2018
DOI: 10.1177/1477878518779879
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of segregation versus mixing: Intergroup contact and attitudes among White-British and Asian-British students in high schools in Oldham, England

Abstract: We report findings from three longitudinal studies investigating the extent, quality and consequences of intergroup contact in schools between young Asian-British and White-British secondary (high-school) students. Results provide robust support for Allport's (1954) 'contact hypothesis' in this setting. Specifically, mixing (versus segregation) in high schools does actually promote intergroup contact (although there is still resegregation); and contact improves attitudes and trust towards the outgroup. We conc… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
36
0
3

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
2
36
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite the “promise of contact,” direct (face‐to‐face) contact is often not feasible in real world. The absence of direct intergroup contact might be a result of lack of opportunities for contact as is the case in geographically segregated settings such as segregated schools (e.g., Hewstone et al, ; Hughes, Campbell, Lolliot, Hewstone, & Gallagher, ) and segregated neighborhoods (e.g., Schmid, Hewstone, Hughes, Jenkins, & Cairns, ). Even when contact is (made) feasible, psychological obstacles like anxiety about meeting, or being around, members of the outgroup (Stephan & Stephan, ) and not having confidence in one’s ability to successfully carry out an intergroup interaction (contact self‐efficacy) (see Mazziotta, Mummendey, & Wright, ), may get into the way of pursuing and having intergroup contact.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the “promise of contact,” direct (face‐to‐face) contact is often not feasible in real world. The absence of direct intergroup contact might be a result of lack of opportunities for contact as is the case in geographically segregated settings such as segregated schools (e.g., Hewstone et al, ; Hughes, Campbell, Lolliot, Hewstone, & Gallagher, ) and segregated neighborhoods (e.g., Schmid, Hewstone, Hughes, Jenkins, & Cairns, ). Even when contact is (made) feasible, psychological obstacles like anxiety about meeting, or being around, members of the outgroup (Stephan & Stephan, ) and not having confidence in one’s ability to successfully carry out an intergroup interaction (contact self‐efficacy) (see Mazziotta, Mummendey, & Wright, ), may get into the way of pursuing and having intergroup contact.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is likely that school closures have had a disproportionate negative impact on young people’s cross-group friendships, compared with same-group friendships. This is because cross-group friendships in childhood are, in the first place, less common than same-group friendships (Aboud & Sankar, 2007; Hewstone et al, 2018), and they are also more difficult to initiate and sustain (Aboud & Sankar, 2007). Cross-group friendships also rely on having the opportunity to meet in multiple contexts in the wider community, outside of the school setting, and engaged in less-structured activities (Aboud & Sankar, 2007; Stringer et al, 2009).…”
Section: Lessons From Research In Formal Settingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Osler 2007;Flint and Robinson 2009), notably the contested question of whether faith schools are cohesive or divisive (e.g. Dwyer and Parutis 2013;Hewstone et al 2018). Other researchers have focused on the inter-relationship between pupils' beliefs and school ethos.…”
Section: Grand Theories and Local Contextsmentioning
confidence: 99%