Additive and multiplicative effects of different forms of positive and negative indirect intergroup contact in predicting intergroup attitudes

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Tobias H. Stark , Tom Nijs , Julia Köbrich
{"title":"Additive and multiplicative effects of different forms of positive and negative indirect intergroup contact in predicting intergroup attitudes","authors":"Tobias H. Stark ,&nbsp;Tom Nijs ,&nbsp;Julia Köbrich","doi":"10.1016/j.ijintrel.2024.102110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Numerous studies found that different forms of positive <em>indirect</em> intergroup contact relate to people’s intergroup attitudes. Much less work has explored whether <em>negative</em> forms of indirect contact predict intergroup attitudes and even less evidence exists on the co-occurrence of direct and indirect forms of intergroup contact and, thus, the expected joint impact of a combination of interventions. We explore the additive effects of four types of indirect contact in predicting intergroup attitudes: extended contact, vicarious contact, mass-mediated contact, and virtual vicarious contact through social media. We also explore whether the effects of indirect contact are stronger when people have less direct contact. For each type, we measure positive and negative contact experiences. Data come from two studies (N<sub>1</sub> = 785; N<sub>2</sub> = 858) asking native Dutch respondents about indirect contact experiences with members of immigrant communities. We find that observing positive intergroup interactions in real life, on mass media, and, to a weaker extent, on social media has additive positive associations with intergroup attitudes. Positive extended contact has only an added effect in Study 1. Of the negative indirect forms of contact, only negative vicarious contact predicts outgroup attitudes. No consistent multiplicative effects appeared across the studies, suggesting that indirect contact effects are not stronger for those with less direct contact. We conclude that observing contact (vicarious contact) may be more impactful than merely knowing of it (extended contact).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48216,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Intercultural Relations","volume":"104 ","pages":"Article 102110"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Intercultural Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147176724001792","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Numerous studies found that different forms of positive indirect intergroup contact relate to people’s intergroup attitudes. Much less work has explored whether negative forms of indirect contact predict intergroup attitudes and even less evidence exists on the co-occurrence of direct and indirect forms of intergroup contact and, thus, the expected joint impact of a combination of interventions. We explore the additive effects of four types of indirect contact in predicting intergroup attitudes: extended contact, vicarious contact, mass-mediated contact, and virtual vicarious contact through social media. We also explore whether the effects of indirect contact are stronger when people have less direct contact. For each type, we measure positive and negative contact experiences. Data come from two studies (N1 = 785; N2 = 858) asking native Dutch respondents about indirect contact experiences with members of immigrant communities. We find that observing positive intergroup interactions in real life, on mass media, and, to a weaker extent, on social media has additive positive associations with intergroup attitudes. Positive extended contact has only an added effect in Study 1. Of the negative indirect forms of contact, only negative vicarious contact predicts outgroup attitudes. No consistent multiplicative effects appeared across the studies, suggesting that indirect contact effects are not stronger for those with less direct contact. We conclude that observing contact (vicarious contact) may be more impactful than merely knowing of it (extended contact).
不同形式的积极和消极间接群体间接触在预测群体间态度中的加性和乘法效应
大量研究发现,不同形式的积极间接群体间接触与人们的群体间态度有关。很少有研究探讨消极形式的间接接触是否能预测群体间的态度,甚至更少的证据表明,直接和间接形式的群体间接触同时发生,因此,预期的联合影响的组合干预。我们探讨了四种间接接触在预测群体间态度方面的叠加效应:扩展接触、替代接触、大众媒介接触和通过社交媒体的虚拟替代接触。我们还探讨了当人们直接接触较少时,间接接触的影响是否更强。对于每种类型,我们都测量了积极和消极的接触体验。数据来自两项研究(N1 = 785;N2 = 858),询问荷兰本土受访者与移民社区成员的间接接触经历。我们发现,在现实生活中,在大众媒体上,以及在较弱程度上,在社交媒体上观察到积极的群体间互动,与群体间态度具有加法的正相关关系。在研究1中,积极的延伸接触只会产生额外的效果。在消极的间接接触形式中,只有消极的间接接触能预测外群体态度。在所有研究中都没有出现一致的倍增效应,这表明间接接触效应对那些直接接触较少的人来说并不强。我们的结论是,观察接触(间接接触)可能比仅仅知道它(延伸接触)更有影响力。
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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
122
期刊介绍: IJIR is dedicated to advancing knowledge and understanding of theory, practice, and research in intergroup relations. The contents encompass theoretical developments, field-based evaluations of training techniques, empirical discussions of cultural similarities and differences, and critical descriptions of new training approaches. Papers selected for publication in IJIR are judged to increase our understanding of intergroup tensions and harmony. Issue-oriented and cross-discipline discussion is encouraged. The highest priority is given to manuscripts that join theory, practice, and field research design. By theory, we mean conceptual schemes focused on the nature of cultural differences and similarities.
×
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