Positive and negative intergroup contact: Interaction not asymmetry

Abstract

This research reports a novel investigation into the comparative effects of positive and negative direct and extended intergroup contact on intergroup orientations. It tested the generality of the positive–negative asymmetry effect among majority (N = 357) and minority (N = 101) group members in Iceland. Little evidence of asymmetry was observed: the beneficial effects of positive contact were mostly as strong as the detrimental effects of negative contact, for both direct and extended contact. However, evidence was found for alternative interaction models in which positive contact buffers the negative effects of negative contact, and negative contact enhances the benefits of positive contact. These interaction effects were found only for direct contact and principally in the majority group, but were also found for the minority group, though more weakly. No interaction was observed for extended contact. It appeared that differential group salience elicited by positive and negative contact could partly contribute to the explanation of the observed effects, at least in the majority sample.

How positive and negative contact experiences relate to identification and acculturation of persons with a migration background: Differentiating between majority, minority, and religious group identity

“…Additionally, and in line with the rejection-identification model (Branscombe et al, 1999), there are crossgroup relationships such as that negative majority group contact is positively associated with minority and religious group identification. However, our results are in line with recent studies, which found equal or stronger effects of positive contact compared to negative contact (for a discussion, see Arnad ottir, Lolliot, Brown, & Hewstone, 2018). Our findings suggest that regarding both groups the total effect of positive contact on identification with the respective group and the acculturation attitude toward it is much stronger than the total effect of negative contact.…”

“…This finding contradicts the positive-negative contact asymmetry hypothesis, which states that negative contact with members of a group has stronger effects on intergroup attitudes toward the group, because negative contact experiences are assumed to heighten category salience more than positive contact (e.g., Barlow et al, 2012). However, our results are in line with recent studies, which found equal or stronger effects of positive contact compared to negative contact (for a discussion, see Arnad ottir, Lolliot, Brown, & Hewstone, 2018). Moreover, the original positive-negative contact asymmetry hypothesis was formulated with regard to effects of contact on intergroup attitudes.…”

Meeting a nice asylum seeker: Intergroup contact changes stereotype content perceptions and associated emotional prejudices, and encourages solidarity‐based collective action intentions

“…Recent advances in the social perception literature suggest that all three components affected by intergroup contact – intergroup cognition, affect, and behaviours – are systematically linked, producing outgroup‐specific patterns of prejudice (Cuddy et al ., ). While some researchers combined different measures of cognitive, affective and/or behavioural measures within one study as different outcomes (see, e.g., Aberson, ; Árnadóttir, Lolliot, Brown, & Hewstone, ; Schäfer, Kros, et al ., ), and showed differential reactions to outgroups (e.g., Abrams & Houston, ), intergroup contact effects have been rarely linked to integrative models of social perception (but see, e.g., Brambilla, Hewstone, & Colucci, ; Brambilla, Ravenna, & Hewstone, ; Cameron, Rutland, Turner, Holman‐Nicolas, & Powell, ; Listiani et al ., ).…”

Welcoming the Unwelcome: How Contact Shapes Contexts of Reception for New Immigrants in Germany and the United States

“…To illustrate, consider a German survey‐based study conducted in 2017 (Seidler, ), when a majority of Germans felt that refugees disrupted their way of life (Infratest dimap, ); in this threat‐ridden context, negative contact emerged as a stronger and more powerful predictor of prejudice toward refugees, relative to the effects of positive contact (Seidler, ). However, findings regarding this difference in magnitude are far from consistent across studies (see, e.g., Aberson & Gaffney, ; Árnadóttir, Lolliot, Brown, & Hewstone, ; Kotzur & Wagner, )…”