Indirect Contact and Collective Action Among Disadvantaged Groups: A Multi-Level Mini-Meta-Analysis

IF 2.7 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Priscilla Lok-chee Shum, Marisa L. Mylett, Ziv Levin, Stephen C. Wright, Agostino Mazziotta, Lisa Droogendyk, Lisa M. Bitacola
{"title":"Indirect Contact and Collective Action Among Disadvantaged Groups: A Multi-Level Mini-Meta-Analysis","authors":"Priscilla Lok-chee Shum,&nbsp;Marisa L. Mylett,&nbsp;Ziv Levin,&nbsp;Stephen C. Wright,&nbsp;Agostino Mazziotta,&nbsp;Lisa Droogendyk,&nbsp;Lisa M. Bitacola","doi":"10.1002/casp.70101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>It is well established that positive contact between members of different groups can reduce prejudice. However, there is also evidence that direct contact with advantaged group members can undermine disadvantaged group members' engagement in collective action. Also, considerable evidence shows that effective contact need not be direct. Mere knowledge of cross-group friendships (extended contact) or observing positive contact (vicarious contact) can also reduce prejudice. This raises the question of whether these indirect forms of contact might also undermine collective action. We conducted a mini-meta-analysis of eight unpublished studies, including a range of intergroup contexts and samples, that measured indirect contact with advantaged group members and collective action among disadvantaged groups. We found a small but significant relationship that was consistently negative but varied in size depending on how indirect contact was measured. Contrary to expectation, more indirect contact predicted reductions in normative forms of collective action as strongly as radical forms.</p>","PeriodicalId":47850,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology","volume":"35 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/casp.70101","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/casp.70101","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is well established that positive contact between members of different groups can reduce prejudice. However, there is also evidence that direct contact with advantaged group members can undermine disadvantaged group members' engagement in collective action. Also, considerable evidence shows that effective contact need not be direct. Mere knowledge of cross-group friendships (extended contact) or observing positive contact (vicarious contact) can also reduce prejudice. This raises the question of whether these indirect forms of contact might also undermine collective action. We conducted a mini-meta-analysis of eight unpublished studies, including a range of intergroup contexts and samples, that measured indirect contact with advantaged group members and collective action among disadvantaged groups. We found a small but significant relationship that was consistently negative but varied in size depending on how indirect contact was measured. Contrary to expectation, more indirect contact predicted reductions in normative forms of collective action as strongly as radical forms.

Abstract Image

弱势群体的间接接触与集体行动:一个多层次的迷你元分析
众所周知,不同群体成员之间的积极接触可以减少偏见。然而,也有证据表明,与优势群体成员的直接接触会破坏弱势群体成员对集体行动的参与。此外,相当多的证据表明,有效的接触不一定是直接的。仅仅了解跨群体友谊(扩展接触)或观察积极接触(替代接触)也可以减少偏见。这就提出了一个问题,即这些间接形式的接触是否也可能破坏集体行动。我们对八项未发表的研究进行了小型荟萃分析,包括一系列群体间背景和样本,测量了与优势群体成员的间接接触和弱势群体之间的集体行动。我们发现了一个小而重要的关系,这种关系一直是负的,但在大小上有所不同,这取决于间接接触是如何测量的。与预期相反,更多的间接接触预示着规范形式的集体行动与激进形式一样强烈地减少。
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
4.70
自引率
7.40%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: The Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology publishes papers regarding social behaviour in relation to community problems and strengths. The journal is international in scope, reflecting the common concerns of scholars and community practitioners in Europe and worldwide.
×
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