Intergroup contact and collective action: A match made in hell, or in heaven?

Abstract

Since Wright and Lubensky (2009) suggested that intergroup contact and collective action seem strategically incompatible when it comes to social change, social psychologists have been inclined to see their potential match as one made in hell, rather than in heaven. Against this backdrop, I review and discuss the contributions to this Special Issue, most of which seem to suggest that intergroup contact and collective action are a match made in heaven, not hell. To account for these seemingly divergent perspectives, I suggest that both intergroup contact and collective action be conceptualized as relational, interaction‐based phenomena within which the forces of harmony and conflict—intergroup contact and collective action, respectively—reflect two sides of the same coin, namely individuals’ need to regulate their relationships within their social network. As such, it is individuals’ embeddedness in (networks of) social relationships that determines whether intergroup contact and collective action work together, or against each other, toward social change. I discuss the need for a broader and integrative theoretical perspective that does justice to the underlying psychology of these phenomena in terms of relationship regulation.

Need satisfaction in intergroup contact: A multinational study of pathways toward social change.

“…In terms of perceptions related to the ingroup, the affirmation of disadvantaged group members’ competence (that, in many cases, is stereotypically perceived as low; Fiske et al, 2007) can increase their perceptions of collective efficacy, a core predictor of collective action toward change (Van Zomeren, 2019). In terms of perceptions related to the advantaged outgroup, feeling that members of the advantaged group give room for disadvantaged group members to voice their experiences of frustration and discrimination (rather than sweep these experiences under the proverbial carpet) may reinforce disadvantaged group members’ perceptions of injustice, another core predictor of collective action tendencies (Van Zomeren, 2019), while improving their attitudes toward the advantaged group (Bruneau & Saxe, 2012).…”

“…To advance this debate, it is important to integrate work on intergroup contact and support for social change (Van Zomeren, 2019). Much work on support for social change draws on the social identity model of collective action (Van Zomeren et al, 2008), which postulates that identification, perceived illegitimacy of group disparities, and perceived efficacy play critical roles in motivating people to engage in support for social change.…”

Needs satisfaction in intergroup contact: A multi-national study of pathways toward social change

“…Besides exploring the link between intergroup contact and predictors of collective action in general, it may be interesting to explore the link between these predictors and satisfaction of psychological needs within intergroup contact. In particular, it is possible that empowering contact increases disadvantaged group members' feeling of pride and perceived efficacy, which lead to engagement in collective action (Britt, & Heise, 2000;Mummendey et al, 1999;Simon & Klandermans, 2001;Van Zomeren, 2019;Wright et al, 1990). It is also possible that intergroup contact, when it is experienced as accepting, leads to reduced support for change among disadvantaged group members because it increases false expectations of equal treatment (Saguy et al, 2009), while reducing awareness of structural inequalities, feelings of injustice, and anger about disparities (e.g., Carter et al, 2019;Dixon et al, 2007;Wright & Lubensky, 2009;Van Zomeren, 2019), which are key predictors of engagement in protest against social inequalities (Van Stekelenburg & Klandermans, 2013;Van Zomeren et al, 2008;Jost et al, 2017).…”

Introduction to intergroup contact and collective action: Integrative perspectives

“…The Special Issue concludes with a discussant piece by Martijn van Zomeren. In his paper, van Zomeren () questions the extent to which intergroup contact is a “match made in heaven or one made in hell.” In critically reviewing the papers in the Special Issue, he calls for researchers to consider contact and collective action in terms of relational processes through which individuals seek to regulate their social networks. And, like a number of papers in the Special Issue, van Zomeren speaks to the need for a comprehensive investigation of how social relations, social embeddedness, and friendships influence the extent to which contact and collective action are a match made in heaven or a match made in hell.…”

“…The goal of this Special Issue is to provide a venue to consider whether these two bodies of literature are necessarily adversarial in the pursuit of positive social change. In other words, how do the present contributions inform whether contact and collective action are a “match made in hell, or in heaven” (van Zomeren, ).…”