Intergroup contact and social change: An integrated Contact‐Collective Action Model

Abstract

Previous research has shown that positive intergroup contact among disadvantaged group members may predict a so-called sedative effect according to which positive contact is associated with reduced support for social change. Conversely, positive contact is associated with increased support for social change toward equality among advantaged group members. This raises the important question of under which circumstances intergroup contact can encourage support for social change among both disadvantaged and advantaged groups. In this theoretical article, we tackle this question by introducing a new Integrated Contact-Collective Action Model (ICCAM). We first provide an upto-date review of how intergroup contact may promote or hinder social change for both disadvantaged and advantaged groups. We, then, use ICCAM to examine when the many forms of intergroup contact promote or hinder support for social change, proposing the existence of two different paths for disadvantaged and advantaged group members. Finally, we discuss the implications of the model for social intervention and make policy recommendations stemming from a review of available evidence.

Does negative contact undermine attempts to improve intergroup relations? Deepening the understanding of negative contact and its consequences for intergroup contact research and interventions

“…Of course, we should not completely forget about the settings where these findings did not apply: The psychological consequences of police officers, who are bound to have a lot of negative experiences (Dhont et al, 2010) and for minorities of such a low status that it seems "normal" for them to have negative experiences (Visintin et al, 2017) should be a major concern of democratic societies. Indeed, in situations of social status differences, negative contact might also have beneficial effects of increasing majorities' willingness to engage in collective action (e.g., Hässler et al, 2020;Reimer et al, 2017). Yet overall, we should not forget the rather low levels of negative intergroup contact, and fear of potential side effects should not hinder the important attempts to bring together individuals of different groups and to encourage cross-group ties to build a cooperative foundation for today's diverse societies.…”

Meta-Analysis of the “Ironic” Effects of Intergroup Contact

“…Settling this debate is important both because intergroup contact is a promising means of reducing prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) and because political mobilization by the disadvantaged is often crucial for achieving social change (see, for example, Mazumder, 2018). While narrative reviews of the growing literature on this topic have been published (Hässler et al, 2021;MacInnis & Hodson, 2019;McKeown & Dixon, 2017), we present the first systematic review and metaanalysis of the relationship between intergroup contact and support for social change in disadvantaged groups. To test the hypothesized 'ironic' effects of intergroup contact, we evaluate the evidence that contact with advantaged-group members reduces disadvantaged-group members' perceived injustice, collective action, and support for reparative policies.…”

Witnessing racial discrimination shapes collective action for racial justice: Enhancing awareness of privilege among advantaged groups

“…In addition to awareness of privilege, future studies should also focus on people's perceptions of legitimacy and injustice as important factors in shaping motivations to engage in collective action (for a discussion see Hässler et al, 2020). The materials we used in this research-and particularly in Study 3-may be interpreted in different ways.…”