Combined Effects of Intergroup Contact and Multiple Categorization

Abstract

As societies are growing ever more ethnically, racially and religiously diverse, recurrent questions are being asked as to whether such increased diversity fosters or hinders positive intergroup relations. One long-established social-scientific perspective on ethnic, racial or religious diversity argues that it poses a threat, particularly (but not exclusively) to the majority group, and thus inevitably leads to heightened intergroup tensions and prejudice (e.g., Blalock, 1967; see more recently, Putnam, 2007). A more recent, and somewhat more optimistic view on the consequences of such diversity can, however, be found in social psychological thinking. In this chapter, we draw upon two key social psychological approaches to improving intergroup relations and reducing prejudice: intergroup contact and self-categorization, in particular, multiple categorization. We do so with particular reference to ethnic, racial or religious diversity, by discussing specifically how both these approaches, in isolation or in combination, are centrally important to understanding how exposure to diversity at the macro-level, such as in residential or educational settings, may positively affect intergroup attitudes.This chapter is organized into four main sections. In part one, we describe the theoretical background to intergroup contact approaches, The Psychology of Social and Cultural DiversityEdited by Richard J. Crisp

Islam and Prejudice: Special Reference to Gordon W. Allport’s Contact Hypothesis

“…Allport (1954) further contends that interaction may lessen prejudice: (1) When those in contact are of equal status, (2) when those in contact perceive themselves to be in pursuit of common goals, (3) when contact is sanctioned by institutional support, the larger community or law, and (4) when the contact is positive in nature. Such interracial contact is most possibly apparent in diverse cultural societies (Schmid and Hewstone 2010). This contact could be evaluated again with a more specifically personal commitment and individual differences based on Allport's religious orientation.…”