Thought Paper Or Reflection Paper "OPINION"
jeddawe
AlRamiahHewstone20132.pdf
Intergroup Contact as a Tool for Reducing, Resolving, and Preventing Intergroup Conflict
Evidence, Limitations, and Potential
Ananthi Al Ramiah Yale-NUS College Miles Hewstone University of Oxford
We propose that intergroup contact provides an effective means by which to reduce, resolve, and prevent conflict of all kinds, including violent conflict. We review the vast literature on the effectiveness of intergroup contact and discuss when and how it reduces prejudice. We also discuss key features of successful interventions, highlighting exam- ples from conflict zones around the world. Rather than accepting, as some scholars do, that conflict is inevitable, we argue that intergroup contact, in its various forms, can play a pivotal and preemptive role in conflict prevention. We suggest that a blunt application of contact theory, particularly when groups are of unequal status, can have some unfortunate consequences, and contact interventions can, and should, be designed to overcome these pitfalls. We argue that, ultimately, contact is a powerful tool that needs to be used alongside other means of conflict reduction, resolution, and prevention in order to frame sound public policy and build lasting peace.
Keywords: intergroup contact, intergroup conflict, preju- dice, violence, peace
Research scientists from a range of disciplines havedevoted their energies to uncovering the causes ofintergroup conflict and what can be done to re- duce, resolve, and prevent it. The reality is that intergroup conflict is determined by a plethora of economic, sociolog- ical, anthropological, political, historical, and psychologi- cal factors (Green & Seher, 2003), thereby making it a potentially overdetermined and ubiquitous global phenom- enon in which the military plays a critical offensive and defensive role. Thus, Seligman and Fowler (2011) urged psychologists to focus their attention on relieving the suf- fering and improving the fitness of the soldiers who fight in wars on our behalf. Scholars disagree about whether we have a duty to improve soldier fitness (which might make them better killers) and whether soldiers are indeed fighting on our behalf. But whatever side we take in that debate, we can agree that it is important to relieve the suffering of soldiers who go into combat (relieving suffering of any kind being our ethical mandate as psychologists), particu- larly as their role is so critical in many of the types of violent conflict that we talk about in this article. Notwith- standing, we strongly contend that our overarching priority as psychologists must still be to work toward reducing the incidence of such conflict in the first place and resolving
the lingering psychological issues post violent conflict. We believe that intergroup contact offers a framework with which to do this.
Some of the most violent and long-term conflict takes place between ethnic groups, and such conflict has claimed more than 10 million lives since World War II (Horowitz, 1985). For example, the United Nations estimated that the conflict in Darfur left 300,000 people dead and 2.7 million displaced (MacFarquar, 2008); and even after a decade, war in the Democatic Republic of Congo was reported to be killing 45,000 people per month (McGreal, 2008). Moreover, postconflict situations, often involving civil war, are fragile, with many participants reverting to violence within a decade, so that exerting effort in maintaining postconflict peace would itself be a highly effective way of reducing the recurrence of civil war (Collier, 2009). Fo- cusing our attention on the psychological factors involved in conflict may seem ineffectual in the face of the range of powerful factors that ignite and maintain it. However, as we will see below, psychological factors are key determi- nants of prejudice and of more violent types of conflict. Moreover, psychological conflict, that is, negativity in the way that ingroup members view and interact with outgroup members, can endure well past the cessation of overt vio- lent conflict.
Of all the interventions that have been proposed to overcome such psychological conflict, intergroup contact has seen the widest application and has been most studied (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), using field, experimental, and longitudinal methodologies. Intergroup contact is usually measured in terms of its quantity and quality, in other
Editor’s note. This article is one of eight in the October 2013 American Psychologist “Peace Psychology” special issue.
Authors’ note. Ananthi Al Ramiah, Division of Social Sciences, Yale- NUS College, Singapore; Miles Hewstone, Oxford Centre for the Study of Intergroup Conflict, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, England.
This article was funded by a grant on “‘Ethnoreligious Diversity and Trust in Educational and Residential Settings’” from the Leverhulme Trust as well as by the Max-Planck-Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Gottingen, Germany.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Anan- thi Al Ramiah, Yale-NUS College, 6 College Avenue East, Singapore 138614. E-mail: [email protected]
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
527October 2013 ! American Psychologist © 2013 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/13/$12.00 Vol. 68, No. 7, 527–542 DOI: 10.1037/a0032603
words, as the frequency of interactions an individual has with outgroup members and the extent to which the inter- actions are enjoyable. The literature on intergroup contact is vast (see Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011), and in this article we attempt to emphasize, where possible, the role of contact in intergroup contexts that have a history of long-term, and often violent, conflict. While an understanding of the rela- tionship between contact and prejudice is vital for reasons that we discuss in the next section, we believe that it is essential to move beyond prejudice to consider the role of intergroup contact in helping resolve and prevent more extreme forms of conflict. When thinking about conflict resolution and prevention, it is also important to keep in mind that the residual psychological aspects of conflict, which may seem benign compared to the violence that preceded them, can act to prevent groups from fully over- coming their differences and interacting harmoniously and, crucially, can create a fertile landscape for more extreme forms of conflict to germinate.
This article is organized as follows: We (a) start by discussing what is meant by the term intergroup conflict, and (b) explore the evidence in support of the prejudice- reducing effects of intergroup contact, focusing on when and how this happens. We then (c) outline the different types of intergroup contact that have been shown to reduce prejudice, (d) review the effectiveness of intergroup con- tact in resolving conflict beyond prejudice reduction (and include a section on the features of effective contact-based interventions), (e) consider how intergroup contact has been used proactively to prevent conflict, and (f) outline some possible unintended consequences of intergroup con- tact, which care should be taken to avoid.
What Is Intergroup Conflict? Intergroup conflict involves competition for dominance between two or more groups over physical resources, val- ues, and/or claims to status and power (Coser, 1967). Conflict can usefully be thought of as occurring along a continuum. At one end of the spectrum, conflict can man- ifest as prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination and can be subtle or take more explicit forms. At the other end of the spectrum, conflict can become both overt and violent and take the form of “ethnic cleansing” and genocide (Fisher, 1994, p. 47). Thus, a range of evaluations, beliefs, and behaviors fall under the heading of conflict, though each kind of conflict is experienced by competing groups in starkly different ways, and can have varied consequences. Our focus in this article is on elucidating when and how intergroup contact promotes improved intergroup relations in situations characterized by high-intensity, violent con- flict. But we also review the literature on when and how intergroup contact is associated with reduced prejudice, as this is the application of intergroup contact that has been most heavily researched, and will, we believe, prove very useful in conceiving ways in which intergroup contact can be effectively harnessed to serve contexts of higher inten- sity conflict. For example, an understanding of how inter- group contact works to reduce prejudice when groups are of differing status levels can provide very useful insights into how contact between unequal groups in violent real- world settings may work.
Social identity theory argues that merely categorizing people into social groups can lead them to prefer members of their own group over others (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). However, the kind of violent conflict that we are interested in in this article requires far more than social categorization and depends on such categorization being coupled with various other historical and structural factors that lead groups to feel aggrieved and experience strong enough emotions to engage in violent behavior toward the outgroup (Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000). As Hewstone et al. (2008) noted, the motives of those implicated in ethnic violence may be more complex than simple hatred for an outgroup (see Fearon & Laitin, 2000; Green & Seher, 2003) and certainly more complex than mere ingroup fa- voritism.
The Prejudice-Reducing Effects of Intergroup Contact Intergroup contact theory (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Hewstone & Brown, 1986; Pettigrew, 1998), which has its genesis in Gordon Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis, holds that people who engage in intergroup contact (the properties of which are described below) are likely to be less prejudiced toward outgroup members than are those who do not have such contact experiences. Intergroup contact can take many forms, and we first discuss the most commonly studied type, that is, direct, face-to-face contact, and address when and how it is effective; we then outline findings from various other types of contact at the end of this section.
Ananthi Al Ramiah
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
528 October 2013 ! American Psychologist
Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) provided significant sup- port for the negative relationship between direct contact and prejudice from a meta-analysis of over 500 studies. They reported a significant negative relationship between contact and prejudice (r ! ".22, p # .0001), an effect size comparable to those for the relationship between condom use and sexually transmitted HIV (Weller, 1993) and be- tween passive smoking and the incidence of lung cancer at work (Wells, 1998). Many studies in this literature are cross-sectional, correlational studies, but both experimental (Wilder, 1984; Wolsko, Park, Judd, & Bachelor, 2003) and burgeoning longitudinal (Binder et al., 2009; Eller & Abrams, 2003; Levin, Van Laar, & Sidanius, 2003; Swart, Hewstone, Christ, & Voci, 2011) studies provide even greater confidence in the efficacy of intergroup contact. Further, almost all the studies considered by Pettigrew and Tropp were based on self-report measures of attitude change, rather than behavioral criteria, but such self-report measures of contact and attitudes have been validated using ratings from participants’ close friends, even after control- ling for the perceived extraversion of participants (Hew- stone, Judd, & Sharp, 2011). Notwithstanding, we echo Baumeister, Vohs, and Funder’s (2007) view that there is an overreliance in social psychology generally on self- report measures and insufficient investigation of actual behaviors (Al Ramiah & Hewstone, in press).
When Does Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice? Allport (1954) proposed that the contact situation should, if possible, allow participants to interact with equal status, encourage cooperation and promote common goals, and be normative, that is, it should have institutional support. Later research added that successful contact situations
should allow for the development of friendships through meaningful and repeated contact (Davies, Tropp, Aron, Pettigrew, & Wright, 2011). Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) found that contact situations that met Allport’s conditions resulted in greater prejudice reduction than those situations that did not. Notwithstanding, Pettigrew and Tropp (2008) argued that these conditions should be seen as facilitating rather than essential since, as Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) demonstrated, positive (though diminished) contact effects exist even when these conditions are not met.
The evidence on the effectiveness of intergroup con- tact is wide-ranging and impressive. It is, however, impor- tant to bear in mind that most real-world interventions are not based on theoretically driven empirical findings. Fur- ther, there are few evaluations of real-world contact inter- ventions, and when they are conducted, they are not always sufficiently rigorous (Paluck & Green, 2009). Even when evaluations do meet these criteria, they do not often study situations of violent conflict (e.g., Al Ramiah & Hewstone, 2012; for an exception, see Paluck, 2009, whose research we discuss below).
In the next section we consider when contact effects generalize and highlight some moderators such as group status, individual levels of prejudice, prior levels of con- tact, and the influence of intergroup ideologies in explain- ing the strength of the contact effect.
Generalization of Contact Effects The intergroup contact situation, as envisaged by Allport (1954), should be one of positive contact between individ- uals from different social groups, such that positive atti- tudes toward individual group members generalize toward the outgroup. We also consider generalization across dif- ferent contact situations and from one outgroup to another.
From interpersonal contact to attitudes to- ward the outgroup as a whole. Hewstone and Brown’s (1986; Brown & Hewstone, 2005) mutual differ- entiation model argues for the maintenance of intergroup salience during contact encounters that comprise the vari- ous facilitating conditions discussed above. Group salience is maintained by structuring contact to occur between in- dividuals who are sufficiently typical or representative of their groups (e.g., Wilder, 1984). Research strongly sup- ports the roles of group salience and perceived typicality in promoting the generalization of contact effects beyond the immediate interpersonal contact situation to the outgroup as a whole (see Brown & Hewstone, 2005, for a review).
Hewstone (1996) provided clear evidence for why group salience plays such a pivotal role in changing inter- group perceptions. On the basis of a prototype approach to categorization, Hewstone argued that the extent to which a stimulus (e.g., a person) is categorized as a member of a particular group depends on the degree to which the per- son is a typical member of the group; that is, it depends on the perceived prototypicality of the person. If an outgroup member is seen as deviating from the proto- type, then even though the contact experience with that person may be positive, it is likely that the outgroup member will be subtyped, that is, treated as an excep-
Miles Hewstone
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
529October 2013 ! American Psychologist
tion, and the perceiver’s attitude toward the outgroup as a whole will remain unchanged. Thus, in order to maxi- mize the impact of intergroup contact on attitudes toward the outgroup as a whole, Hewstone and Brown (1986) argued that group salience is crucial and that interaction partners should be seen as fairly typical representatives of their outgroup.
In line with social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), the mere categorization of people into groups results in them favoring their ingroup, and such social categoriza- tion can be seen as a necessary precursor of the violent kind of intergroup conflict that we discuss in this article. But how can this finding that categorization lays the ground- work for conflict be squared with Hewstone and Brown’s (1986) assertion that social categorization in the form of group salience is vital for the generalization of the positive effects of intergroup contact? The fact that categorization acts as both an impetus for, and an alleviator of, prejudice means that we must harness our tendency to engage in social categorizations in a constructive way that allows individual group members to satisfy their core motives for belonging, enhancement, and trust (Fiske, 2010). Hewstone and Brown (1986) wrote that the contact situation should allow for the recognition of mutual superiorities and infe- riorities in various domains so that group members can, through socially creative comparisons, maintain positive ingroup distinctiveness.
Brown and Hewstone (2005) cautioned that group salience, while crucial for generalization of contact effects, does not lead to positive contact effects in all settings. For example, when groups have a history of intergroup tension and animosity, group salience and perceived typicality of outgroup members may lead to more prejudice against individual outgroup members and their group as a whole. Further, chronic group salience can have negative effects when combined with negative intergroup contact experi- ences (Vorauer & Sasaki, 2011), a finding that we discuss below. In such fraught contexts, contact may best be kept individualized and personalized, at least in initial encoun- ters (Brewer & Miller, 1984, 1988), and generalization of positive interpersonal attitudes may not be an immediately achievable goal. Brown and Hewstone (2005) favored an intersection of personalization and categorization, as in the form of some cross-group friendships, where the outgroup friend is seen both as an individual and as a group member. This promotes positive encounters between individual members of different groups but also promotes generaliza- tion to the outgroup as a whole.
From intergroup contact in one situation to attitudes toward the outgroup in other situations. Very few studies have examined general- ization across situations. However, a meta-analytic exam- ination of cross-situational generalization in the few studies that tested it provides strong evidence for it (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). For example, contact with outgroup mem- bers at work is associated with reduced prejudice toward members of that same outgroup in one’s neighborhood (or vice versa), which suggests that attitudes toward members
of an outgroup are not capriciously situation-dependent but, rather, reflect a stable orientation toward the outgroup.
From intergroup contact with a primary outgroup to attitudes toward secondary out- groups outside the contact situation. Intergroup contact is more powerful if it is able to generalize beyond the immediate contact situation to encompass other groups outside that situation (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Petti- grew, 1997, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Several stud- ies have found evidence of what Pettigrew (2009) called the secondary transfer effect. Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2006) meta-analysis reported a reliable negative relationship be- tween contact with one outgroup (e.g., Blacks) and preju- dice toward secondary outgroups (e.g., homosexuals or immigrants) that was similar in magnitude to the prejudice- reducing effect of contact when contact and attitude re- ferred to a common target outgroup.
The strongest evidence for this effect, and its under- lying process, comes from Tausch et al.’s (2010) four studies (three cross-sectional and one longitudinal, using large samples of adult respondents) in different real-world settings, including two conflict locations, Cyprus (Study 1) and Northern Ireland (Studies 2 and 4). For example, contact between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus was not only associated with more positive atti- tudes to the respective Cypriot outgroup but also general- ized to views of the outgroup on the mainland (e.g., Greeks in Greece or Turks in Turkey who are key political players in this conflict) while controlling for contact with those secondary outgroups. Tausch et al. argued that the second- ary transfer effect can be explained through attitude gen- eralization, which is the process by which attitudes that one has about one attitude object generalize to other, related attitude objects. They found that attitude toward the pri- mary outgroup acted as the mediator of the relationship between positive contact with the primary outgroup and reduced prejudice toward the secondary outgroup.
One might expect that individual-difference variables would predict contact and attitudes toward a range of outgroups, such that liberal and extraverted people would be more likely to have more intergroup interactions and less intergroup prejudice across several groups. Recent studies have controlled for a range of individual-difference variables such as social dominance orientation (SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994) and right wing authoritarianism (RWA; Altmeyer, 1996) in examining the secondary transfer effect (Lolliot et al., 2012). SDO is a measure of an individual’s preference for hierarchy within a social system, while RWA is a measure of an individual’s tendency to follow the established conventions and author- ities in society. Lolliot et al. (2012) found evidence for the secondary transfer effect from one outgroup to other, un- related outgroups, via attitude generalization in various samples, including in two postconflict settings: South Af- rica (controlling for SDO), and Northern Ireland (control- ling for RWA and SDO). However, at present, the moder- ating role of intergroup ideology variables, such as SDO, on the contact effect remains unclear. Dhont and Van Hiel (2009) and Hodson (2008) reported that intergroup contact
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
530 October 2013 ! American Psychologist
appears to be particularly effective for those high in SDO. However, looking specifically at the role of SDO in the secondary transfer effect, Schmid, Hewstone, Küpper, Zick, and Wagner (2012) found that the greatest secondary transfer was shown by those who were low in SDO and thus less likely to support highly unequal social hierarchies.
This form of generalization could represent the most far-reaching effects of intergroup contact, as it represents a multiplier process whereby contact with one outgroup af- fects attitudes toward various other groups. Thus, contact can be a very efficient and powerful means of improving intergroup relations in increasingly diverse and cosmopol- itan societies.
Group Status Tropp and Pettigrew’s (2005) meta-analysis of contact effects for majority versus minority group status found that the effect of contact was reliably weaker for members of minority groups (for an exception, see Al Ramiah, Hew- stone, Little, & Lang, in press). Tropp and Pettigrew also found that while meeting Allport’s (1954) conditions was associated with significant prejudice-reducing effects for the majority samples, this did not contribute to prejudice reduction for minority samples. Going beyond Allport’s conditions, it has further been argued that contact effects may be strengthened by heeding certain additional features of the contact situation: For example, there should be an optimal (i.e., balanced) ratio of majority to minority group members so as to maximize opportunities for intergroup contact for both groups (Hallinan & Smith, 1985) and to reduce perceived threat (see below) for the less represented group (Al Ramiah et al., in press; Stephan & Stephan, 2001). Obviously, this places some limits on the effective- ness of contact in situations where groups are of very different sizes; however, carefully structured intergroup contact interventions can help to overcome these dispari- ties.
Individual Levels of Prejudice and Prior Levels of Contact A number of individual-difference variables can have an impact on the effectiveness of contact (see Stephan, 1987, for a review). Participants’ initial level of prejudice as they enter a contact situation has long been noted as a potential barrier to prejudice reduction (Allport, 1954). It has also been shown that when participants are pressured to sup- press prejudice, there can be a rebound effect for highly prejudiced participants, who then go on to react with even more outgroup prejudice (Plant & Devine, 2001).
Notwithstanding, and somewhat paradoxically, there is also evidence that contact may be particularly effective for highly prejudiced participants (Dhont & Van Hiel, 2009; Hodson, Harry, & Mitchell, 2009), because there is greater likelihood of observing change in such participants, compared to those who enter the contact situation with already positive outgroup attitudes (Maoz, 2003). In other words, prejudiced participants have more room to move along the attitude scale toward its unprejudiced pole, and
they are likely to experience greater attitudinal change in response to positive intergroup contact.
Research has also shown that prior levels of contact (e.g., via contact at earlier stages of education) moderate the effect that contact has on prejudice reduction. In a study of Catholic and Protestant students in Northern Ireland, Al Ramiah, Hewstone, Voci, Cairns, and Hughes (2013) found that the relationship between intergroup contact and levels of prejudice was stronger for those who had less previous experience of contact. In other words, contact experiences are more effective in reducing prejudice when they are relatively novel in a person’s life. As in the case of preju- diced individuals just discussed, such participants may have more room to move along the attitude scale. This finding supports the idea that it is never too late to intro- duce intergroup contact, though the authors also provide evidence that early contact experiences predict later con- tact, which, in turn, has a strong association with current levels of outgroup prejudice.
Intergroup Ideologies In line with Allport’s (1954) exhortation that institutional support is necessary for intergroup contact to have preju- dice-reducing effects, research has found that intergroup ideologies (with reference to the groups in question or, more generally, about the status quo between the groups) can affect how intergroup proximity is experienced (Alex- ander & Tredoux, 2010). Where open discrimination and violence against outgroups contradict widely accepted so- cial norms, physical proximity facilitates intergroup con- tact and contributes to the reduction of intergroup anxiety and threat. In contrast, under conditions of negative propa- ganda, which evokes feelings of hate and threat, members of different groups will more likely avoid contact or engage in acts of violence (see Green, Stolovitch, & Wong, 1998, for an example from the United States; Van Zomeren, Fischer, & Spears, 2007).
While most regions of contemporary Europe and North America are thought to have social norms that dis- avow and severely sanction intergroup violence, there are some situations in which the influence of these norms pales in comparison to the force of historical intergroup animos- ity and hate ideologies, such as in the case of the collapse of ex-Yugoslavia (see Hewstone et al., 2008), the long- term conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland (Cairns & Darby, 1998), and the Rwandan geno- cide. In Rwanda, an example of strong ideological influ- ence was the infamous hate-radio propaganda (Radio Té- lévision Libre des Mille Collines; see Kellow & Steeves, 1998) directed against the Tutsi before the outbreak of the genocide in 1994 (Des Forges, 1999; Prunier, 1995). The role of information, and the consequences that arise from the ways in which it is framed are examined by Le- wandowsky, Stritzke, Freund, Oberauer, & Krueger (2013, this issue). Rwanda represents an interesting case of con- tact and conflict. Prior to the nineteenth century, Tutsi and Hutu are reported to have lived in relative harmony with a fair degree of intermarriage, under a Tutsi king (Prunier, 1995). However, from about 1973, Tutsi were banned from
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
531October 2013 ! American Psychologist
the armed forces, and intermarriage was forbidden among military personnel (Hildyard, 1999). This development, combined with a history of “divide and rule” by Belgian colonialists and intense poverty, proved to be a highly combustible combination. Thus even though many Tutsis and Hutus lived in proximity to one another as neighbors, the contact between them was often superficial and far from Allport’s optimal conditions (Hewstone et al., 2008). From the perspective of contact theory, such previolence contact effects on intergroup violence can be expected to be weak (Wagner & Hewstone, 2012) and especially vulnerable when stoked by hate ideology and pervasive anti-Tutsi propaganda, which promoted the killing of former friends and neighbors.
We are careful, however, not to make an oversimpli- fied argument for the effects of prodiversity ideologies and norms on intergroup relations. Take, for instance, what may happen when people have threatening contact experi- ences (as they are likely to have in situations of serious intergroup conflict) and are simultaneously exposed to ide- ologies that promote diversity, such as multiculturalism. Vorauer and Sasaki (2011) argued that the focus of multi- culturalism on valuing and thinking about intergroup differences causes chronic group salience and an en- gagement in deep learning, which can, in situations of conflict, have negative effects. In their experiments, they compared multiculturalism against other popular ideol- ogies in Canada such as color-blindness, anti-racism, and a control condition. They found that when partici- pants engaged in threatening contact, and were exposed to a multicultural ideology, they responded to their out- group interaction partner with more hostile emotions than did participants in the other conditions. Thus, we are confronted once again with the potentially negative implica- tions of group salience if contact experiences are negative. This research highlights the need to study the effects of the moderators of the contact effect, such as ideologies, in specific terms that take into account the effects of different ideolo- gies on different types of intergroup contact in different conflict settings.
How Does Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice? Several mechanisms have been shown to mediate the effect of contact on prejudice, of which the three key mediators are intergroup anxiety, empathy/perspective-taking, and knowledge (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). We also consider realistic and symbolic threat, which we believe are of particular relevance in situations of intense conflict.
Intergroup anxiety. Intergroup anxiety refers to the feelings of discomfort and nervousness that arise in intergroup encounters. Stephan and Stephan (1985) argued that intergroup anxiety is generally felt when anticipating future, or experiencing actual, contact with an outgroup member.
Islam and Hewstone’s (1993) study of intergroup re- lations between Hindus and Muslims in Bangladesh was the first to confirm that intergroup anxiety mediates the contact–prejudice relationship. They found that intergroup
anxiety partially mediated the negative relationship be- tween contact and prejudice such that contact was associ- ated with reduced anxiety, which in turn was associated with reduced prejudice. Since then, there has been a wealth of evidence in support of intergroup anxiety as a key mediator of the effects of contact on attitudes (for a review, see Paolini, Hewstone, Voci, Harwood, & Cairns, 2006). For a true test of mediation, a study needs to measure predictor (contact), mediator (anxiety), and outcome (atti- tude) at every wave of a study with at least three waves and to show that contact at Wave 1 predicts anxiety at Wave 2, which predicts attitude at Wave 3, while controlling for prior levels of these variables. Swart et al. (2011) con- ducted such a study on “Colored” South African high school students’ experience of and views of Whites. Dem- onstrating full longitudinal mediation of contact effects via intergroup anxiety, they found that the cross-group friend- ships these Colored students had with White students at Wave 1 predicted lower levels of anxiety at Wave 2 (six months later), which predicted more positive attitudes at Wave 3 (six months after that).
If generic contact can reduce prejudice, then it is unsurprising that having outgroup friends is particularly powerful at doing so (Pettigrew, 1998). This reduction in prejudice is likely to be associated with the frequent and equal-status nature of the contact situation and can under- cut the tendencies both to avoid contact (Mendoza-Denton, Downey, Purdie, Davis, & Pietrzak, 2002) and to have negative expectancies about its outcome (Page-Gould, Mendoza-Denton, & Tropp, 2008). The potential of out- group friendships in the context of past violent conflict is shown by two studies of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland by Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns, and Voci (2004), who found that having outgroup friends was asso- ciated with reduced anxiety in samples of both students and adults in the general population.
In Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2008) meta-analytic work on the most studied mediators of contact, intergroup anx- iety emerged as the strongest mediator of the contact effect.
Empathy. Empathy refers to the ability to share and understand another person’s feelings. It is the process involved when we speak of “putting yourself in another’s shoes.” It is a vicarious emotional state that is aroused by observing the feelings and situations of others and, accord- ing to Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2008) meta-analysis, has been shown to be a strong and consistent mediator of the contact effect. With reference to our review of generaliza- tion effects above, empathy makes group membership sa- lient by reminding people of the experiences a person has as a member of an outgroup. Thus contact situations that induce empathic feelings are likely to lead to generalized positive outgroup evaluations (Vescio, Sechrist, & Paolucci, 2003). In their longitudinal study, Swart et al. (2011) also found that cross-group friendships at Time 1 were negatively associated with outgroup prejudice at Time 3 via the mediation of affective empathy (as well as inter- group anxiety) at Time 2.
Knowledge. Allport (1954) wrote that intergroup contact leads intergroup actors to learn more about their
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
532 October 2013 ! American Psychologist
respective outgroups, and this new knowledge can lead to a reduction in prejudice. Pettigrew and Tropp (2008) have argued that an emphasis on knowledge in the sense of “getting to know one another” can take the form of bring- ing people together in order to realize their mutual simi- larities, which runs the risk of ignoring important and defining group differences. Similarly, simply learning “general knowledge” about a group can also mask deeper group differences, in terms of values and historical expe- riences. Using the small set of studies available, with a range of items measuring knowledge, Pettigrew and Tropp (2008) found that knowledge does mediate the contact effect but that it is a weaker mediator than either intergroup anxiety or empathy. Further research on knowledge as a mediator of intergroup contact is required in order to draw firm conclusions about its role.
Group-oriented perceived threats. Intergroup relations are characterized not just by individual-level con- cerns such as feeling uncomfortable in intergroup interac- tions but by perceptions that the outgroup poses a threat to the ingroup. Intergroup anxiety is thought to be individually oriented, because it is the individual who experiences anxiety during intergroup interactions, while realistic and symbolic threats are believed to be group-oriented, because it is the group that may lose power or have to change its belief system (Stephan & Renfro, 2003). Stephan and colleagues empha- sized the importance of perceived threats to the ingroup as predictors of prejudice (Stephan, Ybarra, & Morrison, 2009). They distinguished symbolic threats (e.g., threats to the in- group’s value system, belief system, or worldview) from realistic threats (e.g., threats to the ingroup’s political and economic power) as proximal predictors of prejudice. One of the fundamental ideas underlying integrated threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000) is that even in the context of veridical structural threats, the perception of such threats can be overblown due to cross-group unfamiliarity, fear, and negative societal perceptions (Stephan, Diaz-Loving, & Duran, 2000). Several studies have shown that contact can reduce perceived threat, and such reductions in threat can act as a mediator in the relationship between contact and attitudes (Stephan & Stephan, 2000), though there is a dearth of studies that deal with contexts of past or present violent conflict.
In a study of Catholic and Protestant students in Northern Ireland, Tausch, Tam, Hewstone, Kenworthy, and Cairns (2007, Study 1) found that whereas the mere quan- tity of outgroup contact had a direct, positive effect on outgroup attitudes, quality of contact had an indirect effect and was mediated by reduced symbolic threat and inter- group anxiety. However, threat was only a significant me- diator in the relationship between contact and prejudice for those people who identified strongly with their ingroup. For low identifiers, in contrast, it was individual-level con- cerns, that is, anxiety about interacting with outgroup mem- bers, that mediated the relationship between contact and prejudice (see also Tausch, Hewstone, Kenworthy, Cairns, & Christ, 2007).
Al Ramiah, Hewstone, Little, and Lang (2013) con- ducted a longitudinal study of the processes through which
intergroup contact between ethnic Malays, Chinese, and Indians exerted its effects for participants taking part in a structured National Service intervention program across camps in Malaysia. We found evidence of indirect effects of intergroup contact during the program on outgroup eval- uations, which were mediated by symbolic threat for the minority groups rating the majority group but not for the majority group rating the minority groups. In other words, positive intergroup contact reduced the symbolic threat that minority group members perceived from the majority group, which was associated with more positive evalua- tions of the majority group. This effect was not seen for the majority group, who held the most political power; for them, symbolic threats were likely to have been less salient (since holding political power enabled the majority group to safeguard their symbolic interests), and thus intergroup contact did not exert its effects through such threat.
While much research has looked at the effects of intergroup contact between majority and minority group members, very little research has examined how, in the presence of a majority group, intergroup contact between two minority groups can affect their mutual intergroup attitudes. In our study in Malaysia, we found that minority groups viewed one another as competitors for scarce re- sources (Al Ramiah et al., in press). Intergroup contact had the effect of reducing perceptions of realistic threat that the minority Chinese believed the minority Indians posed (and vice-versa), and this reduced realistic threat was associated with more positive attitudes between the two minority groups.
As we have seen so far, some research in this area (e.g., Stephan & Renfro, 2003; Stephan & Stephan, 2000) has considered how various cultural, historical, and socio- economic factors have shaped intergroup relations in gen- eral and intergroup contact in particular. However, as Green and Seher (2003) pointed out, contact research re- mains largely focused on individual-level variables, and more work needs to be done to incorporate societal-level processes into models of conflict reduction and resolution. The danger of focusing purely on the individual is that it treats group-level and individual-level phenomena as inde- pendent (Tausch, Kenworthy, & Hewstone, 2006), and thus while intergroup contact may lessen individuals’ preju- diced opinions and anxieties about certain groups, it may do little to reduce actual conflicts between groups that are based on competition (Forbes, 1997; Hewstone, 1996) or that are perpetuated by institutional bias (Henry, 2010). But this does not render intergroup contact impotent; as we will see later in this article, shaping perceptions at the individ- ual level can play a vital role in preventing conflict.
A Note on Proximity Versus Actual Contact There is often a misunderstanding of the difference be- tween diversity, described in terms of people from different groups living in and merely cohabiting in the same society, and direct intergroup contact, which involves actual, face- to-face contact between members of different groups. Ob- viously, there must be opportunities for contact in order for there to be actual intergroup contact (Wagner, Hewstone, &
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
533October 2013 ! American Psychologist
Machleit, 1989). But opportunities for contact are imper- fect predictors of contact (Dixon & Durrheim, 2003). For instance, Hamilton and Bishop (1976) studied how people reacted when Black and White families moved into their all-White neighborhood in the United States. After three months, most people knew the last names of their new neighbors (both Blacks and Whites), but there was very little evidence of meaningful interaction between them. Thus physical proximity can often be associated with co- existence rather than meaningful contact.
Hence we should be wary of research that conflates opportunities for contact and actual contact in suggesting that contact is associated with an increase in threat and a reduction in trust (Lancee & Dronkers, 2010; Putnam, 2007). Diversity without contact may well result in nega- tive outcomes (see Stolle, Soroka, & Johnston, 2008) and is something that Allport (1954) cautioned against. Stolle et al. (2008) found that people who lived in diverse areas and regularly talked with their neighbors reported higher levels of trust than those living in diverse areas who spoke only a little or not at all with their neighbors. This finding dem- onstrates that the absence of intergroup contact in the face of diversity may have negative implications for intergroup relations and people’s sense of generalized trust. Proximity is not the “philosopher’s stone” that can transform inter- group relations from conflict to harmony; such proximity may, in fact, occur alongside the balkanization of cam- puses, neighborhoods, and cities and the absence of inter- group contact (see, e.g., Dixon & Durrheim, 2003). We acknowledge that cross-sectional studies such as that of Stolle et al. (2008) are open to the possibility of individuals with higher levels of trust engaging in greater neighbor- hood contact. However, recent longitudinal findings do show that prior intergroup contact predicts later outgroup attitudes, even after controlling for the effect of prior attitudes on later intergroup contact (Binder et al., 2009; Swart et al., 2011).
Other Types of Contact We now turn to three forms of contact other than face-to- face encounters that can be used to overcome intergroup prejudice and reduce conflict: virtual and parasocial con- tact, extended contact, and imagined contact (for reviews, see Harwood, Hewstone, Amichai-Hamburger, & Tausch, in press; Hewstone, 2009).
In our increasingly “virtual” world, direct contact can include contact via the Internet. For example, Yablon and Katz (2001) showed that Internet-based contact between Jewish and Arab students in Israel was sufficient to im- prove Jewish participants’ attitudes toward Arabs.
In a study building on the role of intergroup ideologies discussed above, parasocial contact in the form of positive media portrayals of intergroup relations was shown to lead to improved outgroup attitudes and orientations, particu- larly when people do not have many opportunities for direct contact or when it is not desirable (Schiappa, Gregg, & Hewes, 2005).
Extended contact (Turner, Hewstone, Voci, & Vono- fakou, 2008; Wright, Aron, & Brody, 2008; Wright, Aron,
McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997) refers to the knowledge that an individual has of an ingroup member’s direct con- tact with outgroup members (for a review, see Dovidio, Eller, & Hewstone, 2011). Wright et al. (1997) showed that people who have extended contact report less outgroup prejudice than those who do not, even after controlling for their own direct contact. Although Wright et al. focused on the impact of knowing an ingroup member with an out- group friend, subsequent research has shown that even in the postconflict setting of Northern Ireland, knowledge of less intimate cross-group relationships between Catholics and Protestants (e.g., work colleagues, neighbors) can also be effective in promoting more positive outgroup orienta- tions, especially when those relationships are perceived as close (Tausch, Hewstone, Schmid, Hughes, & Cairns, 2011).
In two other studies (one with students and one with a representative sample of adults), Paolini et al. (2004) found that extended cross-group friendship (controlling for direct cross-group friendships) was associated with lower levels of outgroup prejudice, a relationship that was fully medi- ated by reduced intergroup anxiety. Christ et al. (2010, Study 2) increased confidence in the effect, both by con- ducting a longitudinal study (using Catholic and Protestant adults) and by linking extended contact and intentions to help an outgroup member from the other community. Ex- tended contact at the first wave of measurement increased the likelihood that participants would be inclined to help outgroup members one year later, and this effect of ex- tended contact was amplified for participants who had little experience of direct contact with outgroup members. In testing the possible mechanisms underlying the extended contact effect, Turner et al. (2008) highlighted the mediat- ing role of group norms, especially ingroup norms, in explaining why extended contact had positive prejudice- reducing and prosocial effects.
While extended contact has great value in promoting intergroup harmony, an even more minimalist type of con- tact, imagined contact (Crisp & Turner, 2009), has been proposed (for skeptical views, see Bigler & Hughes, 2010; Honeycutt, 2010). Proponents of imagined contact argue that actual contact experiences may not be necessary to improve intergroup attitudes. Turner, Crisp, and Lambert (2007) showed that simply imagining a conversation with an outgroup member resulted in participants having signif- icantly lower levels of prejudice than those who had not imagined such contact. Despite these robust findings (for a review, see Crisp, Husnu, Meleady, Stathi, & Turner, 2010), we do not suggest that simply imagining good relations will lead to a miraculous improvement in fraught intergroup relations, particularly when there is a history of violence. By the same token, direct, face-to face contact is no simple cure for prejudice either. The road to harmonious intergroup relations is a long, winding, and rocky one, and there is scope for the various types of intergroup contact that we have discussed to be sequenced to reduce prejudice in different conflict situations in a manner that is nonthreat- ening, viable, and enduring. For example, in a highly fraught intergroup context, an intervention could begin
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
534 October 2013 ! American Psychologist
with imagined contact, then introduce extended contact, and finally move to face-to-face encounters between mem- bers of opposing groups.
Violent Conflict Resolution Beyond Prejudice Reduction Cessation of conflict is the first step on the path to sustainable peace. However, feelings of hostility and collective memories can evoke intense emotional reac- tions long after the end of conflict, even in subsequent generations that were not directly involved in the con- flict, because of the strength of identification with one’s ingroup. As Wagner and Hewstone (2012) have argued, there are often attempts to reconcile enemy groups in postconflict periods that draw on contact theory. Having shown when and how intergroup contact can reduce prejudice, we devote this section to outlining some of the powerful effects of intergroup contact on a range of other variables that have particular value in promoting intergroup reconciliation in postconflict situations. In particular, we consider the effects of intergroup contact on readiness to reconcile and on feelings of trust, for- giveness, and empathy. We catalog the findings— briefly, given space constraints— on the basis of some zones of violent conflict around the world in an effort to develop a view of the true value of intergroup contact in places that have been devastated by violent conflict. Dixon, Durrheim, and Tredoux (2005) argued, in this journal, that contact researchers have barricaded them- selves from the reality within which everyday contact occurs by studying contact under optimal conditions. They cautioned against the danger of the “utopianism” (p. 700) of contact research studied under such rarefied circumstances. Yet, as the studies below show, contact researchers have long sought to provide evidence of the value of contact in an array of challenging real-world contexts.
Reconciliation occurs when members of previously hostile groups come to mutual acceptance (E. Staub, Pearl- man, Gubin, & Hagengimana, 2005) and experience a changed orientation toward one another. It is a state in which people can move beyond seeing one another through the lens of victimhood and perpetration. This process may involve trust, empathy, and forgiveness toward the out- group. Trust can be seen as a psychological means to overcome uncertainty by making benign assumptions about other people’s behavior (Kollock, 1994), and it can be very broadly defined as a positive bias in the processing of imperfect information (Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994). Intergroup trust involves repeated intergroup interactions and is, moreover, associated with a more inclusive sense of ingroup identity (e.g., categorizing ingroup and outgroup as similar at the superordinate level), and a higher readiness to resolve conflict through compromise (Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000; Maoz & Ellis, 2008). Intergroup forgiveness, on the other hand, involves relinquishing negative feelings toward transgressors and allows both parties to transcend their shared conflicted history. Forgiving requires letting go of
pain and anger, cancelling the debt, and moving away from identifying oneself exclusively as a victim (E. Staub et al., 2005).
Northern Ireland Positive intergroup contact has been shown to be associated with reduced prejudice between Catholic and Protestant adults (Tausch, Tam, et al., 2007), thus demonstrating that intergroup contact can play a powerful role in reducing animosity and promoting goodwill, even in places with embittered histories. Further, a range of studies have shown that Catholic and Protestant participants (including stu- dents at mixed universities and adult members of the gen- eral population) who have had more and a higher quality of intergroup contact with the outgroup were more willing to forgive (Tam et al., 2007) and trust (Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, & Niens, 2006; Tam, Hewstone, Ken- worthy, & Cairns, 2009) the outgroup, had reduced anger (Tam et al., 2007), held more positive outgroup attitudes (Hewstone et al., 2006; Tam et al., 2007) toward the outgroup, and were more willing to take the perspective of the outgroup (Hewstone et al., 2006). Outgroup trust was shown to mediate the relationship between intergroup con- tact and willingness for intergroup interactions and avoidant or hostile action tendencies (Tam et al., 2009), such that those who had more intergroup contact were more trusting of the outgroup, which was associated with greater willingness for intergroup interactions and reduced avoidant or hostile action tendencies. Research in Northern Ireland has also found positive effects of extended contact on intergroup trust (Tam et al., 2009; Tausch et al., 2011).
Israel In their study of a peace program (involving intergroup contact) between Israeli-Jewish and Palestinian high school students, Biton and Salomon (2006) found that both Israeli and Palestinian participants became more positive about peace following their program participation compared with participants who did not take part in such a program.
Similarly, in a study using adult Israeli Jews, Maoz and Ellis (2008) found that participants who reported hav- ing taken part in structured contact interventions with Is- raeli Palestinians were more willing to support integrative compromise solutions than were participants who had not taken part is such interventions and that the effect was mediated by increased outgroup trust.
Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia In two surveys conducted in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Cro- atia between 2000 and 2002, Biro et al. (2004) reported that participants who had experiences of positive intergroup contact prior to violent conflict expressed readiness for reconciliation after the war, while those participants who had experiences of negative contact expressed reduced readiness for reconciliation. This finding highlights the need for efforts to promote intergroup contact in a way that acknowledges and attempts to overcome the occurrence of prior negative contact experiences (Paolini, Harwood, & Rubin, 2010).
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
535October 2013 ! American Psychologist
Focusing on the conflict in Bosnia, Cehajic, Brown, and Castano (2008) asked a sample of Bosnian Muslim university and high school students to report their readiness to forgive the misdeeds committed by Bosnian Serbs dur- ing the 1992–1995 war. The results showed that positive contact with Bosnian Serbs was associated with forgive- ness, and this was mediated, in part, by empathy and trust toward the Bosnian Serbs.
Rwanda Paluck (2009) conducted a field experiment in Rwanda in which community members were randomly assigned to either a control group that listened to a radio program unrelated to intergroup contact or to an experimental con- dition in which they listened to a radio soap opera in which the Hutu and Tutsi characters experienced positive inter- group contact. Compared with control group participants, participants in the experimental group (who were exposed to a form of positive parasocial contact) believed that current social norms were more supportive of intergroup integration and were also more trusting of the outgroup and more willing to cooperate with them, even though the participants did not show a change in their personal beliefs with regard to the program’s message about prejudice, violence, and trauma.
Another field study was carried out by Rimé, Kanyan- gara, Yzerbyt, and Paez (2011) which based on the truth and reconciliation Gacaca trials in Rwanda. In these trials, Hutu and Tutsi community members came together to speak about the atrocities that they and their families ex- perienced, and also the crimes that they or their group may have committed against others, and thus these trials repre- sent an instance of structured intergroup contact. The au- thors collected data from victims of violence and prisoners accused of genocide, both before and after their participa- tion in the trials, and also from victims and prisoners who lived in areas where no such trials had taken place (and who thus formed a control group). The results of this form of contact, via participation in the trials, included reduced ethnic (Hutu and Tutsi) identification, increased perception that the outgroup was made up of differentiated individu- als, and an enhancement of positive stereotypes about the outgroup. Further, victims participating in the trials tended to experience antagonist emotions suggesting empower- ment, while perpetrators experienced negative emotions such as shame, which the authors argued was likely to lead to a greater sense of self-acceptance and internalization of social control.
Sri Lanka Highlighting the role of empathy in resolving conflict and reconciling previously warring groups, Malhotra and Li- yanage (2005) assessed the perceptions of Tamil and Sin- halese participants one year after a peace workshop in Sri Lanka in which they engaged in intergroup contact (among other things). Participants showed greater empathy for their respective outgroups and were willing to spend more money supporting disadvantaged children from the out- group, compared with control group participants.
In concluding this section, we consider the implica- tions and importance of intergroup contact between those who seek to bring about reconciliation and those embroiled in it. Writing about military interventions in Iraq and Af- ghanistan, Rory Stewart, a former officer of the British army and diplomatic service, argued that the fundamental problem in the way that the international community for- mulates postconflict strategy lies in foreign experts’ isola- tion from the culture around them, which means that they operate often ignorant of the winds of change in local sentiments and politics (Stewart, 2011). Without such an ear to the ground, which only contact with locals can provide, the international community is likely to find itself reacting to conflict rather than seeking to prevent and preempt reignition of former hostilities. Thus intergroup contact plays an absolutely essential and unique role in preempting and resolving conflict.
Application of Intergroup Contact in Conflict Resolution Interventions As articulated by Tausch et al. (2006), contact interventions that aim at conflict resolution should embody certain crit- ical characteristics. First of all, they should, as far as possible, embody Allport’s (1954) conditions for optimal contact, such as equal status, cooperative interactions to- ward a common goal, and institutional support. They should involve participants who are sufficiently typical of their group (Wilder, 1984), and contact should be of a personalized nature, allowing participants to get to know one another as individuals (Brewer & Miller, 1984). For lasting results, contact should be repeated and prolonged (Wilder & Thompson, 1980). An explicit link should be made between the interaction partner and his or her out- group so that generalization of the positive contact effect can spread to the outgroup as a whole (Brown & Hewstone, 2005), provided that such group salience does not prove to be threatening for participants. Given the extensive knowl- edge that now exists on the mediators of the contact effect, the intervention will be most effective if it targets the main psychological processes behind the beneficial effects of contact.
Wagner and Hewstone (2012) argued that the school context provides a particularly safe and valuable setting within which to carry out specially designed intergroup contact programs, because, at least in desegregated sys- tems, schools readily allow for the creation of Allport’s (1954) various conditions of optimal contact. However, as we have seen, there have also been examples of programs outside the school context, in specially created camps (Al Ramiah & Hewstone, 2012), over the air waves (Paluck, 2009), or involving carefully facilitated tribunals (Rimé et al., 2011), which show that interventions need not be restricted to schools. As long as the research setting pro- vides the opportunity for the critical factors described above to be met, and provided that some other important features of the setup are attended to, such as having a balanced majority–minority ratio (Hallinan & Smith, 1985), contact interventions can be successful across a
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
536 October 2013 ! American Psychologist
range of settings, making them an exceptionally powerful means to resolve conflict.
Conflict Prevention While reducing prejudice and resolving conflict are impor- tant outcomes of positive intergroup contact, given the human and economic cost of conflict, we should also focus on preventing violent conflict. The intergroup contact lit- erature does not, however, provide many clear examples of conflict prevention, because researchers have tended to focus on studying situations of conflict rather than peace.
However, our review of the literature thus far has shown us that it is difficult to draw too fine a line between conflict reduction, resolution, and prevention. For example, take the case of intergroup friendship. If such friendships retain group salience, then this appears to be the best way to optimize intergroup contact to reduce prejudice (Hew- stone, 2009), and it stands to reason that having such friendships can lead people to find ways to attenuate or prevent conflict with the outgroup. In this section, we focus on how intergroup contact (in the form of civic engage- ment) helps prevent violent conflict, from the perspective of social norms and intergroup ideologies.
An instructive study showing that contact can prevent violence between ethnic groups analyzed Hindu–Muslim relations in India. Varshney (2002) reported that interethnic social networks such as business associations, professional organizations, and clubs, as well as everyday interactions, promote peace and understanding between the groups in the face of attempts by political parties to underscore differences and inequalities and polarize the two groups. Varshney found that peaceful cities tended to have more networks of civic life that cut across the two groups than did riot-prone cities, thus representing real-world instances of the beneficial effects of cross-cutting identities (Crisp, 2010). This study demonstrates how instances of inter- group contact in daily life (as took place in these networks) create situations in which intergroup violence becomes unlikely. We acknowledge that prior positive attitudes may have increased the likelihood of the formation of such interethnic organizations, but even so, contact is likely to play an important role in sustaining positive interethnic attitudes. This study also emphasizes the need to study situations of peace alongside those of conflict in order to gain insight into how harmony might be achieved. While Varshney did not explicitly study the difference in social norms in peaceful and riot-prone cities, the existence of many interethnic civic institutions in the peaceful cities is likely to have given rise to norms that proscribed violence.
Kelman (2008) described the effects of an intergroup contact program in Israel that improved intergroup attitudes and held the possibility of changing social norms and ideologies. Kelman organized a series of workshops in- volving intergroup contact of the optimal kind described by Allport (1954) between Israeli and Palestinian participants. Various Israeli and Palestinian political and social repre- sentatives also attended these workshops. Kelman argued that including these officials enabled the workshops to have
a clear stamp of institutional support and also gave officials the opportunity to see the effects of intergroup contact at work, which it was hoped would, over time, have an influence on prevailing ideologies (thus the workshops involved both direct and extended contact).
Examining the relationship between intergroup con- tact and perceived social norms goes back to the seminal work of Deutsch and Collins (1951) on integrated versus segregated housing projects in the United States. These authors found that Whites living in mixed rather than segregated housing projects had more positive attitudes toward contact with Blacks. Whites living in mixed hous- ing projects believed that there was societal and institu- tional support for intergroup interactions, while Whites living in segregated housing believed that interacting with Blacks would be met with disapproval. Given that people are bound by the social currents of their time, intergroup contact, or indeed just the opportunity for such contact, can play a pivotal role in framing how people see the intergroup situation and in shaping their reactions to the outgroup. By setting up mixed housing and schooling, governments send a strong signal to people that they endorse cross-group mixing (for a good recent example, see the promotion of integrated housing developments in Northern Ireland, http://www.nihe.gov.uk/index/yn_home/community_cohesion/ shared_future_housing.htm). In such settings, people are likely to integrate with one another, thus, partially at least, staving off intergroup conflict. We reiterate, however, that opportunity for contact (e.g., bringing members from different groups into proximity with one another) does not reflect actual intergroup contact, and it is contact rather than mere proximity that prevents and resolves conflict. However, polit- ical and structural forces that restrict opportunities for contact, or that passively allow segregation to occur in neighborhoods and schools, create highly negative social norms toward inte- gration along with a range of other social ills (Massey & Denton, 1993). Future research on contact must study it within contexts of peace, as well as those of conflict, in order for us to develop an understanding of the factors that create and maintain peace and the factors that may trigger conflict. Chris- tie and Montiel (2013, this issue) review research based on studying positive examples of conflict prevention in so-called “pockets of civility,” such as when certain communities man- age to maintain peace even when surrounded by violent con- flict.
Contact and Its Possible Unintended Consequences While intergroup contact can improve intergroup relations, it is also possible that policies focused on promoting pos- itive intergroup contact can result in the deferral of struc- tural change; this is likely to happen when the policies focus on encouraging people from different groups to get to know and like one another (Dixon et al., 2005) rather than on engaging in the kind of collective action (particularly of a nonnormative nature) that can result in changes to the social hierarchy (Wright & Lubensky, 2008).
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
537October 2013 ! American Psychologist
Rubin and Lannutti (2001) argued that in the case of groups with a history of inequality, intergroup contact that produces positive intergroup affect might give participants a false sense of conflict resolution and delude them into thinking that the underlying sociopolitical conflict is per- haps overblown. Positive interpersonal affect toward par- ticular outgroup members may also make it harder for negotiators to argue successfully for their group’s interests.
However, contact need not necessarily have this system- entrenching effect if applied intelligently. Mallett, Huntsinger, Sinclair, and Swim (2008) found that when higher status members take the perspective of disadvantaged group mem- bers, they are more likely to support the disadvantaged group members’ efforts toward social change. Further, Saguy, Tausch, Dovidio, and Pratto (2009) found that raising ma- jority group members’ awareness of historical injustices and present-day inequalities can make them more willing to discuss intergroup disparities during intergroup contact en- counters. Thus, raising awareness of the intergroup situa- tion from the perspective of the outgroup can prevent intergroup contact from becoming a tool of status mainte- nance. Critically, contact interventions should attempt to raise awareness of issues facing the outgroup, and this might include greater acknowledgement of perceived outgroup variability (e.g., the range of opinions within the outgroup) for members of both majority and minority groups. Group salience plays a critical role here, because contact interventions should provide people from differ- ent groups the opportunity to see that they have things in common with the outgroup, but also differences (Hew- stone & Brown, 1986), and they should not feel (partic- ularly if they are minority group members) that they need to get along with the majority group and ignore important differences and historical inequalities. Thus, contact situations should occur in a safe and frank en- vironment that allows each group to take the perspective of the outgroup and feel empowered to be agents of change.
Conclusions and Future Directions We do not argue that intergroup contact is a panacea that will set right all ills. However, the best evidence is that contact does not generally worsen intergroup relations, and its overall effect, across hundreds of studies, is to improve them (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Intergroup contact re- search has developed to such an extent that we have a very clear understanding of when and how it works. We know, for example, that in order to be maximally effective, con- tact effects must generalize beyond the individual outgroup contact partner and that this requires group salience and perceived typicality of the contact partner. Contact effects also generalize from one contact situation to another, and across other outgroups, thus having far-reaching positive multiplier effects. We have shown how various features of the intergroup context play a pivotal moderating role in determining the effectiveness of contact, including group status, individual levels of prejudice, prior levels of con- tact, and intergroup ideologies. A wealth of research has
also unearthed a range of mediators by which contact exerts its effects, including intergroup anxiety, empathy, knowl- edge, and perceived threats. We have reviewed research that has moved beyond face-to-face contact and considered the effectiveness of other types of contact, such as contact via the Internet, parasocial contact, extended contact, and imagined contact, each of which may have unique value in promoting peace and reconciliation in highly fraught inter- group contexts. Thus, the vast literature on the moderators, mediators, and types of contact provides practical guidance on how to most effectively employ intergroup contact in policy planning and interventions intended to resolve and prevent violent conflict.
In considering the role of contact in violent conflict resolution, we focused our attention on four conflict zones, Northern Ireland, Israel, Rwanda, and Sri Lanka, and showed how contact has been effective at increasing read- iness to reconcile and promoting feelings of trust, forgive- ness, and empathy. We also considered the small body of research in which contact has been used as a conflict prevention strategy while being careful to emphasize that, given the dynamic nature of intergroup relations, it is at times difficult to distinguish clearly between conflict re- duction, resolution, and prevention. Finally, we explored some possible unintended consequences of contact, such as ignoring meaningful group differences and structural inter- group disparities and discouraging group members from engaging in collective action aimed at social change. While these are real dangers that we must acknowledge and guard against, we argue that agency and intergroup contact need not be mutually exclusive and that a nuanced and sensitive use of intergroup contact, based on the vast body of em- pirical research, can improve intergroup relations while preserving collective agency. Intergroup contact must, however, as Tausch et al. (2006) noted, be part of a more radical approach that includes changes in policy that have an effect on the objective and long-standing underpinnings of intergroup conflict.
In order for countries to have ideologies and policies that promote integration and peace, intergroup actors need to come to the bargaining table to represent the unique and diverse needs and perspectives of their communities. Just as Varshney’s (2002) study in India and Stewart’s (2011) account of interventions in Afghanistan showed, peace requires contact, whether that contact is between political elites from different groups, between the political elite from one group and members of the public from another, or between lay people from different groups. Thus, in a “con- flict reduction, resolution, and prevention toolbox” that includes military interventions, peace-keeping missions, and humanitarian aid, intergroup contact interventions are a cost-effective, efficacious, and versatile instrument, and one that we believe can pave the way for the improvement of intergroup relations and the design of successful public policy. This can be done as part of the postwar rebuilding of societies fractured by conflict or as a preemptive mea- sure when intergroup relations are fraying (as might be detected by “early warning” systems of conflict monitor-
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
538 October 2013 ! American Psychologist
ing) or simply when there is the potential for intergroup conflict (see I. Staub, 2011).
REFERENCES
Alexander, L., & Tredoux, C. G. (2010). The spaces between us: A spatial analysis of informal segregation at a South African university. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 367–386. doi:wiley.com/10.1111/j.1540-4
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addi- son-Wesley.
Al Ramiah, A., & Hewstone, M. (2012). “Rallying around the flag”: Can an intergroup contact intervention promote national unity? British Jour- nal of Social Psychology, 51, 239 –256. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011 .02041.x
Al Ramiah, A., & Hewstone, M. (in press). Discrimination: Conditions, consequences and ‘cures’. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Al Ramiah, A., Hewstone, M., Little, T., & Lang, K. M. (in press). The influence of status on the relationship between intergroup contact, threat, and prejudice in the context of a nation-building intervention in Malaysia. Journal of Conflict Resolution.
Al Ramiah, A., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., Cairns, E., & Hughes, J. (2013). It’s never too late for ‘us’ to meet ‘them’: Prior intergroup contact moderates the impact of later intergroup contact in educational settings. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 57–75. doi:10.1111/j .2044-8279.2011.02054.x
Altmeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396 – 403. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x
Bigler, R. S., & Hughes, J. M. (2010). Reasons for skepticism about the efficacy of simulated contact interventions. American Psychologist, 65, 132–133. doi:10.1037/a0018097
Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., . . . Leyens, J. P. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 96, 843– 856. doi:10.1037/a0013470
Biro, M., Ajdukovic, D., Corkalo, D., Djipa, D., Milin, P., & Weinstein, H. M. (2004). Attitudes toward justice and social reconstruction in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. In E. Stover & H. M. Weinstein (Eds.), My neighbour, my enemy (pp. 183–205). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511720352.013
Biton, Y., & Salomon, G. (2006). Peace in the eyes of Israeli and Palestinian youths: Effects of collective narratives and peace education program. Journal of Peace Research, 43, 167–180. doi:10.1177/ 0022343306061888
Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281– 302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1988). Contact and cooperation: When do they work? In P. Katz & D. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Means and controversies (pp. 315–326). New York, NY: Plenum.
Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255–343. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5
Cairns, E., & Darby, J. (1998). The conflict in Northern Ireland: Causes, consequences and controls. American Psychologist, 53, 754 –760. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.7.754
Cehajic, S., Brown, R., & Castano, E. (2008). Forgive and forget? Ante- cedents and consequences of intergroup forgiveness in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Political Psychology, 29, 351–367. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9221.2008.00634.x
Christ, O., Hewstone, M., Tausch, N., Wagner, U., Voci, A., Hughes, J., & Cairns, E. (2010). Direct contact as a moderator of extended contact effects: Cross-sectional and longitudinal impact on outgroup attitudes,
behavioral intentions, and attitude certainty. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1662–1674. doi:10.1177/0146167210386969
Christie, D. J., & Montiel, C. J. (2013). Contributions of psychology to war and peace. American Psychologist, 68, 502–513. doi:10.1037/ a0032875
Collier, P. (2009). Wars, guns, and votes: Democracy in dangerous places. London, England: Bodley Head.
Coser, L. (1967). Continuities in the study of social conflict. New York, NY: Free Press.
Crisp, R. (2010). Prejudice and perceiving multiple identities. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The Sage handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 508 –525). London, England: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446200919.n31
Crisp, R. J., Husnu, S., Meleady, R., Stathi, S., & Turner, R. N. (2010). From imagery to intention: A dual route model of imagined contact effects. European Review of Social Psychology, 21, 188 –236. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2010.543312
Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions? Reducing prejudice through simulated social con- tact. American Psychologist, 64, 231–240. doi:10.1037/a0014718
Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-ana- lytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 332–351. doi:10.1177/1088868311411103
Des Forges, A. (1999). Leave none to tell the story: Genocide in Rwanda. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch and International Federation of Human Rights.
Deutsch, M., & Collins, M. (1951). Interracial housing: A psychological evaluation of a social experiment. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Dhont, K., & Van Hiel, A. (2009). We must not be enemies: Interracial contact and the reduction of prejudice among authoritarians. Personal- ity and Individual Differences, 46, 172–177. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008 .09.022
Dixon, J., & Durrheim, K. (2003). Contact and the ecology of racial division: Some varieties of informal segregation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 1–23. doi:10.1348/014466603763276090
Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 697–711. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.697
Dovidio, J. F., Eller, A., & Hewstone, M. (2011). Editorial: Improving intergroup relations through direct, extended and other forms of indirect contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 147–160. doi: 10.1177/1368430210390555
Eller, A., & Abrams, D. (2003). “Gringos” in Mexico: Longitudinal effects of language school-promoted contact on intergroup bias. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 55–75. doi:10.1177/ 1368430203006001012
Fearon, J. D., & Laitin, D. (2000). Violence and the social construction of ethnic identity. International Organization, 54, 845– 877. doi:10.1162/ 002081800551398
Fisher, R. J. (1994). Generic principles for resolving intergroup conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 47– 66. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994 .tb02397.x
Fiske, S. (2010). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Forbes, H. D. (1997). Ethnic conflict: Commerce, culture, and the contact hypothesis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Green, D. P., & Seher, R. L. (2003). What role does prejudice play in ethnic conflict? Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 509 –531. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085642
Green, D. P., Stolovitch, D. Z., & Wong, J. S. (1998). Defended neigh- borhoods, integration, and racial motivated crime. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 372– 403. doi:10.1086/210042
Hallinan, M. T., & Smith, S. S. (1985). The effects of classroom racial composition on students’ interracial friendliness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 3–16. doi:10.2307/3033777
Hamilton, D. L., & Bishop, G. D. (1976). Attitudinal and behavioral effects of initial integration of White suburban neighborhoods. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 47– 67. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1976.tb02494.x
Harwood, J., Hewstone, M., Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Tausch, N. (in press). Intergroup contact: An integration of social psychological and
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
539October 2013 ! American Psychologist
communication perspectives. In C. Salomon (Ed.), Communication yearbook. London, England: Routledge.
Henry, P. J. (2010). Institutional bias. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The Sage handbook of prejudice, stereo- typing and discrimination (pp. 426 – 440). London, England: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446200919.n26
Hewstone, M. (1996). Contact and categorization: Social psychological interventions to change intergroup relations. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 323–357). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hewstone, M. (2009). Living apart, living together? The role of intergroup contact in social integration. Proceedings of the British Academy, 162, 243–300. doi:10.5871/bacad/9780197264584.001.0001
Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the ‘contact hypothesis.’ In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1– 44). Ox- ford, England: Blackwell.
Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Voci, A., Hamberger, J., & Niens, U. (2006). Intergroup contact, forgiveness, and experience of ‘The Troubles’ in Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 99 –120. doi:10.1111/j .1540-4560.2006.00441.x
Hewstone, M., Judd, C. M., & Sharp, M. (2011). Do observer ratings validate self-reports of intergroup contact? A round-robin analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 599 – 609. doi:10.1016/ j.jesp.2010.12.014
Hewstone, M., Tausch, N., Voci, A., Kenworthy, J., Hughes, J., & Cairns, E. (2008). Why neighbours kill: Prior intergroup contact and killing of ethnic out-group neighbours. In V. Esses & R. Vernon (Eds.), Explain- ing the breakdown of ethnic relations: Why neighbors kill (pp. 61–91). Montreal, Canada: McGill University Press. doi:10.1002/ 9781444303056.ch4
Hildyard, N. (1999). “Blood” and “culture” - Ethnic conflict and the authoritarian right [CornerHouse Briefing No. 11]. Sturminster Newton, Dorset, England: CornerHouse. Retrieved from http://www.stelling .nl/wto/maicamp/cornerhouse.html
Hodson, G. (2008). Interracial prison contact: The pros for (socially dominant) cons. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 325–351. doi:10.1348/014466607X231109
Hodson, G., Harry, H., & Mitchell, A. (2009). Independent benefits of contact and friendship on attitudes toward homosexuals among author- itarians and highly identified heterosexuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 509 –525. doi:10.1002/ejsp.558
Honeycutt, J. M. (2010). Imagined interactions. American Psychologist, 65, 129 –130. doi:10.1037/a0018052
Horowitz, D. L. (1985). Ethnic groups in conflict. Berkeley, CA: Univer- sity of California Press.
Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived outgroup variability, and outgroup attitude: An integrative model. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 64, 936 –950. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.936
Kellow, C. L., & Steeves, H. L. (1998). The role of radio in the Rwandan genocide. Journal of Communication, 48, 107–128. doi:10.1111/j .1460-2466.1998.tb02762.x
Kelman, H. C. (2008). Bridging individual and social change in interna- tional conflict. In U. Wagner, L. R. Tropp, G. Finchilescu & C. Tredoux (Eds.), Improving intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew (pp. 244 –261). Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444303117.ch16
Kollock, P. (1994). The emergence of exchange structures: An experi- mental study of uncertainty, commitment, and trust. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 313–345. doi:10.1086/230539
Lancee, B., & Dronkers, J. (2010). Ethnic diversity in the neighborhood and social trust of immigrants and natives: A replication of Putnam (2007) in a West-European country. In M. Hooghe (Ed.), Social cohe- sion: Contemporary theoretical perspectives on the study of social cohesion and social capital (pp. 77–103). Brussels, Belgium: Royal Academy of Belgium.
Levin, S., Van Laar, C., & Sidanius, J. (2003). The effects of ingroup and outgroup friendships on ethnic attitudes in college: A longitudinal study. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 76 –92. doi:10.1177/ 1368430203006001013
Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W. G. K., Freund, A. M., Oberauer, K., & Krueger, J. I. (2013). Misinformation, disinformation, and violent con- flict: From Iraq and the “War on Terror” to future threats to peace. American Psychologist, 68, 487–501. doi:10.1037/a0034515
Lewicki, R. J., & Wiethoff, C. (2000). Trust, trust development, and trust repair. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), Handbook of conflict resolution (pp. 86 –107). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lolliot, S., Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., Al Ramiah, A., Tausch, N., & Swart, H. (2012). Generalized effects of intergroup contact: The sec- ondary transfer effect. In G. Hodson & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Advances in intergroup contact (pp. 81–112). London, UK: Psychology Press.
MacFarquar, N. (2008, July 13). Why Darfur still bleeds. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/weekinreview/ 13macfarquhar.html?pagewanted!all
Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 602– 616. doi:10.1037/ 0022-3514.79.4.602
Malhotra, D., & Liyanage, S. (2005). Long-term effects of peace work- shops in protracted conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49, 908 – 924. doi:10.1177/0022002705281153
Mallett, R., Huntsinger, J. R., Sinclair, S., & Swim, J. (2008). Seeing through their eyes: When majority group members take collective action on behalf of an outgroup. Group Processes & Intergroup Rela- tions, 11, 451– 470. doi:10.1177/1368430208095400
Maoz, I. (2003). Peace-building with the hawks: Attitude change of Jewish-Israeli hawks and doves following dialogue encounters with Palestinians. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 701– 714. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2003.08.004
Maoz, I., & Ellis, D. G. (2008). Intergroup communication as a predictor of Jewish-Israeli agreement with integrative solutions to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict: The mediating effects of out-group trust and guilt. Journal of Communication, 58, 490 –507. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466 .2008.00396.x
Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McGreal, C. (2008, January 23). War in Congo kills 45,000 people each month. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/ world/2008/jan/23/congo.international
Mendoza-Denton, R., Downey, G., Purdie, V. J., Davis, A., & Pietrzak, J. (2002). Sensitivity to status-based rejection: Implications for African American students’ college experience. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 83, 896 –918. doi:10.1037/0022-3514 .83.4.896
Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). With a little help from my cross-group friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup con- texts through cross-group friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1080 –1094. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1080
Paluck, E. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 574 –587. doi:10.1037/a0011989
Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A critical look at evidence from the field and the laboratory. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339 –367. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60 .110707.163607
Paolini, S., Harwood, J., & Rubin, M. (2010). Negative intergroup contact makes group memberships salient: Explaining why intergroup conflict endures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1723–1738. doi:10.1177/0146167210388667
Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. (2004). Effects of direct and indirect cross-group friendships on judgments of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediating role of an anxiety- reduction mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 770 –786. doi:10.1177/0146167203262848
Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., Harwood, J., & Cairns, E. (2006). Intergroup contact and the promotion of intergroup harmony: The influence of intergroup emotions. In R. Brown & D. Capozza (Eds.), Social identities: Motivational, emotional, and cultural influences (pp. 209 –238). Hove, East Sussex, England: Psychology Press.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
540 October 2013 ! American Psychologist
Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on preju- dice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 173–185. doi: 10.1177/0146167297232006
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65– 85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65
Pettigrew, T. F. (2009). Secondary transfer effect of contact: Do inter- group contact effects spread to noncontacted outgroups? Social Psy- chology, 40, 55– 65. doi:10.1027/1864-9335.40.2.55
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934. doi:10.1002/ejsp.504
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (2001). Responses to other-imposed pro- Black pressure: Acceptance or backlash? Journal of Experimental So- cial Psychology, 37, 486 –501. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1478
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67, 741–763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
Prunier, G. (1995). The Rwanda crisis 1959 –1994: History of a genocide. London, England: Hurst.
Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandina- vian Political Studies, 30, 137–174. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007 .00176.x
Rimé, B., Kanyangara, P., Yzerbyt, V., & Paez, D. (2011). The impact of Gacaca tribunals in Rwanda: Psychosocial effects of participation in a truth and reconciliation process after a genocide. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 695–706. doi:10.1002/ejsp.822
Rubin, D. L., & Lannutti, P. J. (2001). Frameworks for assessing contact as a tool for reducing prejudice. In V. H. Milhouse, M. K. Asante, & P. O. Nwosu (Eds.), Transcultural realities: Interdisciplinary perspec- tives on cross-cultural relations (pp. 313–326). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equal- ity. Psychological Science, 20, 114 –121. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280 .2008.02261.x
Schiappa, E., Gregg, P., & Hewes, D. (2005). The parasocial contact hypothesis. Communication Monographs, 72, 92–115. doi:10.1080/ 0363775052000342544
Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., Küpper, B., Zick, A., & Wagner, U. (2012). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: A cross- national comparison in Europe. Social Psychology Quarterly, 75, 28 – 51. doi:10.1177/0190272511430235
Seligman, M. E. P., & Fowler, R. D. (2011). Comprehensive Soldier Fitness and the future of psychology. American Psychologist, 66, 82– 86. doi:10.1037/a0021898
Staub, E., Pearlman, L. A., Gubin, A., & Hagengimana, A. (2005). Healing, reconciliation, forgiving and the prevention of violence after genocide or mass killing: An intervention and its experimental evalu- ation in Rwanda. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 297– 334. doi:10.1521/jscp.24.3.297.65617
Staub, I. (2011). Overcoming evil: Genocide, violent conflict, and terror- ism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Stephan, W. G. (1987). The contact hypothesis in intergroup relations. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group processes and intergroup relations: Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 13– 40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stephan, W. G., Diaz-Loving, R., & Duran, A. (2000). Integrated threat theory and intercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United States. Jour- nal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 240 –249. doi:10.1177/ 0022022100031002006
Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, C. L. (2003). The role of threats in intergroup relations. In D. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions (pp. 191–208). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–175. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01134.x
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23– 45). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2001). Improving intergroup relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stephan, W., Ybarra, O., & Morrison, K. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 43–59). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stewart, R. (2011, October 8). What can Afghanistan and Bosnia teach us about Libya? The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian .co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/libya-intervention-rory-stewart
Stolle, D., Soroka, S., & Johnston, R. (2008). When does diversity erode trust? Neighbourhood diversity, interpersonal trust, and mediating ef- fect of social interactions. Political Studies, 56, 57–75. doi:10.1111/j .1467-9248.2007.00717.x
Swart, H., Hewstone, M., Christ, O., & Voci, A. (2011). Affective mediators of intergroup contact: A longitudinal analysis in South Af- rica. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1221–1238. doi:10.1037/a0024450
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of inter- group relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Tausch, N., Maio, G., & Kenworthy, J. (2007). The impact of intergroup emotions on forgiveness in North- ern Ireland. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 119 –136. doi:10.1177/1368430207071345
Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J., & Cairns, E. (2009). Intergroup trust in Northern Ireland. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 45–59. doi:10.1177/0146167208325004
Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J., Cairns, E., & Christ, O. (2007). Cross-community contact, perceived status differences, and intergroup attitudes in Northern Ireland: The mediating roles of individual-level vs. group-level threats and the moderating role of social identification. Political Psychology, 28, 53– 68. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007 .00551.x
Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J. B., Psaltis, C., Schmid, K., Popan, J. R., . . . Hughes, J. (2010). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: Alternative accounts and underlying processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 282–302. doi: 10.1037/a0018553
Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., Schmid, K., Hughes, J., & Cairns, E. (2011). Extended contact effects as a function of closeness of relationship with ingroup contacts. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 239 – 254. doi:10.1177/1368430210390534
Tausch, N., Kenworthy, J., & Hewstone, M. (2006). The contribution of intergroup contact to the reduction of intergroup conflict. In M. Fitzduff & C. E. Stout (Eds.), The psychology of global conflicts: From war to peace (Vol. 2, pp. 67–108). New York, NY: Praeger.
Tausch, N., Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J. B., & Cairns, E. (2007). Individual-level and group-level mediators of contact effects in Northern Ireland: The moderating role of social identification. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 541–556. doi:10.1348/ 014466606X155150
Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16, 951–957. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005 .01643.x
Turner, R. N., Crisp, R. J., & Lambert, E. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes & Inter- group Relations, 10, 427– 441. doi:10.1177/1368430207081533
Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., & Vonofakou, C. (2008). A test of the extended intergroup contact hypothesis: The mediating role of perceived ingroup and outgroup norms, intergroup anxiety and inclu- sion of the outgroup in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 843– 860. doi:10.1037/a0011434
Van Zomeren, M., Fischer, A. H., & Spears, R. (2007). Testing the limits of tolerance: How inter-group anxiety amplifies negative and offensive responses to out-group-initiated contact. Personality and Social Psy- chology Bulletin, 33, 1686 –1699. doi:10.1177/0146167207307485
Varshney, A. (2002). Ethnic conflict and civic life: Hindus and Muslims in India. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
541October 2013 ! American Psychologist
Vescio, T. K., Sechrist, G., & Paolucci, M. P. (2003). Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 455– 472. doi:10.1002/ejsp.163
Vorauer, J. D., & Sasaki, S. J. (2011). In the worst rather than the best of times: Effects of salient intergroup ideology in threatening intergroup interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 307– 320. doi:10.1037/a0023152
Wagner, U., & Hewstone, M. (2012). Intergroup contact. In L. R. Tropp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 193–209). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1037/e513292012-001
Wagner, U., Hewstone, M., & Machleit, U. (1989). Contact and prejudice between Germans and Turks: A correlational study. Human Relations, 42, 561–574. doi:10.1177/001872678904200701
Weller, S. C. (1993). A meta-analysis of condom effectiveness in reducing sexually transmitted HIV. Social Science and Medicine, 36, 1635– 1644.
Wells, A. J. (1998). Lung cancer from passive smoking at work. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1025–1029.
Wilder, D. A. (1984). Intergroup contact: The typical member and the exception to the rule. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 177–194. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(84)90019-2
Wilder, D. A., & Thompson, J. E. (1980). Intergroup contact with inde- pendent manipulations on in-group and out-group interaction. Journal of Personality and Social-Psychology, 38, 589 – 603. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.38.4.589
Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Bachelor, J. (2003). Intergroup contact: Effects on group evaluations and perceived variability. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 93–110. doi:10.1177/ 1368430203006001014
Wright, S. C., Aron, A., & Brody, S. M. (2008). Extended contact and including others in the self: Building on the Allport/Pettigrew legacy. In U. Wagner, L. R. Tropp, G. Finchilescu & C. Tredoux (Eds.), Improv- ing intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew (pp. 143–159). Oxford, England: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/ 9781444303117.ch10
Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73
Wright, S. C., & Lubensky, M. (2008). The struggle for social equality: Collective action vs. prejudice reduction. In S. Demoulin, J. P. Leyens & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of di- vergent social realities (pp. 291–310). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Yablon, Y. B., & Katz, Y. J. (2001). Internet-based group relations: A high school peace education project in Israel. Education Media Inter- national, 38, 175–182. doi:10.1080/09523980110043591
Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 129 –166. doi: 10.1007/BF02249397
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
542 October 2013 ! American Psychologist
- Intergroup Contact as a Tool for Reducing, Resolving, and Preventing Intergroup Conflict
- What Is Intergroup Conflict?
- The Prejudice-Reducing Effects of Intergroup Contact
- When Does Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice?
- Generalization of Contact Effects
- From interpersonal contact to attitudes toward the outgroup as a whole
- From intergroup contact in one situation to attitudes toward the outgroup in other situations
- From intergroup contact with a primary outgroup to attitudes toward secondary outgroups outside ...
- Group Status
- Individual Levels of Prejudice and Prior Levels of Contact
- Intergroup Ideologies
- How Does Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice?
- Intergroup anxiety
- Empathy
- Knowledge
- Group-oriented perceived threats
- A Note on Proximity Versus Actual Contact
- Other Types of Contact
- Violent Conflict Resolution Beyond Prejudice Reduction
- Northern Ireland
- Israel
- Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia
- Rwanda
- Sri Lanka
- Application of Intergroup Contact in Conflict Resolution Interventions
- Conflict Prevention
- Contact and Its Possible Unintended Consequences
- Conclusions and Future Directions
- References
