5 results
HOW DOES INTERRACIAL CONTACT AMONG THE U.S.-BORN SHAPE WHITE AND BLACK RECEPTIVITY TOWARD IMMIGRANTS?
- Helen B. Marrow, Linda R. Tropp, Meta van der Linden, Dina G. Okamoto, Michael Jones-Correa
-
- Journal:
- Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race / Volume 16 / Issue 2 / Fall 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 17 December 2019, pp. 385-416
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
A notable increase in immigration into the United States over the past half century, coupled with its recent geographic dispersion into new communities nationwide, has fueled contact among a wider set of individuals and groups than ever before. Past research has helped us understand Whites’ and Blacks’ attitudes toward immigrants and immigration, and even how contact between Blacks and Whites have shaped their attitudes toward one another. Nevertheless, how contact between Blacks and Whites may correspond with attitudes toward immigrants is not as well understood. Drawing on an original representative survey, we examine U.S.-born Whites’ and Blacks’ attitudes toward Mexican and South Asian Indian immigrants within the context of ongoing relations between the former two U.S.-born communities. Informed by research on the secondary transfer effect (STE), we model how the frequency of contact between U.S.-born Whites and Blacks predicts each group’s receptivity toward two differentially positioned immigrant groups, first-generation Mexicans and South Asian Indians. Multivariate analysis indicates that, among Whites, more frequent contact with Blacks is positively associated with greater receptivity toward both immigrant outgroups, even after controlling for Whites’ individual perceptions of threat, their direct contact with the two immigrant groups, and the perceived quality of such contact. Among Blacks, however, we find less consistent evidence that frequent contact with Whites is associated with attitudes toward either immigrant group. While varied literatures across multiple disciplines have suggested that interracial relations among the U.S.-born may be associated with receptivity toward immigrant newcomers, our results uniquely highlight the importance of considering how U.S.-born groups are positioned in relation to immigrants and to each other when examining such effects.
20 - Recent Developments in Intergroup Contact Research: Affective Processes, Group Status, and Contact Valence
- from Part III - Prejudice Reduction and Analysis in Applied Contexts
-
- By Linda R. Tropp, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Agostino Mazziotta, FernUniversität in Hagen, Stephen C. Wright, Simon Fraser University
- Edited by Chris G. Sibley, University of Auckland, Fiona Kate Barlow, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice
- Published online:
- 17 November 2016
- Print publication:
- 31 October 2016, pp 463-480
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
What are the consequences of bringing people from diverse groups together? Does it enhance trust and goodwill, or does it lead to mistrust and hostility? More than 60 years ago, social scientists offered initial evidence and theoretical perspectives regarding how contact between members of different groups can reduce intergroup hostility and promote positive intergroup attitudes (see Allport, 1954; Williams, 1947). Since then, Allport's (1954) formulation of intergroup contact theory has become one of the most enduring models in the history of social psychology (Brewer & Brown, 1998), as well as one of psychology's best strategies to improve intergroup relations (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).
This chapter provides an overview of recent theorizing and research on intergroup contact with a focus on three key developments in the literature. First, we highlight the special role of affective processes and friendship in improving intergroup attitudes while considering both direct and indirect forms of intergroup contact. We then review the differential effects and implications of contact among members of minority and majority groups and describe how contact effects reach far beyond shifts in intergroup attitudes. Finally, we discuss the effects of both positive and negative intergroup contact on attitudes and relations between groups.
Effects of Direct Contact
Research reveals the crucial roles that affective processes play in contact effects, both in terms of the kinds of contact that are most likely to improve intergroup attitudes and the kinds of positive outcomes we can expect from such contact (see Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). With survey data from seven European samples, seminal work by Pettigrew (1997) showed that intergroup contact in the form of cross-group friendships was consistently and negatively associated with a range of prejudice measures, particularly those assessing feelings of sympathy and admiration toward the outgroup. In line with Pettigrew's (1997) findings, other studies indicate that cross-group friendships relate more strongly to reduced prejudice than more distant forms of contact (Herek & Capitanio, 1996), particularly when affective dimensions of prejudice such as feelings and emotions toward outgroup members are involved (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005a).
Cross-group friendships. Empirical interest in the special role of cross-group friendships has expanded and corroborated these early findings through longitudinal, meta-analytic, and experimental research. Longitudinal surveys in several countries have shown that greater cross-group friendships predict more positive intergroup attitudes over time (Binder et al., 2009; Levin, van Laar, & Sidanius, 2003; Swart, Hewstone, Christ, & Voci, 2011).
7 - Psychology: The phenomenology of human security
-
- By Thomas C. O'brien, University of Massachusetts Amherst, United States, Linda R. Tropp, University of Massachusetts Amherst, United States
- Edited by Philippe Bourbeau, University of Cambridge
-
- Book:
- Security
- Published online:
- 05 December 2015
- Print publication:
- 24 November 2015, pp 137-155
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Psychological perspectives are critical for understanding the concept of security because they explain and predict processes that may promote violent conflict or peaceful relations between nations and other groups (Bar-Tal 2007; Carroll, Wichman, and Arkin 2006; Huddy, Feldman, and Weber 2007; Leidner, Tropp, and Lickel, 2013). Psychological approaches examine these processes on multiple levels, such as relations between ethnic or religious groups within a nation as well as relations between nations.
The factors that motivate people's behavior and decision making, whether in relations with other groups or in support of national policies, are far more complex than a rational calculation of costs and benefits. Psychology has specified a range of biases that influence human behavior and decision making, in particular with regard to the groups with which people identify and in which they categorize others (Tajfel et al. 1971; Tajfel and Turner 1986; Turner et al. 1987).
Psychological contributions to the study of security focus on structural and subjective factors that predict people's perceptions and feelings of insecurity, the consequences those feelings of insecurity have on their attitudes and behavior (Bar-Tal and Jacobson 1998; Huddy et al. 2007), as well as the factors that may be necessary to enhance their sense of security. An underlying premise is that insecurity – whether actual or perceived – is an undesirable psychological state. Correspondingly, the need for security motivates people to diminish this state, prompting attitudes, emotions, and behaviors that can promote or hinder positive relations between groups (Huddy et al. 2007; Skitka et al. 2006). For the purposes of this chapter, we use the term “groups” to refer to large collections of individuals who categorize themselves, or whom others categorize, on the basis of ethnicity, race, nationality, political orientation, religion, or other categories that society recognizes as constituting meaningful groups (see Roccas and Elster 2012). The psychological need for security may lead people to identify more strongly with certain groups (e.g., Hogg 2010) or to antagonize or avoid members of other groups, as contrasted to building positive relationships across group boundaries (e.g., Leidner et al. 2013; Pettigrew 1998).
The current chapter focuses on theory and research from social and political psychology, and in particular the processes that pertain to relations between groups.
12 - Intergroup Contact and the Central Role of Affect in Intergroup Prejudice
-
- By Linda R. Tropp, Boston College, Thomas F. Pettigrew, University of California, Santa Cruz
- Edited by Larissa Z. Tiedens, Stanford University, California, Colin Wayne Leach, University of California, Santa Cruz
-
- Book:
- The Social Life of Emotions
- Published online:
- 01 April 2011
- Print publication:
- 27 September 2004, pp 246-269
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Decades of research have studied the role of intergroup contact in reducing intergroup prejudice (see Allport, 1954; Hewstone & Brown, 1986; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000, 2003), yet little consensus has emerged regarding its effects. Past reviews of this extensive literature have reached sharply conflicting conclusions. Some indicate that intergroup contact leads to positive changes in intergroup prejudice, especially when the contact occurs under optimal conditions (e.g., Jackson, 1993; Pettigrew, 1971, 1998; Riordan, 1978). Others take a more critical stance. They hold that intergroup contact has relatively little or no effect on broad-scale changes in intergroup prejudice (e.g., Amir, 1976; Ford, 1986; Rothbart & John, 1985).
At first blush, these perspectives appear to be fundamentally inconsistent, reflecting the long-standing debates that have engulfed this research literature during the last half century. We believe this divergence in perspectives has grown out of an overemphasis on the general question of whether intergroup contact will reduce prejudice, with the phenomenon of intergroup prejudice construed as a single dimension. Close examination of the research contributing to these perspectives suggests that many different components of intergroup prejudice – including both affective and cognitive components – must be considered as potential outcomes of intergroup contact. Thus, it may be that different branches of the research literature have emphasized different aspects of the intergroup relationship. We pursue this possibility in this chapter, and we propose that affective dimensions of intergroup relationships are especially important for understanding the effects of contact on intergroup attitudes.
10 - Collective Action in Response to Disadvantage: Intergroup Perceptions, Social Identification, and Social Change
- Edited by Iain Walker, Murdoch University, Western Australia, Heather J. Smith, Sonoma State University, California
-
- Book:
- Relative Deprivation
- Published online:
- 29 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 03 December 2001, pp 200-236
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Between May and August 1981, ten Irish Republicans imprisoned in the H-Block of the Long Kesh prison in Northern Ireland starved to death in a hunger strike. Their demands were quite simple. They wanted to be recognized not as criminals, but rather as political prisoners. They wanted their cause to be recognized as a political cause and their actions – which the British government described only as criminal – to be recognized as political acts designed to achieve changes that they believed would improve the status and treatment of their group. Their protest rallied the support of much of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland and drew international attention and sympathy for the prisoners and their cause. However, Margaret Thatcher and the British government remained unmoved in their opposition to the prisoners' demands and each of the ten young men suffered a slow and painful death. Although the British government never admitted to having conceded to the demands of the hunger-strikers, many of the privileges normally granted only to political prisoners were subsequently given to other Irish Republicans in prisons in Northern Ireland. But more important perhaps, the Hunger Strike of 1981 remains a pivotal moment in conflict in Northern Ireland (see Feehan, 1983; Sands, 1981).
How can we explain the actions of Bobby Sands and his fellow prisoners? Although a complete answer to this question is certain to be complex and multifaceted, in this chapter we will consider some of what social psychology can contribute to that answer.