Reducing prejudice in the society at large: A review of the secondary transfer effect and directions for future research

Abstract

The secondary transfer effect (STE) constitutes the generalization of the effects of intergroup contact from the outgroup one has contact with to uninvolved outgroups. In this article, we provide a review of the research on the STE. After presenting evidence on the robustness of the phenomenon, we discuss relevant mediating processes and outline a model that distinguishes them in three categories: mediators referring to the outgroup, mediators referring to the ingroup, and mediators referring to the self. We then present moderators of the STE, and recent evidence of the STE from indirect contact (extended, vicarious, and imagined contact) and from negative contact. By relying on our distinction in three sets of mediators, we suggest directions for future research, largely pointing to the importance of integrating the STE with research on generalized prejudice and of exploring contact as an agent of cognitive liberalization.

Support for rights of Syrian refugees in Turkey: The role of secondary transfer effects in intergroup contact

“…Negative contact with the primary outgroup corresponded with less positive attitudes toward the secondary outgroup, just as (positive) contact with the primary outgroup corresponded with more positive attitudes toward the secondary outgroup. These findings add to the limited empirical research literature on STEs involving negative intergroup contact (Boin et al, 2021;Brylka et al, 2016;Meleady & Forder, 2019;Vezzali et al, 2021;Zingora & Graf, 2019).…”

“…In fact, to our knowledge, there has been no research investigating how relations between advantaged Turks and disadvantaged Kurds may inform attitudes and support social policies targeting newly arrived Syrian refugees. Therefore, drawing from the literature on the transferable effect of intergroup contact, that is, secondary transfer effects (STEs; e.g., Boin et al, 2021; Pettigrew, 2009; Vezzali, Di Bernardo, Cocco, Stathi, & Capozza, 2021), we would expect that contact between Turks and Kurds might influence attitudes toward a more distal, recently arrived outgroup, that is, Syrian refugees. Accordingly, these attitudes toward Syrian refugees shaped by contact between members of the host society may then enhance political solidarity with Syrian refugees.…”

The generalization of intergroup contact effects: Emerging research, policy relevance, and future directions

“…Secondary transfer effects have also been found for other types of intergroup contact-extended (e.g., , massmediated (e.g., Rupar et al, 2021a), or imagined contact (e.g., de Carvalho-Freitas & Stathi, 2017;Harwood et al, 2011;Visintin, Birtel, et al, 2017), and for a variety of outcome measures including behavioral intentions (Meleady & Forder, 2019) and actual behavior (Zingora & Graf, 2019). In addition, secondary transfer effects have been found among children and adolescents (e.g., Vezzali et al, 2018;, student samples (e.g., Shook et al, 2016), and adults (e.g., Tausch et al, 2010), and they have been documented not only for ethnic majority but also minority groups (e.g., Bowman & Griffin, 2012;Marrow et al, 2019, for a recent review on secondary transfer effects see Vezzali et al, 2021). Together, research on the secondary transfer effect demonstrates that positive intergroup contact can reduce prejudice beyond the groups involved in intergroup encounters, thus extending its effects more widely.…”

Modes of intergroup contact: If and how to interact with the outgroup

“…Typically, the literature concerns itself with generalization from individual outgroup members to the outgroup as a whole (Brown & Hewstone, 2005). However, generalization also encompasses developing broader open-mindedness concerning other outgroups (secondary transfer: Boin et al, 2021;Vezzali et al, 2021), and even more generally open mindsets (Hodson et al, 2018). Indirect contact researchers often suggest that a big part of indirect contact's value lies in its ability to foster more direct contact (Crisp & Turner, 2009;Harwood, 2010;Wölfer et al, 2019).…”