Correction to Majority group belonging without minority group distancing? Minority experiences of intergroup contact and inequality

Kende, J., Baysu, G., Van Laar, C., & Phalet, K. (2021), Majority group belonging without minority group distancing? Minority experiences of intergroup contact and inequality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60: 121–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12382

Figures 1–3 were presented in the wrong order in the original publication. The labels and captions in the figures are correct, and so is the description of the results, but the description of the results does not correspond to the numbering of the figures.

The results illustrated in Figure 1 on p. 12 (Attitudes towards the minority group at low and high individual perceptions of unfair treatment and low and high majority contact) are described in the text on p. 13 (Examining this interaction further (see Figure 2), more majority contact predicted significantly less positive attitudes towards the minority group at higher levels of perceived unfairness (p = .003), yet minority attitudes were unrelated to majority contact when minority youth perceived less unfair treatment (p = .526). Likewise, when minority youth perceived more unfair treatment, their attitudes were significantly less positive only at higher levels of majority contact (p = .003), yet at lower levels of majority contact minority attitudes were unrelated to perceived unfair treatment (p = .649), as being illustrated in Figure 2. Correctly, it should be described as illustrated Figure 1.

Similarly, the results illustrated in Figure 2 on p. 13 (Minority identification at low and high perceptions of unfair treatment and low and high majority contact) are described in the text on p. 14. (The same interaction was also significant on strength of minority identification (see Table 2). As Figure 3 shows, more majority contact was significantly related to weaker minority identification at higher levels of perceived unfair treatment in school (p < .001), yet majority contact was unrelated to minority identification when minority students perceived less unfairness (p = .182). Also, at high levels of majority contact, majority contact was related to weaker minority identification, although this association did not quite reach significance (p = .070).as being illustrated in Figure 3 instead of Figure 1.

Finally, the results illustrated in Figure 3 on p. 14 (Attitudes towards the minority group at low and high individual experiences of discrimination and low and high majority contact) are described in the text on p. 12. Moreover, in line with H2 on minority group distancing, there was a significant two-way interaction of positive majority contact with individual discrimination experiences on attitudes towards the minority group (see Table S3 in Appendix S1). To interpret the interaction, we tested simple effects of majority contact at high versus low levels of experienced discrimination, and of discrimination at high versus low levels of contact (-1 SD) with the Wald test, which is similar to a z-test. While more majority contact predicted significantly less positive attitudes towards the minority group at higher levels of discrimination (p < .001), this association was not significant when minorities experienced less discrimination (p = .641) (see Figure 1). Likewise, attitudes towards the minority group were less positive when minorities experienced more discrimination at higher levels of majority contact (p = .002), but at lower levels of majority contact minority attitudes were unrelated to their discrimination experiences (p = .594), as illustrated in Figure 1. Correctly, it should be described as illustrated in Figure 3.

We apologize for this error.