One of the most troubling issues raised by Dixon et al. is that prejudice-reducing interventions such as cross-group contact seem to have a demobilizing effect on members of disadvantaged groups, increasing their acceptance of a biased system and weakening their resolve to act for change. Although the role of cross-group contact in social change is likely to be complex (see Pettigrew Reference Pettigrew2010), understanding the psychological processes involved should be a priority for future work. Hence, a theoretical framework that explains why and how contact reduces collective action is required. This may provide insights into when contact is more or less likely to result in reduced commitment to social change among the disadvantaged.

How does cross-group contact demobilize subordinate groups? One pathway, described by Dixon et al., is through fostering mutual affective bonds (see also Jackman Reference Jackman1994), which can undermine collective action directly, by offsetting adversarial feelings and action tendencies (Tausch et al. Reference Tausch, Saguy, Singh, Bryson and Siddiqui2012), as well as indirectly by making the inequality seem just and not the result of discrimination by the advantaged group (Dixon et al. Reference Dixon, Durrheim, Tredoux, Tropp, Clack and Eaton2010a; Saguy et al. Reference Saguy, Tausch, Dovidio and Pratto2009) But increased positive affect toward the outgroup is unlikely to be the only process involved; more strategic considerations, concerning the benefits of the current system, are also likely to be at play. Research on the effects of exposure to Benevolent Sexism, for example, has shown that it is not so much the positive affect associated with Benevolent Sexism that reduces willingness among women to engage in actions for gender equality, but the perceived advantages of the existing gender system generally as well as personally (Becker & Wright Reference Becker and Wright2011; see also Glick & Fiske Reference Glick and Fiske1996).

This second, important issue is not explicitly discussed by Dixon et al. It is, however, presented by Jackman (Reference Jackman1994) as another strategy employed by dominant groups to maintain the status quo. Specifically, Jackman suggests that the propagation of “individualism” as a social value can promote individualistic (at the expense of collective) strategies among members of subordinate groups, leaving the existing power structure intact. According to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner Reference Tajfel, Turner, Austin and Worchel1979), individualistic strategies are most likely to be favored when group boundaries are viewed as permeable and individual upward mobility seems like a possibility. The social mobility “mind-set” is characterized by attempts to disassociate oneself from one's group, adherence to the outgroup norms (Wright et al. Reference Wright, Taylor and Moghaddam1990), and attempts to display the qualities required for upward mobility (Reicher & Haslam Reference Reicher and Haslam2006). Importantly, it reduces collective action. For example, Wright et al. (Reference Wright, Taylor and Moghaddam1990) demonstrated that when disadvantaged group members believe that even only a select few can move up, their willingness to protest against inequality is dramatically reduced. Moreover, these successful “tokens” sometimes shift their allegiance to the advantaged group and help to maintain the discriminatory system. This is illustrated poignantly by research on the so-called “Queen Bees” who are less supportive of the advancement of other women (Ellemers et al. Reference Ellemers, Van Den Heuvel, De Gilder, Maass and Bonvini2004), particularly when they experience social identity threat (Derks et al. Reference Derks, Van Laar, Ellemers and De Groot2011).

Does positive, equal-status contact foster the belief (or illusion) that the social system is permeable (Reicher Reference Reicher2007), promoting an individual mobility orientation? Initial evidence suggests that it does. For example, Saguy et al. (Reference Saguy, Tausch, Dovidio and Pratto2009) showed that commonality-based contact can create (false) expectations for equal treatment among members of disadvantaged groups. Similarly, among African Americans and Latinos, positive contact with Anglo-Whites was associated with reduced identification with one's group (in line with the dissociation associated with an individual mobility orientation) and increased beliefs that members of one's group could move up (Wright & Lubensky Reference Wright, Lubensky, Demoulin, Leyens and Dovidio2009). Both reduced identification and permeability beliefs partly explained the negative relation between contact and collective action tendencies. Similarly, Tausch et al. (Reference Tausch, Saguy, Singh, Bryson and Siddiqui2012) provided evidence that Latinos' friendship with Anglo-Whites is negatively related to collective action intentions, but positively related to individual mobility intentions. The latter link was mediated by beliefs that one has the ability to get ahead personally. Future research needs to substantiate the causal effect of contact on individual mobility orientations, and more needs to be done to understand how it comes about. Does positive, equal-status contact create a belief that one is not different from the advantaged group and therefore likely to have the same opportunities, or that one is “special” and likely to receive the social support required to move up?

An examination of the mechanisms involved in this demobilization presents the question of how these processes can be counteracted. A central issue seems to be the communication of legitimacy, either indirectly through the creation of positive ties that make the detection of discrimination difficult, or directly by creating the impression that individual advancement is open to everyone. Recent research has highlighted the fundamental role of communication about perceptions of the legitimacy of intergroup inequality during contact. Becker et al. (2012) demonstrated that positive cross-group contact undermines collective action among the disadvantaged only when the advantaged group partners describe their group's advantaged position as legitimate or when they leave their feelings about their group's advantage ambiguous. In contrast, when the partners explicitly described the group inequality as illegitimate, contact did not undermine participation in collective action. Hence, contact with “just” outgroup friends (cf. Nagda & Gurin Reference Nagda and Gurin2006) who communicate their disapproval of the group hierarchy does not have demobilizing effects.

To conclude, the question of why or how contact reduces collective action points to at least two mechanisms; (1) a process whereby the positive affect created offsets the negative emotions and action tendencies required for collective action and makes the inequality seem fair and not the result of discrimination, and (2) a process whereby group boundaries come to be seen as permeable and personal benefits in the form of individual advancement seem like a possibility. Initial work has also addressed the “when” question and suggests that the demobilizing effects of contact can be counteracted through the direct communication of the illegitimacy of the system by members of the advantaged group.