Reasons for skepticism about the efficacy of simulated social contact interventions.

Abstract

Crisp and Turner (May-June 2009) argued that imagining intergroup interactions reduces intergroup prejudice. They argued that the procedure is remarkably effective, with "significant potential application for policymakers and educators seeking to promote tolerance for social diversity" (p. 238). We believe that such interventions, although appealing to many individuals, are problematic and that the authors' conclusions are overly optimistic. We believe that simulated contact interventions are highly unlikely to produce meaningful attitude change.Simulated contact interventions are appealing, we suspect, in large part because they require so little effort or cost. Consider the case of anti-African-American prejudice in the United States. Simulated contact interventions do not require individuals to live in racially integrated neighborhoods or to send their children to integrated schools. Such interventions do not require financial or emotional investment in communities of color or require individuals to learn about and appreciate African American history or culture. Such interventions do not require the forging of actual bonds of friendships with African Americans, nor do they require individuals to imagine themselves seeking social contact with African Americans who differ from themselves in dress, manner, or values. Simulated contact interventions demand of prejudiced persons only that they pretend that they would engage in a one-time conversation with a single outgroup member who inhabits their same social world and actively seeks contact with them. Such efforts are shallow in our view. The appeal of this form of intervention may have colored the assessment of its effectiveness. We believe that there is little reason to be optimistic about the ability of simulated contact to reduce prejudice meaningfully.The first basis for skepticism concerns past work. The literature on social stereotyping and prejudice reduction is enormous; it spans multiple countries, disciplines, and decades. If a single point might be gleaned from this vast literature, it is

Imagined Intergroup Contact and Common Ingroup Identity

“…Thus, in line with previous studies, imagined contact proved to be an effective strategy to improve intergroup relations among children from 8 to 10 years of age. Moreover, the present findings help overcome some of the reasons for skepticism on imagined contact posed by Bigler and Hughes (2010). For instance, Study 1 demonstrated that imagined contact can be used in multiple-session interventions and that interventions based on imagined contact can have long-lasting effects of at least two weeks.…”

“…Specifically, in Study 1, a field intervention with children, we will assess dependent variables one week and two weeks after the end of the intervention. Assessing the longevity of effects is important in order to show that imagined contact can produce meaningful attitude change, thus contributing to the increasing canon of research supporting imagined contact effects, and directly addressing initial skepticism expressed about the utility of this strategy (Bigler & Hughes, 2010). …”

Indirect contact and prejudice reduction: limits and possibilities

“…Since its inception [38], the imagined contact hypothesis has met with skepticism including claims that it cannot be implemented in conflictual intergroup settings and that it is a result of demand characteristics [39,40]. Yet it has continued to receive empirical support.…”

“…Most research has examined the effects immediately after the imagined contact intervention and, as noted, these effects are relatively small [41**], raising the question as to whether the improvements are just short-term reactions to the experimental materials rather than substantive changes to intergroup bias [39]. However, longitudinal effects of imagined contact have been observed with both school and university students [28, [43][44][45].…”

“…Though some critics have doubted its effectiveness in more conflict-ridden contexts [39,40], imagined contact was found to reduce homophobia in Jamaica and Northern Cyprus, two countries where anti-gay hostility is rampant and male homosexuality is criminalized [42].…”