| Summary: | <p>This thesis examines whether intergroup contact can foster more continuous, fluid, and inclusive social identities—and, if so, how more continuous, fluid, and inclusive social identities relate to intergroup bias and support for social change. Chapter 1 introduces relevant research on social identification along a single category and across multiple categories, and develops the hypotheses tested throughout this thesis. Chapter 2 gives an overview of the empirical research, and introduces the statistical methods used to analyse findings from that research. Chapter 3 reports research developing and validating a novel measure of social identity continuity and fluidity, and examines whether contact with sexual and gender minorities fosters more continuous and fluid conceptions of sexuality and gender. Studies 1–3 found that intergroup contact was associated with more continuous and fluid social identities, but that more continuous and fluid social identities were not, in turn, associated with less intergroup bias. Chapter 4 reports research testing whether contact with caste or religious outgroups fosters more inclusive social identities in South India. Study 4 found that, as hypothesised, cross-group friendship was associated with more inclusive identities, while more inclusive identities were associated with less intergroup bias. Chapter 5 reports research testing how intergroup contact relates to support for social change in advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Studies 1 and 3 found that for disadvantaged-group members, negative contact, but not positive contact, was associated with more collective action. For advantaged-group members, positive contact predicted more solidarity-based collective action. More continuous and fluid identities did not mediate any of these relationships. Study 4 found neither intergroup contact nor more inclusive identities to be associated with support for or opposition to social change. Chapter 6 summarises and discusses the research presented in this thesis, highlighting its implications for intergroup relations research.</p>
|
|---|