It’s not just “us” versus “them”: Moving beyond binary perspectives on intergroup processes

Dixon, John; Elcheroth, Guy; Kerr, Philippa; Drury, John; Albzour, Mai; Subašić, Emina; Durrheim, Kevin; Green, Eva G. T.

doi:10.1080/10463283.2020.1738767

Cited by 62 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, by focussing on third party outgroups, this paper follows recent suggestions to move away from simple ingroup‐outgroup dichotomies, and to consider the greater complexities of social reality in which often three or more groups, rather than just two, are psychologically relevant (Dixon et al, 2020; Zagefka, 2019). Theoretically, it seems important to move away from the dichotomous question of blaming either the victim or the self/ingroup.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intergroup helping during the coronavirus crisis: Effects of group identification, ingroup blame and third party outgroup blame

Zagefka

2020

Community & Applied Soc Psy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies tested predictors of helping across national boundaries. British participants reported blame attributions for the coronavirus crisis, either to the British government (ingroup blame), or to the Chinese government (third party outgroup blame), and it was tested whether this was associated with intentions to donate money to help outgroup members suffering from effects of the coronavirus crisis in the world's poorer countries. It was hypothesized that strength of identification with the national ingroup would be negatively associated with blame attributions to the ingroup, and that it would be positively associated with blame attributions to a third party outgroup. Blame attributions were predicted in turn to be related to outgroup helping, with ingroup blame being positively associated with helping intentions, and third party outgroup blame being negatively associated with helping intentions. Support for these predictions were found in one exploratory (N = 100) and one confirmatory (N = 250) study.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intergroup helping during the coronavirus crisis: Effects of group identification, ingroup blame and third party outgroup blame

Zagefka

2020

Community & Applied Soc Psy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We would add that the relationship between contact and collective action for groups who occupy "intermediary status" in a social hierarchy remains largely unspecified in the literature, though the work of Caricati et al (2018) has laid a valuable foundation on which contact researchers might build. In our view, this is an important direction for future research not least because the contact experiences of such "in between" groups are sometimes critical to the project of social change (see Dixon et al, 2020).…”

Section: Collective Action and Social Change Revisitedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative contact, collective action, and social change: Critical reflections, technological advances, and new directions

Dixon

2021

Journal of Social Issues

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intergroup contact research has expanded exponentially in the last few decades, with researchers employing a widening range of methods to offer new insights into the effects of both positive and negative contact experiences. In this commentary, we discuss the contributions of three papers to this special issue of the Journal of Social Issues on advances in intergroup contact research, namely Schäfer et al.'s (2021) review of research on negative intergroup contact experiences, Hässler et al.'s (2020) review of research on intergroup contact and social change, and O'Donnell et al.'s (2021) review of technological and analytic advances in contact research. Having outlined the key arguments of each paper, we then offer some theoretical and methodological reflections, also discussing potential gaps, connections, opportunities, and future directions along the way. We end by reflecting on a common theme that permeates our commentary: the need to contextualize adequately the dynamics of intergroup contact across a range of everyday settings. Here we argue that to fully understand how to promote beneficial forms of intergroup contact, we need to consider more carefully how contact is experienced, enacted, and evaluated "on the ground" by This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

show abstract

“…In addition, a binary perspective on disadvantaged and advantaged groups alone may be limiting our understanding of the struggle for greater social justice. Social conflicts are seldom binary, but are often characterized by a dynamic interplay of multiple groups such as disadvantaged groups, advantaged groups, third-party groups, or the general public (Dixon et al, 2020;Simon & Klandermans, 2001;Subašić et al, 2008;Zagefka, 2019). Consequently, more work needs to examine how contact among groups that cannot be easily framed using the disadvantaged vs. advantaged type of dynamics, such as allies or third-party supporters (Drury & Travaglino, 2019;Klavina & van Zomeren, 2020), affects individuals' support for social change.…”

Section: Intergroup Contact and Social Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Intergroup Contact and Social Change: An Integrated Contact-Collective Action Model

Häßler¹,

Uluğ²,

Kappmeier³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has shown that positive intergroup contact among disadvantaged groupmembers may predict a so-called ‘sedative’ effect according to which positive contact isassociated with reduced support for social change. Conversely, positive contact is associatedwith increased support for social change toward equality among advantaged group members.This raises the important question of under which circumstances intergroup contact canencourage support for social change among both disadvantaged and advantaged groups. Inthis theoretical article, we tackle this question by introducing a new Integrated Contact-Collective Action Model (ICCAM). We first provide an up-to-date review of how intergroupcontact 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 orhinder support for social change, proposing the existence of two different paths fordisadvantaged and advantaged group members. Finally, we discuss the implications of themodel for social intervention and make policy recommendations stemming from a review ofavailable evidence.

show abstract

It’s not just “us” versus “them”: Moving beyond binary perspectives on intergroup processes

Abstract: G T (2020) It's not just 'us' versus 'them': moving beyond binary perspectives on intergroup processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 31 (1). pp. 40-75.

Cited by 62 publications

References 68 publications

Intergroup helping during the coronavirus crisis: Effects of group identification, ingroup blame and third party outgroup blame

Intergroup helping during the coronavirus crisis: Effects of group identification, ingroup blame and third party outgroup blame

Negative contact, collective action, and social change: Critical reflections, technological advances, and new directions

Intergroup Contact and Social Change: An Integrated Contact-Collective Action Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About