Can (elaborated) imagined contact interventions reduce prejudice among those higher in intergroup disgust sensitivity (ITG‐DS)?

Abstract

Intergroup disgust sensitivity (ITG‐DS) reflects an affect‐laden revulsion toward out‐groups. Previous attempts to weaken its prediction of prejudice have failed. Given that clinical approaches to disgust sensitivity successfully utilize mental imagery, we consider contact simulation interventions. Participants were randomly assigned to control, standard imagined contact, or an elaborated contact condition (elaborated imagined contact [EIC]; detailed imagination involving physical contact with a homeless person, with relaxation instructions). Both contact conditions (vs. control) significantly weakened the link between ITG‐DS and prejudice, yet only EIC weakened the relation between ITG‐DS and out‐group trust. Mediated moderation analysis confirmed that EIC significantly attenuated the link between ITG‐DS and prejudice through increasing trust. Clinically relevant treatments are thus valuable in severing the association between (a) ITG‐DS and (b) lower out‐group trust and greater out‐group prejudice.

Intergroup Contact and Outgroup Humanization: Is the Causal Relationship Uni- or Bidirectional?

“…Future longitudinal studies should test the hypothesis that outgroup trust mediates the effects of contact on humanity attributions and humanity attributions mediate the effects of contact on outgroup trust. Regarding the prevalence of trust over anxiety in explaining contact effects (baseline model), this finding is not new: it has been observed, for instance, when attitudes [67, 69] or cooperative intentions [69] were the outcome of contact. For humanity attributions, the prevalence of trust may be explained by the perceptions associated with this emotion: trusting, in fact, implies the recognition that the target is characterized by uniquely human attributes, such as morality and the capacity of understanding other people’s expectations (for outgroup trust, see [72]).…”

“…In Hypothesis 5, a mediation role of trust was proposed, on the basis of theoretical traditions and findings in the literature on contact (for imagined contact, see, e.g., [8, 53, 67–69]). However, a reciprocal mediation process is possible, a process that can be tested by using longitudinal designs.…”

Imagined contact can be more effective for participants with stronger initial prejudices

“…Furthermore, prior imagined contact research can paint an inconsistent picture. Imagined contact is more effective for participants who are high in right‐wing authoritarianism (Asbrock, Gutenbrunner, & Wagner, ), intergroup anxiety (Birtel & Crisp, ), and intergroup disgust sensitivity (Hodson, Dube, & Choma, ), all of which are associated with more prejudice. However, it is also more effective for participants who are low in social dominance orientation (Asbrock et al, ), and low in prevention focus (West & Greenland, ), both of which are associated with less prejudice.…”

The person-based nature of prejudice: Individual difference predictors of intergroup negativity

“…Thus overlap concerns will vary depending on research question and the level of specificity vs. generality examined. Finally, contextual factors also play a role, as when the association between individual differences (e.g., SDO, or ITG-DS) and prejudice varies as a function of manipulated threat, emotions, or contact (e.g., Choma et al, 2012;Costello & Hodson, 2011;Hodson, Dube et al, 2015). Such research explicitly acknowledges that overlap between constructs is not necessarily static but contextually malleable.…”

“…Personal and situational influences on prejudice (conceptual patterns). differences in intergroup disgust sensitivity are strong predictors of prejudice under manipulations of fear (Choma, Hodson, & Costello, 2012), but weak predictors under simulated contact conditions that enhance outgroup trust (Hodson, Dube, & Choma, 2015). Likewise, the DPM proposes that the degree to which RWA and SDO predict prejudice depends on the contextual levels of outgroup threat (for RWA effects) or competition (for SDO effects; .…”