Bad Is Stronger Than Good for Stigmatized, but Not Admired Outgroups: Meta-Analytical Tests of Intergroup Valence Asymmetry in Individual-to-Group Generalization Experiments

Abstract

Theories of risk aversion, epistemic defense, and ingroup enhancement converge in predicting greater impact of negative (vs. positive) experiences with outgroup members on generalized evaluations of stigmatized outgroups. However, they diverge in predictions for admired outgroups. Past tests have focused on negative outgroups using correlational designs without a control group. Consequently, they have not distinguished between alternative explanations or ascertained the direction of causality/generalization, and they have suffered from self-selection biases. These limitations were redressed by a meta-analysis of experimental research on individual-to-group generalization with positive and negative outgroups (59 tests; 3,012 participants). Controlling for modest confounds, the meta-analysis found a generalization advantage of negative experiences for stigmatized outgroups and a generalization advantage of positive experiences for admired outgroups. These results highlight the centrality of valenced expectations about outgroups, consistent with epistemic defense and ingroup enhancement and inconsistent with risk aversion. Implications for positive changes in intergroup dynamics are discussed.

The role of individual differences in understanding and enhancing intergroup contact

“…Although positive contact is more prevalent than negative contact in both peaceful and post‐conflict societies (Barlow et al, 2012; Dhont & Van Hiel, 2009; Graf, Paolini, & Rubin, 2014; Hayward, Tropp, Hornsey, & Barlow, 2017; Pettigrew, 2008), negative contact is sometimes a stronger predictor of higher prejudice than positive contact is a predictor of lower prejudice (Barlow et al, 2012; Graf & Paolini, 2017; Paolini & McIntyre, 2019). This may reflect its stronger associations with higher levels of category salience, giving it a generalization advantage over positive contact (Paolini, Harwood, & Rubin, 2010).…”

Seeking and avoiding intergroup contact: Future frontiers of research on building social integration

“…While negative contact might be relatively infrequent (Graf et al, 2014), there is some evidence that its adverse effects on intergroup attitudes and cognitions may be of greater magnitude than the beneficial effects produced by positive contact (Barlow et al, 2012;Paolini et al, 2010; for an overview of research, Graf & Paolini, 2017; for a meta-analysis, Paolini & McIntyre, 2018). These asymmetries in the net impact and effect of negative (vs. positive) contact are likely rooted in basic human motivations (see Paolini & McIntyre, 2018).…”

“…While negative contact might be relatively infrequent (Graf et al, 2014), there is some evidence that its adverse effects on intergroup attitudes and cognitions may be of greater magnitude than the beneficial effects produced by positive contact (Barlow et al, 2012;Paolini et al, 2010; for an overview of research, Graf & Paolini, 2017; for a meta-analysis, Paolini & McIntyre, 2018). These asymmetries in the net impact and effect of negative (vs. positive) contact are likely rooted in basic human motivations (see Paolini & McIntyre, 2018). At the strictly intergroup level, they might be reinforced by negative contact's associations with salient intergroup categorizations (or high category salience; Paolini et al, 2010), ultimately giving negative contact a generalization advantage over positive contact (Brown & Hewstone, 2005;McIntyre et al, 2016).…”

Close to me: The importance of closeness versus superficiality in explaining the positive‐negative contact asymmetry

“…On the other hand, if we do not know well the outgroup member we are interacting with, and we have negative beliefs and expectations about their group, we may tend to trust our beliefs and perceive the interaction as negative, to maintain congruency with our schema of that group, following the evaluative fit principle (Paolini & McIntyre, ). Consistent with this idea, impression formation research has shown that attributes perceived as more diagnostic for category membership have a stronger influence on impression formation than less diagnostic attributes (Nisbett, Zukier, & Lemley, ; Skowronski & Carlston, ).…”