The contact hypothesis predicts that cooperative interaction with members of a disliked group results in increased liking for those members and generalizes to more positive attitudes toward the group. The authors sought to provide evidence consistent with the hypothesis that contact affects attitude in part by eliciting a more positive portrait of the typical group member. Undergraduates participated in a 1-hr dyadic learning session (scripted cooperative learning, jigsaw cooperative learning, or individual study) with a confederate portrayed as a former mental patient. Students initially expected the confederate to display traits similar to those of a typical former mental patient. After the sessions, initially prejudiced students in the 2 cooperative conditions described the typical mental patient more positively and adopted more positive attitudes and wider latitudes of acceptance toward the group. Connections between intergroup attitudes and impression formation are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

When general attitudes do not predict behaviour towards specific members of a social category, the reason may be that the specific members belong to a subtype that is not spontaneously associated with the superordinate social category. In Study 1, university students reported their general attitudes towards former mental patients and described the ‘typical’ former mental patient. The descriptions were rated on how well they matched each of eight subtypes (e.g. depressed, paranoid). One month later, the same students expressed their willingness to engage in various activities with a ‘former mental patient’ visitor who was depicted as a member of a subtype that either matched or mismatched the student's description. General attitudes predicted behavioural intentions better when the visitor was from a matching subtype than from a mismatching subtype. In Study 2, students who had negative attitudes towards substance abusers agreed to engage in fewer and less intimate activities with, and sat farther from, a visitor from a matching than from a mismatching subtype. Implications for theories of attitude‐behaviour consistency and stereotyping are discussed.

According to previous research, members of a social category draw a greater number of subtype distinctions within their own category than nonmembers do. But do category members themselves differ in the number of in-group subtype distinctions that they draw? In Study 1, students who considered themselves relatively typical of their fraternity or sorority listed a greater number of subtypes for their own than for other fraternities or sororities; students who considered themselves relatively atypical did not. In Study 2, athletes listed a greater number of subtypes for their own sports team if they were considered relatively typical by both themselves and teammates than if they were considered relatively typical only by themselves, only by teammates, or by neither. Possible explanations for the "in-group subtypes effect" are discussed.