We must not be enemies: Interracial contact and the reduction of prejudice among authoritarians

Dhont, Kristof; Hiel, Alain Van

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.022

Cited by 178 publications

(284 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

242

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike previous studies in a more general population (Aberson & Gaffney, 2009;Dhont & Van Hiel, 2009), but in line with our expectations given the specific police context, participants Interracial public-police contact 14 reported significantly more negative contact than positive contact, t(171) = 4.54, p < .001.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Importantly, the reported mean frequency of negative contact was quite high compared to the few negative contact experiences reported in the general community (e.g., Dhont & Van Hiel, 2009) or in student samples (e.g., Aberson & Gaffney, 2009). Moreover, police officers reported significantly more negative contact compared to positive contact.…”

Section: Relationships Between Interracial Public-police Contact and mentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Dhont and Van Hiel (2009) found in a general community sample that even though negative contact occurs less frequently than positive contact, negative contact had the strongest impact on prejudice, which may be attributed to a higher emotional salience of negative experiences. Along similar lines, Boniecki and Britt (2003) discussed the relationship between negative contact and prejudice of soldiers during peacekeeping operations abroad.…”

Section: Intergroup Contact Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Hence, this principal component analysis indicated that both types of contact can indeed be differentiated (see also, Aberson & Gaffney, 2009;Dhont & Van Hiel, 2009) and we therefore employ separate averaged scores for the four positive contact items and the four negative contact items in the remainder of our analyses. Unlike previous studies in a more general population (Aberson & Gaffney, 2009;Dhont & Van Hiel, 2009), but in line with our expectations given the specific police context, participants Interracial public-police contact 14 reported significantly more negative contact than positive contact, t(171) = 4.54, p < .001.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Interracial public–police contact: Relationships with police officers’ racial and work-related attitudes and behavior

Dhont

Cornelis

Hiel

2010

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a sample of Flemish police officers (N = 172), we examined whether interracial public-police contact is associated with police officers' racial and workrelated attitudes and self-reported behavior. Complementing previous studies, it was revealed that interracial contact (both positive and negative) is related to prejudiced behavior toward immigrants via the mediating role of racial attitudes. Moreover, intergroup contact was also shown to be related to police officers' organizational citizenship behavior toward colleagues and superiors via their perceptions of organizational fairness. In the discussion section we elaborate on the severe impact of negative contact as well as the applied consequences of our findings within police organizations.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Relationships Between Interracial Public-police Contact and mentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Intergroup Contact Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Interracial public–police contact: Relationships with police officers’ racial and work-related attitudes and behavior

Dhont

Cornelis

Hiel

2010

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although SDO levels in the present sample were relatively low, they are comparable to those of heterogeneous adult samples (e.g., Dhont & Van Hiel, 2009;Pratto et al, 2013;Roets et al, 2012). Nonetheless, future studies using more heterogeneous samples in terms of gender, age, and educational background can establish the generalizability of these findings.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 47%

Social dominance orientation connects prejudicial human–human and human–animal relations

Dhont

Hodson

Costello

et al. 2014

Personality and Individual Differences

Self Cite

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent theorizing suggests that biases toward human outgroups may be related to biases toward (non-human) animals, and that individual differences in desire for group dominance and inequality may underlie associations between these biases. The present investigation directly tests these assumptions. As expected, the results of the current study (N = 191) demonstrate that endorsing speciesist attitudes is significantly and positively associated with negative attitudes toward ethnic outgroups. Importantly, individual differences in social dominance orientation accounted for the association between speciesist and ethnic outgroup attitudes; that is, these variables are associated due to their common association with social dominance orientation that underpins these biases. We conclude that social dominance orientation represents a critical individual difference variable underlying ideological belief systems and attitudes pertaining to both human-human intergroup and human-animal relations.

show abstract

Bringing Groups Together

2019

Group Processes ‐ Dynamics Within and Between Groups, Third Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We must not be enemies: Interracial contact and the reduction of prejudice among authoritarians

Cited by 178 publications

References 22 publications

Interracial public–police contact: Relationships with police officers’ racial and work-related attitudes and behavior

Interracial public–police contact: Relationships with police officers’ racial and work-related attitudes and behavior

Social dominance orientation connects prejudicial human–human and human–animal relations

Bringing Groups Together

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About