The racial composition of students’ friendship networks predicts perceptions of injustice and involvement in collective action

Carter, Evelyn R.; Brady, Shannon T.; Murdock-Perriera, Lisel Alice; Gilbertson, Madison Kawakami; Ablorh, Tsotso; Murphy, Mary C.

doi:10.1002/jts5.27

Cited by 22 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 45 publications

(59 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, it is possible that empowering contact increases disadvantaged group members' feeling of pride and perceived efficacy, which lead to engagement in collective action (Britt, & Heise, 2000;Mummendey et al, 1999;Simon & Klandermans, 2001;Van Zomeren, 2019;Wright et al, 1990). It is also possible that intergroup contact, when it is experienced as accepting, leads to reduced support for change among disadvantaged group members because it increases false expectations of equal treatment (Saguy et al, 2009), while reducing awareness of structural inequalities, feelings of injustice, and anger about disparities (e.g., Carter et al, 2019;Dixon et al, 2007;Wright & Lubensky, 2009;Van Zomeren, 2019), which are key predictors of engagement in protest against social inequalities (Van Stekelenburg & Klandermans, 2013;Van Zomeren et al, 2008;Jost et al, 2017).…”

Section: Potential For Theoretical Integration With Models Of Collectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Needs satisfaction in intergroup contact: A multi-national study of pathways toward social change

Häßler¹,

Ullrich²,

Sebben³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What role does intergroup contact play in promoting support for social change toward greater equality? Drawing on the needs-based model of reconciliation, we theorized that when inequality between groups is perceived as illegitimate, disadvantaged groups members will experience a need for empowerment and advantaged groups members a need for acceptance. When intergroup contact satisfies each group’s needs, it should result in more mutual support for social change. Using four sets of survey data collected through the Zurich Intergroup Project in 23 countries, we tested several preregistered predictions derived from the above reasoning across a large variety of operationalizations. Two studies of disadvantaged groups (Ns=689 ethnic minority members in Study 1 and 3,382 sexual/gender minorities in Study 2) support the hypothesis that, after accounting for the effects of intergroup contact and perceived illegitimacy, satisfying the need for empowerment (but not acceptance) during contact is positively related with support for social change. Two studies with advantaged groups (Ns=2,937 ethnic majority members in Study 3 and 4,203 cis-heterosexual individuals in Study 4) showed that, after accounting for illegitimacy and intergroup contact, satisfying the need for acceptance (but also empowerment) is positively related with support for social change. Overall, these findings suggest that intergroup contact is compatible with efforts to promote social change when group-specific needs are met. Thus, to encourage support for social change among both disadvantaged and advantaged group members, it is essential that besides promoting mutual acceptance, intergroup contact interventions also give voice to and empower members of disadvantaged groups.

show abstract

Section: Potential For Theoretical Integration With Models Of Collectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Needs satisfaction in intergroup contact: A multi-national study of pathways toward social change

Häßler¹,

Ullrich²,

Sebben³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In part answering MacInnis and Hodson’s () call to harness the potential power of intergroup friendships, Evelyn Carter and colleagues () examine the relationships between same and different race friendships and involvement in collective action on university campuses. This paper moves beyond participant reports of quality and quantity of contact and instead, considers friendships that (when intergroup) are arguably the ideal consequence of meaningful intergroup contact.…”

Section: Contributions Of the Present Special Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to intergroup contact and collective action: Integrative perspectives

Choma

2019

J Theo Soc Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The bodies of research on intergroup contact and on collective action have historically remained separate in their pursuit to understand how to promote social equality. In recent years, however, researchers have begun to explore the extent to which contact and collective action work together or against each other in the pursuit of social change. To date, there is mixed evidence on the relation between these two constructs, with some suggesting that intergroup contact can have ironic effects by reducing the likelihood that disadvantaged group members will engage in collective action in favor of their own group. The goal of this Special Issue is to better understand the effect that intergroup contact can have on collective action and ignite a new body of research that directly considers the relation between the two. The papers comprising this Special Issue offer unique and yet complementary perspectives, highlighting the importance of moving beyond dyadic relations, the need to consider intergroup friendships and social embeddedness, the value of promoting inclusive identities and how support for collective action not only differs by group status but is also influenced by individual differences. Together, the papers offer theoretical and methodological suggestions to move research in this important field forward.

show abstract

“…In doing so, I conceptualize both intergroup contact and collective action as different forms of relationship regulation, and thus of regulating potentially different types of “we” (be it friendships or psychological group memberships). Whereas the rationale for conceptualizing collective action as relational interaction can be found in detail elsewhere (Van Zomeren, ), the case for intergroup contact seems even more clear‐cut, especially given the operationalization of such contact as intergroup friendship (Carter et al, ; MacInnis & Hodson, ). The simple observation in either case is that both phenomena occur within (networks) of social relationships, and would be hard to imagine outside of them.…”

Section: A Relational Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas the rationale for conceptualizing collective action as relational interaction can be found in detail elsewhere (Van Zomeren, 2014, 2015, 2016, the case for intergroup contact seems even more clear-cut, especially given the operationalization of such contact as intergroup friendship (Carter et al, 2019MacInnis & Hodson, 2019.…”

Section: A Rel Ati Onal Per S Pec Tivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…By contrast, the key message of this article is that the match between intergroup contact and collective action, at least when considering the contributions to this Special Issue, actually seems to be one made in heaven. Indeed, a number of contributions show that intergroup contact facilitates collective action (e.g., Carter et al, ; Hoskin, Thomas, & McGarty, ; Römpke, Fritsche, & Reese, ), which can, tongue‐in‐cheek of course, be considered the irony of the irony of harmony. Moving beyond these findings, however, I will also explain them by identifying the underlying psychology of both intergroup contact and collective action as one based in individuals’ need to regulate social relationships in their social networks (Fiske, ; Van Zomeren, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intergroup contact and collective action: A match made in hell, or in heaven?

Zomeren

2018

J Theo Soc Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since Wright and Lubensky (2009) suggested that intergroup contact and collective action seem strategically incompatible when it comes to social change, social psychologists have been inclined to see their potential match as one made in hell, rather than in heaven. Against this backdrop, I review and discuss the contributions to this Special Issue, most of which seem to suggest that intergroup contact and collective action are a match made in heaven, not hell. To account for these seemingly divergent perspectives, I suggest that both intergroup contact and collective action be conceptualized as relational, interaction‐based phenomena within which the forces of harmony and conflict—intergroup contact and collective action, respectively—reflect two sides of the same coin, namely individuals’ need to regulate their relationships within their social network. As such, it is individuals’ embeddedness in (networks of) social relationships that determines whether intergroup contact and collective action work together, or against each other, toward social change. I discuss the need for a broader and integrative theoretical perspective that does justice to the underlying psychology of these phenomena in terms of relationship regulation.

show abstract

The racial composition of students’ friendship networks predicts perceptions of injustice and involvement in collective action

Cited by 22 publications

References 45 publications

Needs satisfaction in intergroup contact: A multi-national study of pathways toward social change

Needs satisfaction in intergroup contact: A multi-national study of pathways toward social change

Introduction to intergroup contact and collective action: Integrative perspectives

Intergroup contact and collective action: A match made in hell, or in heaven?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About