Does intimacy counteract or amplify the detrimental effects of negative intergroup contact on attitudes?

Abstract

Past research is limited by a focus on intimacy in positive intergroup contact. This study tested whether intergroup intimacy counteracts or amplifies the detrimental effects of negative intergroup contact on outgroup attitudes. Participants from five Central European countries ( N = 1,276) described their intergroup contact with, and attitudes towards, citizens from neighboring nations. We coded the contact descriptions for presence (vs. absence) of intimacy (intimate, casual, or formal relationships) and contact valence (negative, positive, or ambivalent). The results indicated that those who reported negative contact in the context of intimate relationships displayed more positive outgroup attitudes than those who reported negative contact in the context of nonintimate relationships. This protective function of intimacy extended to instances of ambivalent contact. Our findings speak of the additive value of intimacy and positivity for intergroup relations; they underscore the benefits of intimacy as part of not only positive but also negative intergroup contact.

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

“…These methods can gauge individuals' naturalistic approach and avoidance behaviors within ordinary, daily settings of contact in the field—when these behaviors occur or soon after they have occurred. The methods can track delayed and long‐term effects of experimental manipulations/interventions (see,e.g., Graf et al, ), or just capture varied psychological consequences of naturalistic variations in contact experiences with (or away from) diversity (see,e.g., Page‐Gould, ). Of course, more traditional methods such as field experiments and careful observation of naturally occurring behavior can also yield insights on these important questions.…”

“…A fundamental, and until recently underappreciated, issue is that ordinary contact in naturalistic (vs. intervention) settings varies widely in valence, formality, structure, and intimacy-building potential (Graf, Paolini, & Rubin, 2018;Paolini, Harwood, & Rubin, 2010). Positive contact is far 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).…”

Is negative mass media news always associated with outgroup prejudice? The buffering role of direct contact

“…Thus, positive contact might be a stronger predictor of attitudes than negative contact when there is a certain degree of knowledge of the outgroup members involved in the reported contact experiences. Indeed, recent research has shown that positivity and relationship intimacy are both important factors of encounters with outgroup members (Graf et al, 2018). Moreover, we have to acknowledge that for certain outgroups, the positive–negative asymmetry may disappear or reverse, as it occurs in the results of Study 3 involving gay and lesbian people as target outgroup.…”

“…Intimate and positive contact experiences (e.g., with outgroup friends) are strongly associated with prejudice reduction. In fact, a recent study by Graf, Paolini, and Rubin (2018) found that both positivity of intergroup contact experiences and intimacy of the relationship with the contact partner had important and specific roles in influencing—positively—the warmth of outgroup attitudes. Proposed explanations for the efficacy of intimate positive contact include that it encourages perceptions of self–other similarity and promotes positive affective reactions, such as empathy, self-disclosure, and trust (Davies, Wright, & Aron, 2011; Turner, Hewstone, & Voci, 2007).…”

Intimate intergroup contact across the lifespan

“…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. Further, there is some evidence that negative encounters with unknown outgroup members have a smaller effect on individuals who have close relations with other members of the outgroup (Page-Gould, 2012).…”