Groups in Contact 1984
DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-497780-8.50018-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Training for Desegregation in the Military

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0
2

Year Published

1994
1994
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
23
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Common goals are also a valuable factor (Chu & Griffey, 1985), but this factor may be less important than Allport (1954Allport ( , 1958 originally suggested when it is isolated from cooperative interaction (Gaertner et al, 1999). Finally, empirical evidence also demonstrates that intergroup contact is more successful when it occurs in the context of supportive norms (Landis, Hope, & Day, 1984).…”
Section: Prerequisite Conditions Of Contactmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Common goals are also a valuable factor (Chu & Griffey, 1985), but this factor may be less important than Allport (1954Allport ( , 1958 originally suggested when it is isolated from cooperative interaction (Gaertner et al, 1999). Finally, empirical evidence also demonstrates that intergroup contact is more successful when it occurs in the context of supportive norms (Landis, Hope, & Day, 1984).…”
Section: Prerequisite Conditions Of Contactmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies of contact programmes from a variety of settings (e.g. the armed forces (Landis, Hope, and Day, 1984); educational settings (Schwarzwald and Amir, 1984); and places of residence (Deutsch and Collins, 1951)) indicate that many fail (Amir, 1969(Amir, , 1976Hewstone and Brown, 1986;Cook, 1978). An often-identified issue concerns 'generalization'; even if contact is positively experienced and the 'contact-partner' positively evaluated, this affect and evaluation fails to generalize to other members of the out-group or other contexts (Harding and Hogrefe, 1952;Amir, 1976).…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…However, there are important prerequisites that must be met for contact to be successful in ameliorating intergroup relations. For example, contact is more effective when groups are of equal status (Brewer & Kramer 1985;Moody 2001); there is cooperative interdependence (Slavin 1985;Slavin & Cooper 1999); there are common goals (Chu & Griffey 1985); it occurs in the context of supportive norms (Landis, Hope & Day 1984); there is the opportunity for personal acquaintance between members (Miller 2002); and there is potential to develop friendships (Levin, Van Laar & Sidanius 2003;Pettigrew 1998). Yet when one considers the intricate relations of power within, for example, a competitive school context (some of which were identified earlier), it is difficult to see how one of the central tenets of the contact hypothesis-equal status contact-could ever be met when pupil power and status are so diffuse, fluid, contested, embodied, and reinforced by powerful and enduring discourses.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%