Inclusive social norms and nationals’ positive intergroup orientations toward refugees: The moderating role of initial prejudice and intergroup contact

Abstract

Research on the interplay between inclusive norms and intergroup contact on improving intergroup orientations has yielded conflicting results, suggesting either that an experience of personal contact is necessary to have a positive effect of inclusive norms or that such personal experience is not always necessary. To clarify this issue, across four studies ( N = 835), we investigated the influence of inclusive norms on positive intergroup orientations as a function of personal experiences of intergroup contact. Study 1 demonstrated that inclusive norms are more strongly correlated with experiences of personal contact with outgroups with whom opportunities of contact are more (i.e., immigrants) than less (i.e., refugees) frequent. Study 2 provided experimental evidence for this finding showing that inclusive norms increase prejudiced nationals’ willingness to engage in future contact with immigrants but not with refugees, suggesting that conformity to inclusive norms depends on varying contact opportunities with the outgroups. Studies 3 and 4 confirmed that prejudiced nationals conformed to inclusive norms specifically when experienced positive contact with a refugee (experimentally induced with the imagined contact paradigm), compared with no contact (Study 3) or negative contact (Study 4). We discuss the implications of these findings for research on intergroup contact, social influence, and intergroup relations.

The link between social norms and reconciliation and behavioral intentions in postconflict societies.

“…Social norms that refer to ingroup members' (dis)approval of behavior toward outgroups, and generally nature of the intergroup relationship, stemming from the ingroup are called ingroup injunctive norms (Cialdini et al, 1990). Considerable research in peaceful settings showed that ingroup injunctive norms shape approachrelated intergroup attitudes and behavior (e.g., Jugert et al, 2011;Terry & Hogg, 2001;Tropp et al, 2014;Valsecchi et al, 2023). For instance, two studies in Belgium and Switzerland found that perceived injunctive norms regarding helping behaviors toward migrants promoted and maintained helping actions for migrants within social networks (Roblain et al, 2020).…”

“…Perceived positive peer group norms about cross-ethnic friendships (i.e., ingroup injunctive norms) were linked to interethnic friendship formation (Jugert et al, 2011;Tropp et al, 2014). Likewise, inclusive norms were linked to greater willingness to engage in future contact with immigrants in France (Valsecchi et al, 2023).…”

Questioning the potential of tourism‐related imagined contact in improving interethnic relations in Türkiye

“…There are two types of moderators (West & Brückmüller, 2013): those that describe pre‐existing elements unrelated to IIC tasks and those that signal IIC task characteristics. Regarding the former set of moderators, IIC was more effective for participants high on national and ethnic identification (Bagci, Piyale, & Ebcim, 2018; Stathi & Crisp, 2008), intergroup anxiety (Birtel & Crisp, 2012), conservatism, outgroup dehumanization (Borinca, Çelik, et al, 2022), and initial prejudices (Valsecchi et al, 2024; West et al, 2017), but low on previous intergroup contact (Hoffarth & Hodson, 2016). Besides, imagined interactions with ethnic groups toward whom prejudices are deeply embedded in the culture were not effective in decreasing biases (Asbrock et al, 2013), as negative intergroup expectations typically lead to negative interactions (Borinca et al, 2021; MacInnis & Page‐Gould, 2015).…”

Norms of equality reduce prejudice towards migrants, but only among conservatives

“…Despite the rather intuitive nature of the relationship between ingroup norms and prejudice, some researchers have pointed to important boundary conditions and moderators of this relationship, such as intergroup threat (Falomir‐Pichastor, Muñoz‐Rojas, Invernizzi, & Mugny, 2004), existing prejudice (Valsecchi, Berent, Borinca, Green, & Falomir‐Pichastor, 2024), held values (Oyamot Jr., Fisher, Deason, & Borgida, 2012), and different forms of intergroup contact (Valsecchi et al, 2024; Visintin et al, 2020; White et al, 2021). A particularly relevant individual difference to consider is political ideology, defined as a set of “socially shared but competing philosophies of life and how it should be lived (and how society should be governed)” (Jost, Federico, & Napier, 2009, p. 309).…”

“…contact (Valsecchi et al, 2024;Visintin et al, 2020;White et al, 2021). A particularly relevant individual difference to consider is political ideology, defined as a set of "socially shared but competing philosophies of life and how it should be lived (and how society should be governed)" (Jost, Federico, & Napier, 2009, p. 309).…”