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

Abstract

The evidence for differential effects of positive and negative intergroup contact on prejudice is mixed. We propose that the closeness of the relationships respondents have with contact partners can explain inconsistencies in previous findings. In three studies (total N = 953), we tested the associations between positive intimate, negative intimate, positive superficial, and negative superficial contact and attitudes toward different outgroups (immigrants and gay people). We hypothesized that: (H1) the effect of positive contact would be maximized in intimate interactions; (H2) the effect of negative contact would be maximized in superficial interactions; (H3) positive intimate and negative superficial contact would have similar power in predicting attitudes. Results always supported H1, and supported H2 and H3 only with immigrants. Findings held also when controlling for category salience and agreeableness, but not for social dominance orientation, which instead strengthened the effect of negative superficial contact. Overall, findings clarify the positive-negative contact asymmetry.Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section.How to cite this article: Fuochi G, Voci A, Boin J, Hewstone M.Close to me: The importance of closeness versus superficiality in explaining the positive-negative contact asymmetry. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2020;50:766-782. https ://doi.

The generalization of intergroup contact effects: Emerging research, policy relevance, and future directions

“…For instance, Graf, Paolini, et al (2020) demonstrated that intimacy counteracted the detrimental effect of negative intergroup experiences as those who reported negative contact and intimate intergroup relationships were more in favor of the outgroup than those who reported negative contact but lacked intimate intergroup relationships. Similarly, Fuochi et al (2020c) found that negative contact was a better predictor of prejudice than positive contact when contact was superficial but positive contact was a better predictor of prejudice than negative contact when contact was intimate. As attitude generalization is the main mechanism underlying secondary transfer effects, it is conceivable that intensity and intimacy of contact also promote secondary transfer effects, a possibility that has not yet been investigated.…”

“…However, research on primary transfer effects has previously taken into account the heterogeneity of reallife interactions, assessing not only their quantity, but also dimensions such as contact quality and perceived importance (e.g., Islam & Hewstone, 1993;van Dick et al, 2004). Furthermore, this gap in the contact literature has recently received more attention by addressing the primary and secondary transfer effects of both positive and negative contact experiences (Barlow et al, 2012;Graf & Paolini, 2017;Zingora & Graf, 2019), and by research employing more detailed measures of contact to capture the complexity of intergroup interactions (Hayward et al, 2017), the intensity of contact (Schäfer et al, 2021), the level of closeness of intergroup relationships (Fuochi et al, 2020c;Graf, Paolini, et al, 2020), and subjective definitions of contact and daily fluctuations in intergroup experiences (Keil & Koschate, 2020;Van Acker et al, 2014). Social network analysis is another promising approach that accounts for how relationships are structured between network members placing intergroup relations within a social context (Wölfer & Hewstone, 2017;Zingora et al, 2021).…”

Intimate intergroup contact across the lifespan

“…As for its positive effects, it can be that intimacy could also amplify the unintended consequences of intergroup contact. At the same time, negative experiences within intimate relations appear to be less consequential for prejudice than positive intimate relations and negative superficial relations (e.g., Fuochi et al, 2020;Graf et al, 2018), curtailing concerns about the impact of potential relationship breakdowns on prejudice. For example, Graf et al (2018) coded participants' descriptions of contact encounters with individuals in neighboring European countries for the valence and intimacy of the relationship, and found negative and ambivalent encounters to be associated with worse outgroup attitudes when the relationship was described as casual or formal compared to negative experiences in intimate relationships.…”

The Relationship Between Personality Traits and Interracial Contact on Campus

“…Valence refers to whether contact is positive or negative, with some work suggesting that negative contact has a larger impact on attitudes than does positive contact (Barlow et al, 2012;Paolini et al, 2010). Intimacy, in contrast, refers to the degree of closeness and can be located along a continuum of face-toface contact ranging from superficial interaction with strangers to intimate relationships with close friends (Crisp & Turner, 2009;Fuochi et al, 2020;Thomsen & Rafiqi, 2018). Research has also increasingly examined non-face-to-face contact such as online, extended, vicarious, and imagined contact (Amichai-Hamburger et al, 2015;Tausch et al, 2011;Turner et al, 2007).…”

“…Outside of the specific study of personality and intergroup contact, however, scholars have begun to recognize that faceto-face intergroup contact occurs along a continuum from superficial interactions with strangers to intimate relationships with friends (Crisp & Turner, 2009). The place of acquaintances like work colleagues, neighbors, and college classmates and dormmates remains unclear in this literature, however, with intergroup research conceptually lumping them with either strangers or friends depending on the study (e.g., Fuochi et al, 2020;Thomsen & Rafiqi, 2018). Research demonstrates, however, that in terms of important relational characteristics like emotional intimacy and degree of self-disclosure, acquaintances are distinct from both strangers and friends (Morgan, 2009;Planalp & Benson, 1992).…”