The interplay between social dominance orientation and intergroup contact in explaining support for multiculturalism

Abstract

In two studies, we tested whether social dominance orientation (SDO) and intergroup contact interacted in shaping support for multiculturalism. Study 1 was correlational, while in Study 2 we measured SDO and experimentally manipulated intergroup contact (imagined contact paradigm). We found that SDO and intergroup contact interacted on support for multiculturalism: Intergroup contact was associated with more support for multiculturalism only for high‐SDO individuals, and SDO was negatively associated to support for multiculturalism more strongly for individuals with low or no contact. Finally, we discussed the role of the intergroup setting in which studies are conducted.

The role of individual differences in understanding and enhancing intergroup contact

“…In two Flemish samples, Dhont and Van Hiel (2009) found a stronger negative relationship between positive contact with immigrants and racism toward immigrants among people higher in SDO or RWA. Visintin, Berent, Green, and Falomir‐Pichastor (2019) similarly found that Swiss nationals' contact (and imagined contact) with immigrants predicted greater multiculturalism support, but only among individuals higher in SDO. Contact may be particularly effective among HPs because it reduces intergroup anxiety and perceived threats while promoting empathy, trust, and inclusion of the other in the self (Hodson et al, 2017; Hodson, Costello, et al, 2013).…”

“…To date, there has been little systematic investigation of the full range of mechanisms underlying contact‐based prejudice reduction for various individual difference measures. Theorists have, for example, argued that contact might work for those higher in SDO because it promotes cooperation, reduces perceived outgroup competition, or increases the perception that contact might be personally beneficial (Kteily et al, 2019; Visintin et al, 2019), whereas for higher ingroup identifiers contact might work by promoting a common or dual identity (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Kteily et al, 2019). But these possibilities have not been tested.…”

“…Considering imagined contact, it promotes more positive intergroup outcomes (e.g., less intergroup bias, greater contact intentions) among those higher (vs. lower) in RWA (Asbrock et al, 2012). However, findings regarding SDO are mixed: Asbrock et al found that imagined contact did not promote positive intergroup outcomes for those higher (vs. lower) in SDO, whereas Visintin et al (2019) found that imagined contact was more effective among those higher in SDO at promoting multiculturalism support. One fruitful line of work involves identifying when and how different types of contact are influenced by, or influence, individual differences, and how indirect contact can be utilized to increase uptake of contact among prejudice‐prone individuals.…”

Intergroup contact moderates the influence of social norms on prejudice

“…For example, analyzing the effects of ethnic diversity on prejudice among the White British majority, Laurence (2014) found that living in ethnically diverse communities in the UK was related to negative intergroup attitudes, but only for those who did not have personal contact with members of other ethnic groups (see also Schmid, Al Ramiah, & Hewstone, 2014). Furthermore, two studies conducted in Switzerland showed that the negative association between hierarchy enhancing ideologies (i.e., social dominance orientation) and support for immigrant rights is reduced for Swiss citizens with contact with immigrants (Visintin, Berent, Green, & Falomir-Pichastor, 2019). Thus, intergroup contact buffers the effects of antecedents of prejudice, which suggests that it should also reduce conformity to intolerant norms.…”

Positive intergroup contact decreases the likelihood that prejudicial attitudes become avoidant behavioral tendencies

“…Recent research has suggested that intergroup contact experiences are cognitive liberalization agents that do not only change outgroup attitudes, but change ideologies, group‐based perceptions of world, and cognitive style in individuals (Hodson, Crisp, Meleady, & Earle, ). Confirming this suggestion, Visintin, Berent, Green, and Falomir‐Pichastor () found that social dominance orientation, which is a common indicator of outgroup attitudes, was not related to support for multiculturalism which is a behavioral indicator, among individuals with higher levels of intergroup contact. Therefore, individuals with lower levels of intergroup contact are more likely to be influenced directly by their prejudices in the absence of any reliable source of information about the attitude‐object.…”