Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-27T06:02:48.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - The Contact Hypothesis Reconsidered: Interacting via Internet: Theoretical and Practical Aspects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Yair Amichai-Hamburger
Edited by
Azy Barak
Yair Amichai-Hamburger
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya
Azy Barak
Affiliation:
University of Haifa, Israel
Get access

Summary

Intergroup conflict is sadly part of our existence. Such conflicts exist around the globe originating through differences, for example, in beliefs, religion, race, and culture. The degree of conflict between rival groups varies from mild hostility to all-out war, leading to the loss of thousands of lives every year. The field of intergroup conflict has attracted the attention of many social psychologists who have attempted to understand the phenomenon and to provide solutions to end it.

These scholars concentrated their research on the structure of such conflicts that they perceived as comprising three major aspects: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. The cognitive aspect is demonstrated by the stereotype held by one group toward the other; the affective aspect by the prejudice held regarding the other group, and the behavioral aspect by discrimination against this group.

The fundamental component found in intergroup conflict is the stereotype – the negative perception of the other group. Stereotypes may include negative perceptions of a variety of characteristics such as traits, physical characteristics, and expected behaviors. People generally believe that their group (the ingroup) is a heterogeneous group, whereas members of the other group (the outgroup) are all similar to one another. This perception, known as the homogeneity effect, is one of the bases for our tendency to stereotype the members of the outgroup and claim that they are all, for example, hostile, liars, and lazy (Linville, Fischer, & Salovey, 1989; Linville & Jones, 1980).

Type
Chapter
Information
Psychological Aspects of Cyberspace
Theory, Research, Applications
 , pp. 209 - 227
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Furnham, A. (2006). The positive net. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1033–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2006). The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Interacting via the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 825–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 319–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amir, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and ethnic relations. In Katz, P. A. (Ed.), Towards the elimination of racism (pp. 73–123). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzimmons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, B., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2002). A typology of virtual teams, implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27, 14–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodenhausen, G. V. (1990). Stereotypes as judgmental heuristics: Evidence of circadian variations in discrimination. Psychological Science, 1, 319–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodenhausen, G. V., & Wyer, R. S. (1985). Effects of stereotypes on decision-making and information-processing strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 267–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branscomb, A. W. (1995). Anonymity, autonomy, and accountability: Challenges to the First Amendment in cyberspaces. 104 Yale L. J.1639–1679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In Hewstone, M. & Brown, R. J. (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 281–302). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brown, R. J. (2000). Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Climent, S., Moré, J., Oliver, A., Salvatierra, M., Taulé, M., Sanchez, I., & Vallmanya, L. (2003). Bilingual newsgroups in Catalonia: A challenge for machine translation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9(1). Retrieved April 28, 2006, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol9/issue1/climent.html.Google Scholar
Cook, S. W. (1962). The systematic analysis of socially significant events: A strategy for social research. Journal of Social Issues, 18, 66–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, S. W. (1984). Cooperative interaction in multiethnic contexts. In Brewer, M. (Ed.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 155–185). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Coughlin, D. (2001). Correlating automated and human assessments of machine translation quality. In Proceedings of MT Summit IX (pp. 63–70) New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, K. M., & McGarty, C. (2001). Identifiability and self-presentation: Computer-mediated communication and intergroup interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 399–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Galegher, J., & Kraut, R. E. (1994). Computer-mediated communication for intellectual teamwork: An experiment in group writing. Information Systems Research, 5, 110–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Marques, L., & Mackie, D. M. (1999). The impact of stereotype incongruent information on perceived group variability and stereotype change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 979–990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbert, D. T., & Hixon, J. G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, P. (2002). Sacrificial lambs dressed in wolves' clothing: Envious prejudice, ideology, and the scapegoating of Jews. In Newman, L. S. & Erber, R. (Eds.), Understanding genocide: The social psychology of the Holocaust (pp. 113– 142). London: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamburger, Y. (1994). The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Effects of the atypical outgroup member on the outgroup stereotype. Basic Applied Social Psychology, 15, 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. J. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the Contact Hypothesis. In Hewstone, M. & Brown, R. J. (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1–44). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hewstone, M., & Hamberger, J. (2000). Perceived variability and stereotype change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, M. A. (1993). Group cohesiveness: A critical review and some new directions. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 85–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of inter-group anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joinson, A. N. (2003). Understanding the psychology of Internet behaviour: Virtual worlds, real lives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kim, J. A. (2000). Community building on the Web: Secret strategies for successful online communities. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.Google Scholar
Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceived distributions of the characteristics of ingroup and outgroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linville, P. W., & Jones, E. E. (1980). Polarized appraisals of out-group member. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 689–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (Eds.). (2002). From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Green, A. S. (2002). Virtual group dynamics. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 6, 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What's the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, N. (2002). Personalization and the promise of contact theory. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 387–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuberg, S. L., & Cottrell, C. A. (2002). Intergroup emotions: A biocultural approach. In Mackie, D. M. & Smith, E. R. (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup relations: Differentiated reactions to social groups (pp. 265–283). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Castellá, Orengo V., Abad, Zornoza A. M., Alonso, Prieto F., & Silla, Peiro J. M. (2000). The influence of familiarity among group members, group atmosphere and assertiveness on uninhibited behavior through three different communication media. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Pay, H. (2004). Increased group dispersion after exposure to one deviant group member: Testing Hamburger's model of member-to-group generalization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 569–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). The affective component of prejudice: Empirical support for the new view. In Tuch, S. A. & Martin, J. K. (Eds.), Racial attitudes in the 1990s: Continuity and change (pp. 76–90). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Shore, L. M. & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity study of the survey of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 637–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. (1978). Hypothesis testing processes in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1202–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spears, R., Postmes, T., Lea, M., & Wolbert, A. (2002). When are net effects gross products? The power of influence and the influence of power in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephan, W. G. (1986). The effects of school desegregation: An evaluation 30 years after Brown. In Saks, M. J. & Saxe, L. (Eds.), Advances in Applied Social Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 181–206). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stephan, W. G., & Cookie, W. (2001). Improving intergroup relations. Newbury, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1996). Cognition and affect in stereotyping: Parallel interactive networks. In Mackie, D. W. & Hamilton, D. L. (Eds.), Affect cognition and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 111–136). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, L., & Nadler, J. (2002). Negotiating via information technology: Theory and application. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trope, Y., & Thompson, E. (1997). Looking for the truth in all the wrong places? Asymmetric search of individuating information about stereotyped group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 229–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 13–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilder, D. A. (1993). The role of anxiety in facilitating stereotypic judgments of out-group behavior. In Mackie, D. M. & Hamilton, D. L. (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 87–109). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wilder, D. A., & Shapiro, P. (1989). Role of competition-induced anxiety in limiting the beneficial impact of positive behavior by an out-group member. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 60–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×