Support for rights of Syrian refugees in Turkey: The role of secondary transfer effects in intergroup contact

Abstract

This study explored the role of secondary transfer effects (STEs) to test whether and how contact between advantaged Turks and disadvantaged Kurds may shape support for the rights of Syrian refugees. We investigated whether dimensions of contact, positive versus negative, between a historically advantaged group (Turks, n = 300) and a disadvantaged group (Kurds, n = 127), extend to a novel disadvantaged outgroup (Syrian refugees) via attitude generalization and as a function of the perceived threat from the novel outgroup. Controlling for the

A Rewiew on the Secondary Transfer Effect of Intergroup Contact

“…Furthermore, the mediating role of attitude generalisation was more prominent compared to ingroup appraisal. The robustness of the attitude generalisation mechanism as the initial mediator of the STE has been confirmed by further research conducted in recent years (e.g., Brylka et al, 2016;Jasinskaja-Lahti et al, 2020;Schulz & Taylor, 2018;Ünver et al, 2021;Vezzali et al, 2018;Vezzali & Giovannini, 2012) see also Lolliot et al, 2013).…”

“…Accordingly, such a focus in the STE is scarce, and only a few studies have recently gone beyond intergroup attitudes and examined support for social change in the scope of STE research . "A Review on the Secondary Transfer Effect of Intergroup Contact", ODÜSOBİAD, 12 (2), 1441-1480, Doi: 10.48146/odusobiad.1081427 ODÜ Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi / ISSN: 1309-9302 / dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/odusobiad • (e.g., Flores, 2015;Tee & Hegarty, 2006;Ünver et al, 2021;Zingora & Graf, 2019). As a result, testing relevant mechanisms can be given more attention to fully understand the role of STE in the support for social change in societies dominated by power imbalance.…”

“…Therefore, we can say that such studies rather focused on moderators of general contact but not moderators of the STE (see Harwood et al, 2011;Jasinskaja-Lahti et al, 2020;Ünver et al, 2021 for exceptions, and see Vezzali et al, 2021 for a recent review). Therefore, more research is needed to provide more empirical evidence about the actual moderators of the STE.…”

“…There are numerous empirical studies to be summarised that focus on the positive results of STE (Brylka et al, 2016;De Coninck et al, 2020;Eller & Abrams, 2004;Meleady & Forder, 2019;Ünver et al, 2021;Zingora & Graf, 2019). We touch upon them in the following sections along with the underlying mechanisms of STE, i.e., mediators and moderators.…”

“…Researchers, therefore, need to control for and eliminate the effect of prior contact with the secondary outgroup(s). Several studies (e.g., Hindriks et al, 2014;Meleady & Forder, 2019;Schmid, Hewstone, Küpper, Zick, & Wagner, 2012;Schmid et al, 2014;Tausch et al, 2010;Ünver et al, 2021;Van Laar et al, 2005;Vezzali & Giovannini, 2012;Zezelj et al, 2020) still found evidence supporting the STE, when contact with the secondary outgroup was controlled. Schmid et al (2012), for instance, included prior contact with secondary outgroups, i.e., homosexuals and Jews, as a control variable and found evidence for STE in their large-scale study conducted in eight European counties with over seven thousand participants.…”