Intergroup contact and intended actions in support of disadvantaged groups: The role of affective processes and feelings of solidarity

Intergroup contact is a well-established basis of prejudice reduction. However, less is known about its potential to motivate people to act in support of disadvantaged groups. We investigated the associations of both positive and negative intergroup contact with action intentions for disadvantaged groups among members of ethnic majority groups from different intergroup contexts, including non-WEIRD samples. Furthermore, we tested the role of affective processes and feelings of solidarity as psychological processes explaining these associations. In three cross-sectional studies (total N = 962) from Greece, Thailand, and Turkey, positive and negative contact experiences were associated with, respectively, stronger and weaker intended actions. These associations were particularly pronounced for positive contact. Contact measures were also related to stronger intentions to donate and distribute money in favor of the disadvantaged group (Study 3). A three-wave longitudinal study conducted in the UK (Study 4, N = 603) confirmed the association for positive contact but not for negative contact. Feelings of solidarity emerged as the most consistent mediator, followed by outgroup empathy and, to a lesser extent, group-based anger. Together, these findings show that contact can be an important factor motivating advantaged group members to act in solidarity with disadvantaged groups, and highlight the mediating factors in this process.

[1]  S. Rothmann,et al.  Intergroup contact is reliably associated with reduced prejudice, even in the face of group threat and discrimination. , 2023, American Psychologist.

[2]  M. Donnellan,et al.  Testing prospective effects in longitudinal research: Comparing seven competing cross-lagged models. , 2020, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  Emma F. Thomas,et al.  Testing the Social Identity Model of Collective Action Longitudinally and Across Structurally Disadvantaged and Advantaged Groups , 2020, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[4]  Stephen C. Wright,et al.  Beyond Allyship: Motivations for Advantaged Group Members to Engage in Action for Disadvantaged Groups , 2020, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[5]  V. Badaan,et al.  Acting for whom, against what? Group membership and multiple paths to engagement in social change. , 2020, Current opinion in psychology.

[6]  Linda R. Tropp,et al.  A large-scale test of the link between intergroup contact and support for social change , 2020, Nature Human Behaviour.

[7]  T. Pettigrew,et al.  The social‐psychological bases of far‐right support in Europe and the United States , 2019, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology.

[8]  Katharina Schmid,et al.  Intergroup contact fosters more inclusive social identities , 2019, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations.

[9]  Emma F. Thomas,et al.  Emerging research on intergroup prosociality: Group members' charitable giving, positive contact, allyship, and solidarity with others , 2019, Social and Personality Psychology Compass.

[10]  Katharina Schmid,et al.  Indirect Contact Predicts Direct Contact: Longitudinal Evidence and the Mediating Role of Intergroup Anxiety , 2019, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  Mostafa Salari Rad,et al.  Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  Linda R. Tropp,et al.  Whites for racial justice: How contact with Black Americans predicts support for collective action among White Americans , 2018 .

[13]  Theodoros A. Kyriazos,et al.  Applied Psychometrics: Sample Size and Sample Power Considerations in Factor Analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in General , 2018 .

[14]  K. Fiedler,et al.  Unwarranted inferences from statistical mediation tests – An analysis of articles published in 2015 , 2018 .

[15]  Eva Jaspers,et al.  Studying Positive and Negative Direct and Extended Contact: Complementing Self-Reports With Social Network Analysis , 2017, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[16]  P. Grant,et al.  Using the SIRDE model of social change to examine the vote of Scottish teenagers in the 2014 independence referendum , 2017, The British journal of social psychology.

[17]  M. Willoughby,et al.  On the Practical Interpretability of Cross-Lagged Panel Models: Rethinking a Developmental Workhorse. , 2017, Child development.

[18]  Linda R. Tropp,et al.  Toward a Comprehensive Understanding of Intergroup Contact , 2017, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[19]  Katharina Schmid,et al.  Intergroup Contact and Social Change , 2017, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[20]  R. Crisp,et al.  A future focus for imagined contact: Advances in and beyond intergroup relations , 2016 .

[21]  Stephen C. Wright,et al.  Acting in Solidarity: Cross‐Group Contact between Disadvantaged Group Members and Advantaged Group Allies , 2016 .

[22]  M. Zomeren.  Building a Tower of Babel? Integrating Core Motivations and Features of Social Structure into the Political Psychology of Political Action , 2016 .

[23]  M. Zomeren.  Collective action as relational interaction: A new relational hypothesis on how non-activists become activists , 2015 .

[24]  R. Spears,et al.  Acting in solidarity: Testing an extended dual pathway model of collective action by bystander group members. , 2015, The British journal of social psychology.

[25]  D. Abrams,et al.  Children's prosocial behavioural intentions towards outgroup members. , 2015, The British journal of developmental psychology.

[26]  Ellen L Hamaker,et al.  A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. , 2015, Psychological methods.

[27]  C. Aberson.  Positive intergroup contact, negative intergroup contact, and threat as predictors of cognitive and affective dimensions of prejudice , 2015 .

[28]  Nicole Tausch,et al.  A dynamic model of engagement in normative and non-normative collective action: Psychological antecedents, consequences, and barriers , 2015 .

[29]  Mark Rubin,et al.  Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries , 2014 .

[30]  A. Van Hiel,et al.  The Relationships Between Internal and External Threats and Right-Wing Attitudes , 2014, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[31]  M. Miller,et al.  Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models , 2013, Educational and psychological measurement.

[32]  P. Grant,et al.  Testing the social identity relative deprivation (SIRD) model of social change: the political rise of Scottish nationalism. , 2012, The British journal of social psychology.

[33]  C. Sibley,et al.  The Contact Caveat , 2012, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[34]  Linda R. Tropp,et al.  Cross-ethnic friendships, perceived discrimination, and their effects on ethnic activism over time: a longitudinal investigation of three ethnic minority groups. , 2012, The British journal of social psychology.

[35]  A. Roets,et al.  Longitudinal intergroup contact effects on prejudice using self- and observer-reports. , 2012, The British journal of social psychology.

[36]  Russell Spears,et al.  Protesters as “Passionate Economists” , 2012, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[37]  Linda R. Tropp,et al.  Cross-Group Friendships and Intergroup Attitudes , 2011, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[38]  Adam W. Fingerhut.  Straight Allies: What Predicts Heterosexuals' Alliance With the LGBT Community?1 , 2011 .

[39]  Tom Postmes,et al.  Can moral convictions motivate the advantaged to challenge social inequality? , 2011 .

[40]  M. Hewstone,et al.  Affective mediators of intergroup contact: a three-wave longitudinal study in South Africa. , 2011, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[41]  Thomas F. Pettigrew,et al.  Recent advances in intergroup contact theory , 2011 .

[42]  Nancy Eisenberg,et al.  Empathy-related Responding: Associations with Prosocial Behavior, Aggression, and Intergroup Relations. , 2010, Social issues and policy review.

[43]  J. Henrich,et al.  Most people are not WEIRD , 2010, Nature.

[44]  Amber M. Gaffney,et al.  An integrated threat model of explicit and implicit attitudes , 2009 .

[45]  Felicia Pratto,et al.  The Irony of Harmony , 2009, Psychological science.

[46]  Robyn K. Mallett,et al.  Seeing Through Their Eyes: When Majority Group Members Take Collective Action on Behalf of an Outgroup , 2008 .

[47]  Thomas F. Pettigrew,et al.  How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta‐analytic tests of three mediators , 2008 .

[48]  Bertjan Doosje,et al.  Group-level self-definition and self-investment: a hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. , 2008, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[49]  T. Postmes,et al.  Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. , 2008, Psychological bulletin.

[50]  J. Turner,et al.  The Political Solidarity Model of Social Change: Dynamics of Self-Categorization in Intergroup Power Relations , 2008, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[51]  Linda R. Tropp,et al.  A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[52]  Russell Spears,et al.  Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[53]  Brian T. Griffiths,et al.  Attitudes toward Indigenous Australians: the role of empathy and guilt , 2004 .

[54]  J. Dovidio,et al.  Intergroup Contact: The Past, Present, and the Future , 2003 .

[55]  F. Passy,et al.  Socialization, Connection, and The Structure/Agency Gap: A Specification of The Impact of Networks on Participation in Social Movements , 2001 .

[56]  Eliot R. Smith,et al.  Intergroup emotions: explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[57]  M. Diani.  SOCIAL MOVEMENT NETWORKS VIRTUAL AND REAL , 2000 .

[58]  Thomas F. Pettigrew,et al.  Generalized Intergroup Contact Effects on Prejudice , 1997 .

[59]  OUP accepted manuscript , 2020, Journal Of Refugee Studies.

[60]  Gordon Hodson,et al.  Extending the benefits of intergroup contact beyond attitudes: When does intergroup contact predict greater collective action support? , 2019 .

[61]  A. Hiel,et al.  We must not be enemies: Interracial contact and the reduction of prejudice among authoritarians , 2009 .

[62]  D. Green,et al.  Prejudice reduction: what works? A review and assessment of research and practice. , 2009, Annual review of psychology.

[63]  Roberto González,et al.  Nuestra culpa: collective guilt and shame as predictors of reparation for historical wrongdoing. , 2008, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[64]  E. Harmon-Jones,et al.  Empathy and attitudes: can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.