Negativity bias in intergroup contact: Meta-analytical evidence that bad is stronger than good, especially when people have the opportunity and motivation to opt out of contact.

IF 17.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Psychological bulletin Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-27 DOI:10.1037/bul0000439
Stefania Paolini, Meghann Gibbs, Brett Sales, Danielle Anderson, Kylie McIntyre
{"title":"Negativity bias in intergroup contact: Meta-analytical evidence that bad is stronger than good, especially when people have the opportunity and motivation to opt out of contact.","authors":"Stefania Paolini, Meghann Gibbs, Brett Sales, Danielle Anderson, Kylie McIntyre","doi":"10.1037/bul0000439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Seventy years of research on intergroup contact, or face-to-face interactions between members of opposing social groups, demonstrates that positive contact typically reduces prejudice and increases social cohesion. Extant syntheses, however, have not considered the full breadth of contact valence (positive/negative) and have treated self-selection as a threat to validity. This research bridges intergroup contact theory with sequential sampling models of impression formation to assess contact effects across all valences. From the premise that positive versus negative contact instigates differential resampling of outgroup experiences when self-selection is possible, we advance and meta-analytically test new predictions for the moderation of valenced contact effects and negativity bias as a function of people's opportunity and motivation to self-select in and out of contact. Our random-effects synthesis of positive and negative intergroup contact studies (238 independent samples, 936 nested effects; total N = 152,985) found significant valenced contact effects: Positive contact systematically associates with lower prejudice, and negative contact associates with higher prejudice. Critically, the detrimental effect of negative contact is significantly larger than the benefit of positive contact. This negativity bias is particularly pronounced under conditions in which one can self-select, is motivated to avoid contact, among male-dominated and prejudiced samples, in contact with stigmatized, low status, low socioeconomic status outgroups, along nonconcealable stigma, with nonintimate contact partners in informal settings and in collectivistic societies. Considering individuals' motivation and opportunity to self-select, together with contact valence, therefore offers a more nuanced and integrated platform to design contact-based interventions and policies across varied contact ecologies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":" ","pages":"921-964"},"PeriodicalIF":17.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000439","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Seventy years of research on intergroup contact, or face-to-face interactions between members of opposing social groups, demonstrates that positive contact typically reduces prejudice and increases social cohesion. Extant syntheses, however, have not considered the full breadth of contact valence (positive/negative) and have treated self-selection as a threat to validity. This research bridges intergroup contact theory with sequential sampling models of impression formation to assess contact effects across all valences. From the premise that positive versus negative contact instigates differential resampling of outgroup experiences when self-selection is possible, we advance and meta-analytically test new predictions for the moderation of valenced contact effects and negativity bias as a function of people's opportunity and motivation to self-select in and out of contact. Our random-effects synthesis of positive and negative intergroup contact studies (238 independent samples, 936 nested effects; total N = 152,985) found significant valenced contact effects: Positive contact systematically associates with lower prejudice, and negative contact associates with higher prejudice. Critically, the detrimental effect of negative contact is significantly larger than the benefit of positive contact. This negativity bias is particularly pronounced under conditions in which one can self-select, is motivated to avoid contact, among male-dominated and prejudiced samples, in contact with stigmatized, low status, low socioeconomic status outgroups, along nonconcealable stigma, with nonintimate contact partners in informal settings and in collectivistic societies. Considering individuals' motivation and opportunity to self-select, together with contact valence, therefore offers a more nuanced and integrated platform to design contact-based interventions and policies across varied contact ecologies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

群体间接触的消极偏差:元分析证据表明,坏的比好的更强,尤其是当人们有机会和动机选择不接触时。
七十年来,关于群体间接触或对立社会群体成员之间面对面互动的研究表明,积极的接触通常会减少偏见,增加社会凝聚力。然而,现有的综述并没有考虑到接触价值的全部范围(积极/消极),并将自我选择视为对有效性的威胁。本研究将群体间接触理论与印象形成的顺序抽样模型结合起来,以评估所有价位的接触效应。在可能进行自我选择时,积极接触与消极接触会促使对外群经验进行不同的重新取样,在此前提下,我们推进并通过元分析测试了新的预测,即作为人们自我选择接触与不接触的机会和动机的函数,有价值的接触效应和消极偏差的调节作用。我们对积极和消极的群体间接触研究(238 个独立样本,936 个嵌套效应;总人数 = 152,985 人)进行了随机效应综合,发现了显著的情感接触效应:积极的接触系统性地与较低的偏见相关联,而消极的接触则与较高的偏见相关联。重要的是,消极接触的不利影响明显大于积极接触的有利影响。在以下条件下,这种消极性偏差尤为明显:可以自我选择、有动机避免接触、男性占主导地位且存在偏见的样本、与被污名化、地位低、社会经济地位低的外群体接触、伴随着不可掩盖的污名、在非正式环境中与非亲密接触伙伴接触以及在集体主义社会中。因此,考虑到个人自我选择的动机和机会,以及接触的价值,为设计基于接触的干预措施和政策提供了一个更加细致和综合的平台,适用于各种不同的接触生态。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological bulletin
Psychological bulletin 医学-心理学
CiteScore
33.60
自引率
0.90%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Psychological Bulletin publishes syntheses of research in scientific psychology. Research syntheses seek to summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses. A research synthesis typically presents the authors' assessments: -of the state of knowledge concerning the relations of interest; -of critical assessments of the strengths and weaknesses in past research; -of important issues that research has left unresolved, thereby directing future research so it can yield a maximum amount of new information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信