Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T18:16:02.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vicarious Intergroup Contact and the Role of Authorities in Prejudice Reduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Ángel Gómez  and
Carmen Huici
Ángel Gómez*
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Spain
Carmen Huici
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Spain
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ángel Gómez, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, C/ Juan del Rosal 10, (Ciudad Universitaria), 28040, Madrid(Spain). Phone:+ 34 91 3987747. Fax: 0034 91 3986215. E-mail: agomez@psi.uned.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study focuses on the effect of vicarious intergroup contact and the support of an authority figure on the improvement of outgroup and meta-stereotype evaluations. Meta-stereotype refers to the shared beliefs of ingroup members about how they consider outgroup members to perceive their group. Three preliminary studies were carried out to determine desirable and undesirable characteristics for a good basketball performance, the task that best demonstrates the application of these characteristics, and the two groups (basketball teams) that should be involved in the vicarious intergroup contact. Fans of one of the basketball teams participated in the current study. Vicarious intergroup contact improved outgroup and meta-stereotype evaluations as compared with a no contact condition. In addition, the positive effects of vicarious intergroup contact significantly increased when it was supported by an authority figure. More importantly, our study also shows that the improvement of outgroup evaluation was partially mediated by changes on meta-stereotypes.

El presente estudio se centra en los efectos del contacto vicario intergrupal y en el apoyo de una figura de autoridad en la mejora de las evaluaciones del exogrupo y del meta-estereotipo. Meta-estereotipo se refiere a las creencias compartidas de los miembros del endogrupo sobre cómo creen que los miembros del exogrupo les perciben. Se llevaron a cabo tres estudios preliminares para determinar las características deseables e indeseables para un buen desempeño en el baloncesto, la tarea que mejor demostraría la aplicación de estas características, y los dos grupos (equipos de baloncesto) que deberían implicarse en el contacto vicario intergrupal. En el presente estudio participaron los seguidores de uno de dichos equipos. El contacto vicario intergrupal mejoró la evaluación del exogrupo y del meta-estereotipo en comparación a una condición de no contacto. Adicionalmente, los efectos positivos del contacto vicario intergrupal aumentaron significativamente cuando fue apoyado por una figura de autoridad. Más importante todavía, nuestro estudio muestra que la mejora de la evaluación del exogrupo estuvo mediada parcialmente por los cambios en el meta-estereotipo.

Keywords

vicarious intergroup contactauthority figureprejudice reductionmeta-stereotypesperceived outgroup biascontacto intergrupal vicariofigura de autoridadreducción de prejuiciometa-estereotipossesgo exogrupal percibido
Type
Articles
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , May 2008 , pp. 103 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Billig, M. (1976). Social psychology and intergroup relations. London, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R., Vivian, J., & Hewstone, M. (1999). Changing attitudes through intergroup contact: The effects of group membership salience. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 741–7643.0.CO;2-8>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L., & Rutland, A. (2006). Extended contact through story reading in school: Reducing children's prejudice towards the disabled. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 469–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L., Rutland, A., & Brown, R. (in press). Promoting children's positive intergroup attitudes towards stigmatized groups: Extended contact and multiple classification skills training. International Journal of Bahevioral Development.Google Scholar
Cameron, L., Rutland, A., Brown, R., & Douch, R. (2006). Changing children's intergroup attitudes towards refugees: Testing different models of extended contact. Child Development, 77, 1208–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1387–1397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clunies-Ross, G., & O'Meara, K. (1989). Changing the attitudes of students towards peers with disabilities. Australian Psychologist, 24, 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L., & Kawakami, K. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past, present, and the future. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eller, A., & Abrams, D. (2003). “Gringos” in Mexico: Longitudinal effects of language school-promoted contact on intergroup bias. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eller, A., & Abrams, D. (2004). Come together: Longitudinal comparisons of Pettigrew's reformulated intergroup contact model and the common ingroup identity model in Anglo-French and Mexican-American contexts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 229–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, F.E., & Tropp, L.R. (2006). Being seen as individuals versus as group members: Extending research on meta-perception to intergroup contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaertner, S.L., & Dovidio, J.F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gómez, A. (2002). If my group stereotypes others, others stereotype my group… and we know. Concept, research lines and future perspectives of meta-stereotypes. Revista de Psicología Social, 17, 253–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez, A. (2003). Un ejemplo de estrategias para mejorar las relaciones entre grupos: la recategorización. Cómo hacer que diferentes grupos trabajen juntos en el mismo equipo. In Morales, J.F. & Huici, C. (Eds.), Estudios de psicología social (pp. 145–174). Madrid. UNED.Google Scholar
Gómez, A. (2007). La violencia en el deporte. Un análisis desde la psicología social. Revista de Psicología Social, 22, 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez, A., Huici, C., & Morales, J.F. (2004). ¡Nos gusta que nos vean… como somos! Implicaciones de la teoría de la auto-verificación a nivel intergrupal. Revista de Psicología Social, 19, 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez, A., Méndez, E., & Tropp, E. (2007, October 11–13). Is one friend enough? Potential limitations in extended contact effects. Paper presented at SESP Annual Conference held in Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Gómez, A., & Rodríguez-Bailón, R. (2000). Efectos de la semejanza en valores y el contenido del meta-estereotipo sobre el cambio de estereotipos grupales. In Caballero, D., Méndez, M. T. & Pastor, J. (Eds.), La mirada psicológica. Grupos, procesos, lenguajes y culturas. (pp. 794–799). Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.Google Scholar
Graves, S.B. (1999). Television and prejudice reduction: When does television as a vicarious experience make a difference? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 707–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herek, G.M., & Capitanio, J.P. (1997). AIDS stigma and contact with persons with AIDS: Effects of direct and vicarious contact. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewstone, M. (1996). Contact and categorization: Social psychological interventions to change intergroup relations. In Macrae, C.N., Stangor, C.,& Hewstone, M. (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 323–368). New York: Guilford PressGoogle 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: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hogg, M.A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 223–255.Google Scholar
Hovland, C.I., Janis, I.L., & Kelley, H.H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, P.A., & Zalk, S.R. (1978). Modification of children's racial attitudes. Developmental Psychology, 14, 447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruglanski, A.W., Raviv, A., Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., Sharvit, K., Ellis, S., Bar, R., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (in press). Says who?: Epistemic authority effects in social judgment. In Zanna, M.P., (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 37. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lee, A.Y. (2001). The mere exposure effect: An uncertainty reduction explanation revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1255–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lickel, B., Miller, N., Stenstrom, D.M., Denson, T.F., & Schmader, T. (2006). Vicarious retribution: The role of collective blame in intergroup aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 372–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liebkind, K., & McAlister, A.L. (1999). Extended contact through peer modeling to promote tolerance in Finland. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 765–780.3.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: self evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otten, S. (2002). Towards a more social Social Psychology: The case of meta-stereotypes. Revista de Psicología Social, 17, 287–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. (2004). Effects of direct and indirect cross-group friendships on judgments of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediating role of an anxiety-reduction mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 770–786CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pettigrew, T.F., Christ, O., Wagner, U., & Jost, S. (2007). Direct and indirect intergroup effects on prejudice: A normative interpretation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 411–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, T.F., & Tropp, L.R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In Oskamp, S. (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 93–114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T.F., & Tropp, L.R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Raviv, A., Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., Biran, B., & Sela, Z. (2003). Teachers' epistemic authority: Perceptions of students and teachers. Social Psychology of Education, 6, 17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, M., & Lang, A. (1991). Making television reality: Unconscious processed in the construction of social reality. Communication research, 18, 685–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephan, W.G. (1987). The contact hypothesis in intergroup relations. In Hendrick, C. (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 13–40). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In Tajfel, H. (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations, (pp. 61–76). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel, S. & Austin, W. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.) (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Tropp, L.R., & Pettigrew, T.F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16, 951–957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, J.C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, R.N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007). Reducing explicit and implicit outgroup prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 369–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, R.N., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., Paolini, S., & Christ, O. (in press). Reducing prejudice via direct and extended cross-group friendship. In Stroebe, W. & Hewstone, M. (Eds.), European review of social psychology. Oxford: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Viki, G.T., Culmer, M., Eller, A., & Abrams, D. (2006). Race and willingness to cooperate with the police: The roles of quality of contact, attitudes towards the behaviour and subjective norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vorauer, J.D., Main, K.J., & O'Connell, G.B. (1998). How do individuals expect to be viewed by members of lower status groups? Content and implications of meta-stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 917–937.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S.C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S.A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar