What will the others think? In‐group norms as a mediator of the effects of intergroup contact

Abstract

The influence of social norms in the context of intergroup relations has long been recognized by social psychologists, yet research on intergroup contact and social norms have usually remained disconnected. We explored the influence of direct and indirect friendship on attitudes towards ethnic minorities in Norway, and in particular the role of in-group norms about the social approval of intergroup contact as a mechanism that distinguishes direct from indirect contact. Using a sample of school students from 89 classrooms (N=823), we tested this hypothesis with both one level and multi-level structural equation modelling (ML-SEM), where the amount of contact of other classroom members was considered as a form of indirect contact. The results suggest that the intergroup contact of other in-group members (in-group friends or classmates) affects attitudes towards the out-group by changing the perception of in-group norms and by reducing intergroup anxiety. In contrast, direct contact (or contact at the individual level in the case of ML-SEM), improved attitudes only by reducing intergroup anxiety, and did not affect the perception of in-group norms.

Direct and extended intergenerational contact and young people's attitudes towards older adults

“…Although good quality direct contact was associated with more positive ingroup norms about intergenerational relationships, and ingroup norms was associated with less ageism, there was no indirect pathway from contact quality to attitudes via ingroup norms. Finding that ingroup norms mediate the effects of extended contact but not direct contact is consistent with previous contact studies (e.g., De Tezanos‐Pinto et al ., 2010) and supports the idea that knowing that their same‐aged peers have older friends makes intergenerational friendships seem more widespread and acceptable, thus reducing ageism. On the other hand, having direct intergenerational friendships does not provide information about the frequency of other young adults’ intergenerational friendships or the acceptability of such friendships.…”

“…In contrast, in intercultural contact studies, contact quality and extended contact are typically positively correlated (e.g., Gómez et al ., 2011; Hutchison & Rosenthal, 2011) as are direct and indirect friendships (De Tezanos‐Pinto et al ., 2010; Turner, Tam, Hewstone, Kenworthy, & Cairns, 2013; Turner et al ., 2007). This suggests that the effects of direct and indirect intergenerational contact may be unique, as they appear to occur independently but have similar attitudinal outcomes.…”

“…Ingroup norms are particularly important in extended contact situations and are an integral part of the process (Wright et al ., 1997). Knowing that ingroup members have positive relationships with outgroup members can increase the acceptability of such relationships by making them seem more widespread and familiar, thus indirectly reducing prejudice (e.g., Cameron, Rutland, Hossain, & Petley, 2011; De Tezanos‐Pinto, Bratt, & Brown, 2010; Turner, Hewstone, Voci, & Vonofakou, 2008). Along these lines, Turner et al .…”

The dynamics of interminority extended contact: The role of affective and cognitive mediators.

“…Our research further encourages intergroup contact research to acknowledge the role of both attitudinal and contact norms (see Allport, 1954). In addition, the occurrence of the mediating effects of ingroup norms for extended but not for direct contact (for similar results when considering majority-minority relationships see De Tezanos-Pinto et al, 2010;Turner at al., 2008) attests the prominent role of indirect contact experiences on the cognitive facets of interminority prejudice (see Paolini, Hewstone, & Cairns, 2007). Moreover, the findings show that the empirical and conceptual distinction between direct and extended contact experiences, that are associated with reduced prejudice through different mechanisms, is relevant also in interminority contexts.…”

“…Tezanos-Pinto, Bratt, & Brown, 2010;Liebkind & McAlister, 1999;Turner, Hewstone, Voci, & Vonofakou, 2008;Vezzali, Stathi, Giovannini, Capozza, & Visintin, 2015).…”