No abstract

This research experimentally examined the effects of exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories on prejudice and discrimination. Study 1 (N = 166) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories concerning immigrants to Britain from the European Union (vs. anti-conspiracy material or a control) exacerbated prejudice towards this group. Study 2 (N = 173) found the same effect in a different intergroup contextexposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people (vs. anti-conspiracy material or a control) increased prejudice towards this group and reduced participants' willingness to vote for a Jewish political candidate. Finally, Study 3 (N = 114) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people not only increased prejudice towards this group but was indirectly associated with increased prejudice towards a number of secondary outgroups (e.g., Asians, Arabs, Americans, Irish, Australians). The current research suggests that conspiracy theories may have potentially damaging and widespread consequences for intergroup relations.

Intergroup contact is widely recognized as one of the most validated methods of improving attitudes toward out-groups. Yet what is intergroup contact "good for" beyond this function? To answer this question we take a panoramic view of the literature, beginning with the recognition that contact is multifaceted in both form (e.g., face-to-face, indirect, simulated) and outcome (e.g., attitudes, cognition, behavior). Taking this highly inclusive view of what contact is and what contact does suggests that it plays a fundamental role in the shaping of human cognition. An increasingly diverse body of research demonstrates that contact exerts a generalizing reaction across target out-groups, making respondents less inward looking and more open to experiences. Contact shapes ideology regarding how the world ought to operate (i.e., ideologies about social hierarchy or regulation); over time, it can promote new ways of problem-solving, enhance cognitive flexibility, and foster creativity. For these reasons, we believe that contact is a key liberalizing agent that shapes human cognition and experience; consequently, contact theory should now share the stage with other prominent theories (e.g., cognitive dissonance) that speak to a broader understanding of human nature.

This study examined the interplay of anti-immigrant prejudice and intergroup contact experience on voting intentions within Britain's 2016 referendum on its membership in the European Union. In the days before the referendum, we asked more than 400 British people how they planned to vote. We measured a number of demographic factors expected to predict voting intentions as well as individuals' prejudice towards and intergroup contact experience (positive and negative) with EU immigrants. Anti-immigrant prejudice was a strong correlate of support for Brexit. Negative intergroup contact experience was associated with higher anti-immigrant prejudice and, in turn, increased support for 'Leave'. Positive intergroup contact, on the other hand, seemed to play a reparative role, predicting lower prejudice and increasing support for 'Remain'.

In three studies, we examined the impact of multiple categorization on intergroup dehumanization. Study 1 showed that perceiving members of a rival university along multiple versus simple categorical dimensions enhanced the tendency to attribute human traits to this group. Study 2 showed that multiple versus simple categorization of immigrants increased the attribution of uniquely human emotions to them. This effect was explained by the sequential mediation of increased individuation of the outgroup and reduced outgroup threat. Study 3 replicated this sequential mediation model and introduced a novel way of measuring humanization in which participants generated attributes corresponding to the outgroup in a free response format. Participants generated more uniquely human traits in the multiple versus simple categorization conditions. We discuss the theoretical implications of these findings and consider their role in informing and improving efforts to ameliorate contemporary forms of intergroup discrimination.

This paper broadens our understanding of the consequences of negative intergroup contact. Study 1 reports cross-sectional evidence that negative contact with European immigrants in Britain is not only associated with increased prejudice, but also the avoidance of future contact with this group. Studies 2A and 2B provided an experimental replication in a different intergroup context. A negative encounter with an outgroup member, but not an ingroup member, was found to reduce intentions to engage in contact with the outgroup in the future. Study 3 went on to demonstrate that the effect of negative contact on outgroup avoidance is not limited to the contacted outgroup, but is indirectly associated with reduced intentions to engage with other, secondary outgroups—an effect we refer to as avoidance generalization effect. Negative contact was also associated with lower general contact self-efficacy. Together, findings suggest that negative contact is damaging not just because it increases prejudice but also because it compromises future engagement with diversity.

Humans have an evolved propensity to think categorically about social groups. This propensity is manifest in cognitive processes that have broad implications for public and political endorsement of multicultural policy. Drawing on these principles, we postulate a cognitive-evolutionary account of human adaptation to social diversity. This account explains broad social trends marking a resistance to multiculturalism, while providing an important reorienting call for scholars and policy-makers seeking intervention-based solutions to the problem of prejudice.

According to the intergroup contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954), we can reduce prejudice between different cultural groups by encouraging interaction between them. Volumes of evidence have now supported this hypothesis. Pettigrew and Tropp's (2006) meta-analysis of 515 studies confirms the robust, negative relationship between contact and prejudice. This effect is strengthened by certain "optimal" conditions (e.g., equal status of the groups in the situation, intergroup cooperation, common goals, and authority support), but remains even in their absence. The prejudicereducing effect of contact also holds for groups others than ethnic minorities for whom the hypothesis was originally formulated, including groups stigmatized on the basis of their sexuality, age, and religion (Brown & Hewstone, 2005). This is a simple, yet powerful effect. Having a positive, friendly encounter with groups that Abstract Imagined contact is a relatively new technique designed to focus the accumulated knowledge of over 500 studies of intergroup contact into a simple and versatile prejudice-reduction intervention. While it is now clear that imagined contact can improve intergroup attitudes, its ability to change actual intergroup behavior is less well established. Some emerging findings provide cause for optimism with nonverbal, and unobtrusive measures of behavior. This paper extends this work by adopting methods from behavioral economics to examine more deliberative behavior. Participants believed they were playing a prisoner's dilemma with an outgroup member. They could choose whether to cooperate or compete with the other player. In three studies, we provide reliable evidence that imagined contact (vs. control) successfully encouraged more prosocial, cooperative choices. In the third study we show that this effect is mediated by increased trust towards the outgroup member. The findings demonstrate that imagined contact interventions can have a tangible impact on volitional intergroup behaviors.