The Impact of Negro Neighbors on White Home Owners

Meer, Bernard; Freedman, Edward G.

doi:10.2307/2575773

Cited by 24 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, some support for the contact hypothesis comes from military and public housing experiments, and its generalizability to unplanned interracial contacts occurring in daily life is questionable (e.g., Butler and Wilson 1978;Meer and Freedman 1966;Ford 1973;Zeul and Humphrey 1971). Similarly, it is risky to generalize from laboratory experiments-where findings have often failed to support the contact hypothesis-to uncontrived situations outside of the laboratory (e.g., Sherif 1966;Riordan andRuggiero 1980, andthe review in Desforges et al 1991).…”

Section: The Contact Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Prejudice reduction or self‐selection? A test of the contact hypothesis

Wilson

1996

Sociological Spectrum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Contact Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Prejudice reduction or self‐selection? A test of the contact hypothesis

Wilson

1996

Sociological Spectrum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Contact at work, in contrast, is often casual, superficial and involuntary and fails to generalize to settings beyond the workplace (e.g. Harding & Hogrefe, 1952;Minard, 1952). Moreover, at a time of worsening conditions in labour markets and increasing unemployment rates, ethnic outgroup members (especially those perceived as 'foreigners') may be regarded at best as competitors for scarce resources, and at worst as responsible for the lack of jobs (see Castles, Booth & Wallace, 1984).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If neighbourhood contact means more intimate contacts based on propinquity, then it may result in a generalized positive change in out-group attitudes (Deutsch & Collins, 1951;Wilner, Walkley & Cook, 1952). But mere proximity of housing is unlikely to effect such change (Hamilton & Bishop, 1976;Meer & Freedman, 1966), especially where out-group members are consigned to poor housing conditions (Hewstone & Brown, 1986). Based on these conditions, we could only make unequivocal predictions for the effects of contact with friends, which should be negatively related to prejudice.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inter‐ethnic contact as a predictor of blatant and subtle prejudice: Tests of a model in four West European nations¹

Hamberger

Hewstone

1997

British J Social Psychol

157

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the role of inter‐ethnic contact (neighbourhood, as friends, and at work), alongside other ‘background’ variables (education, value orientation and national pride), in reducing prejudice. This was achieved by secondary analysis of survey data (Eurobarometer 30, 1988) from respondents in four West European countries, asked about various ethnic out‐groups (West Germany/Turks; France/Asians; France/North Africans; Dutch/Turks; Dutch/Surinamese; British/Asians; British/West Indians). We developed and tested a path model in one sample, and then tested it across six others, first for blatant and then for subtle prejudice. Contact‐as‐friends had a significant negative effect on blatant prejudice in six samples; there were also strong negative effects for education and value orientation, and education was a significant predictor of contact‐as‐friends. Tests of the goodness‐of‐fit of models with and without contact showed that prediction was significantly improved by the inclusion of contact‐as‐friends in four samples. Results were generally parallel for subtle prejudice, but prediction was much weaker. These results are discussed in terms of future interventions to decrease prejudice and some critical questions concerning the ‘contact hypothesis’.

show abstract

“…Thus, higher levels of intergroup contact should naturally dispel the misperceptions, reduce fear, increase trust, and generally enhance intergroup perceptions. In accordance with this expectation, an ongoing body of research generally finds support for the contact hypothesis (Lee, Farrell, and Link 2004;Meer and Freedman 1966;Reed 1980;Sigelman and Welch 1993), reporting that negative feelings may soften when there is contact between different groups. The implication here is also that proximity to facility sites, in this case FEMA parks, can also be hypothesized to be associated with less negative perceptions, in direct contrast to the NIMBY hypothesis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

The Fema Trailer Parks: Negative Perceptions and the Social Structure of Avoidance

Lee

Weil

Shihadeh

2007

Sociological Spectrum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, negative media attention has fostered the impression that Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) parks are social wastelands filled with criminal elements and other undesirables. FEMA parks have subsequently come to be viewed by some as a major threat to the safety and quality of life of the local communities in which they are situated. This analysis addresses attitudes toward FEMA trailer parks in Baton Rouge after Hurricane Katrina among Baton Rouge residents. Drawing on the Locally Undesirable Land Use=Not in My Backyard (LULU=NIMBY) literature, the contact hypothesis, and a broad paradigm of social status and social control, we hypothesize that spatial proximity, contact, and social status will influence negative perceptions of the parks, while these same factors along with the negative perceptions will influence avoidance behaviors. The results indicate that living near a FEMA park is associated with less negative perceptions, while actually seeing trailer park residents is associated with more negative perceptions and a greater odds of avoidance, particularly changing driving routes. Whites are particularly concerned about crime associated with the parks, but interracial trust reduces negative perceptions of the parks and the likelihood of avoidance. Those who are likely to end up in a FEMA park if they were in the same situation are more friendly toward the parks and less likely to use avoidance techniques,The data used in this article were collected under support from grant number SES-0554572 to the three authors from the National Science Foundation. The findings reported here do not represent the views, opinions, or policies of the National Science Foundation. A draft of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Sociological Association, October 2006 in Lafayette, LA. We appreciate helpful comments from several anonymous reviewers on a prior draft of this article.Address and negative perceptions themselves are strong predictors of avoidance behaviors. We conclude with a discussion of directions for future research.

show abstract

The Impact of Negro Neighbors on White Home Owners

Cited by 24 publications

References 0 publications

Prejudice reduction or self‐selection? A test of the contact hypothesis

Prejudice reduction or self‐selection? A test of the contact hypothesis

Inter‐ethnic contact as a predictor of blatant and subtle prejudice: Tests of a model in four West European nations¹

The Fema Trailer Parks: Negative Perceptions and the Social Structure of Avoidance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The Impact of Negro Neighbors on White Home Owners

Cited by 24 publications

References 0 publications

Prejudice reduction or self‐selection? A test of the contact hypothesis

Prejudice reduction or self‐selection? A test of the contact hypothesis

Inter‐ethnic contact as a predictor of blatant and subtle prejudice: Tests of a model in four West European nations1

The Fema Trailer Parks: Negative Perceptions and the Social Structure of Avoidance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Inter‐ethnic contact as a predictor of blatant and subtle prejudice: Tests of a model in four West European nations¹