2010
DOI: 10.1177/0146167210388667
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Negative Intergroup Contact Makes Group Memberships Salient: Explaining Why Intergroup Conflict Endures

Abstract: Drawing from the intergroup contact model and self-categorization theory, the authors advanced the novel hypothesis of a valence-salience effect, whereby negative contact causes higher category salience than positive contact. As predicted, in a laboratory experiment of interethnic contact, White Australians (N = 49) made more frequent and earlier reference to ethnicity when describing their ethnic contact partner if she had displayed negative (vs. positive, neutral) nonverbal behavior. In a two-wave experiment… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

30
372
3
6

Year Published

2012
2012
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 393 publications
(411 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
30
372
3
6
Order By: Relevance
“…This state of affairs supports the view that social exclusion or interpersonal rejection by people outside of a reference group might lead individuals to strengthen their identification with a reference group, and previous research supports this possibility (Knowles & Gardner, 2008;Paolini et al, 2010). Nevertheless, interdependents in our exclusion condition showed less identification with their departments (a reference group for them), suggesting that they were not willing to maintain relatively powerful connections with group members.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This state of affairs supports the view that social exclusion or interpersonal rejection by people outside of a reference group might lead individuals to strengthen their identification with a reference group, and previous research supports this possibility (Knowles & Gardner, 2008;Paolini et al, 2010). Nevertheless, interdependents in our exclusion condition showed less identification with their departments (a reference group for them), suggesting that they were not willing to maintain relatively powerful connections with group members.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…If they cannot re-connect in this fashion, people will resort to using social symbols as a substitute for genuine connection (Derrick, Gabriel, & Hugenberg, 2009;Gardner, Picket, & Knowles, 2005). Social symbols include not only reminisces about previous close relationships, but also activation and amplification of specific group allegiances or identifications (Knowles & Gardner, 2008;Paolini, Harwood, & Rubin, 2010). members, which can lead to psychological and emotional bonds between members.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, in a study examining sports interventions in Israel/Palestine Ditlmann and Samii (2016) found that participation had a positive effect on outgroup attitudes for Jewish youth, but a negative effect on outgroup attitudes for ArabPalestinian youth. This suggests that caution should be applied as contact is not always positive (McKeown & Dixon, 2017) and some contact programmes may in fact reinforce negative intergroup perceptions (Connolly, 2000;Paolini et al, 2010). Nevertheless, it could be argued that intergroup contact programmes, including those which focus on sport, promote cooperation and common goals and can therefore be beneficial for intergroup relations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although contact does not always occur naturally (McKeown & Dixon, 2017) and may sometimes be negative (c.f. Paolini, Harwood, & Rubin, 2010;Connolly, 2000), Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) found that both naturally occurring contact and contact-focused interventions produced positive outcomes, on average, even among youth in conflict settings . The role of contact in promoting support for peacebuilding, however, has been given much less attention.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, people focus more on negative stereotypes than positive ones (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001). Theorists have thus posited a positive-negative asymmetry such that negative contact should have a stronger and more consistent influence on increasing prejudice than positive contact should have on reducing it (Paolini, Harwood, & Rubin, 2010). Evidence for this positive-negative asymmetry has been found across a range of inter-ethnic contexts .…”
Section: The Contact Hypothesismentioning
confidence: 99%