report measures of interactions and friendships. While this research has made a substantial contribution to scientific understanding, less is known about how different forms of contact (casual vs. intimate) influence each other and are associated with outcomes across the lifespan. The present article focuses on intimate contact; a close and meaningful relationship or interaction with either an ingroup or outgroup member. We critically review the nature and consequences (good and bad) of intimate contact for children, youth and adults and for both majority and minority group members, focusing primarily on intimate intergroup contact. We also consider how intimate contact might be best measured in future research. Implications for research design, policy, and practice are considered. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Intergroup contact has long been recognized as an important factor in promoting positive intergroup attitudes. However, in operationalizing intergroup attitudes, previous studies have rarely investigated attitudes toward one of the most intimate forms of contact, romantic relationships. In this study (N = 176), we expand the intergroup contact literature to examine the association between intergroup contact and, arguably, a litmus test of intergroup attitudes: receptivity to intergroup romance. We do so in Northern Ireland, a context that is historically and presently characterized by sectarian division and tension between Catholics and Protestants. Our findings reveal that intergroup contact is positively associated with receptivity to both dating and marrying an outgroup member. These associations are mediated by ingroup norms toward outgroup romances. General outgroup attitudes were also found to be positively associated with contact but, in contrast to romantic attitudes, this association was shown, for the first time, to be simultaneously mediated by ingroup norms, anxiety, empathy, and trust. In addition, strength of ingroup identification played a moderating role, with a stronger positive relationship between contact and both romantic and general outgroup attitudes among higher identifiers. The findings highlight the importance of examining attitudes toward intergroup romantic relationships, as well as understanding the different mediating and moderating mechanisms which may account for how contact influences general attitudes and romantic attitudes. In the wake of the UK vote to leave the European Union, they also serve as an important reminder of how intergroup contact can be effective in promoting peace in Northern Ireland.

Intergroup contact is among the most effective ways to improve intergroup attitudes. While it is now beyond any doubt that contact can reduce prejudice, in this paper we provide evidence that its benefits can extend beyond intergroup relations-a process referred to as cognitive liberalization (Hodson, Crisp, Meleady & Earle, 2018). We focus specifically on the impact of intergroup contact on environmentally-relevant attitudes and behavior. Recent studies suggest that support for an inequality-based ideology (Social Dominance Orientation) can predict both intergroup attitudes and broader environmental conduct. Individuals higher in SDO are more willing to exploit the environment in unsustainable ways because doing so aids the production and maintenance of hierarchical social structures. In four studies, we show that by promoting less hierarchical and more egalitarian viewpoints (reduced SDO), intergroup contact encourages more environmentally responsible attitudes and behavior. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal data support this model. Effects are more strongly explained by reductions in an anti-egalitarian motive (SDO-E) than a dominance motive (SDO-D). We discuss how these findings help define an expanded vision for intergroup contact theory that moves beyond traditional conflict-related outcomes.

BackgroundThe Health and Social Care Act mandated research use as a core consideration of health service commissioning arrangements in England. We undertook a controlled before and after study to evaluate whether access to a demand-led evidence briefing service improved the use of research evidence by commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives.MethodsNine Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in the North of England received one of three interventions: (A) access to an evidence briefing service; (B) contact plus an unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence; or (C) unsolicited push of non-tailored evidence. Data for the primary outcome measure were collected at baseline and 12 months using a survey instrument devised to assess an organisations’ ability to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making. Documentary and observational evidence of the use of the outputs of the service were sought.ResultsOver the course of the study, the service addressed 24 topics raised by participating CCGs. At 12 months, the evidence briefing service was not associated with increases in CCG capacity to acquire, assess, adapt and apply research evidence to support decision-making, individual intentions to use research findings or perceptions of CCG relationships with researchers. Regardless of intervention received, participating CCGs indicated that they remained inconsistent in their research-seeking behaviours and in their capacity to acquire research. The informal nature of decision-making processes meant that there was little traceability of the use of evidence. Low baseline and follow-up response rates and missing data limit the reliability of the findings.ConclusionsAccess to a demand-led evidence briefing service did not improve the uptake and use of research evidence by NHS commissioners compared with less intensive and less targeted alternatives. Commissioners appear well intentioned but ad hoc users of research. Further research is required on the effects of interventions and strategies to build individual and organisational capacity to use research.

While a great deal is known about the individual difference factors associated with conspiracy beliefs, much less is known about the country-level factors that shape people's willingness to believe conspiracy theories. In the current article we discuss the possibility that willingness to believe conspiracy theories might be shaped by the perception (and reality) of poor economic performance at the national level. To test this notion, we surveyed 6723 participants from 36 countries. In line with predictions, propensity to believe conspiracy theories was negatively associated with perceptions of current and future national economic vitality. Furthermore, countries with higher GDP per capita tended to have lower belief in conspiracy theories. The data suggest that conspiracy beliefs are not just caused by intrapsychic factors but are also shaped by difficult economic circumstances for which distrust might have a rational basis.