Intergroup contact effects via ingroup distancing among majority and minority groups: moderation by social dominance orientation
Five studies tested whether intergroup contact reduces negative outgroup attitudes through a process of ingroup distancing. Based on the deprovincialization hypothesis and Social Dominance Theory, we hypothesized that the indirect effect of cross-group friendship on outgroup attitudes via reduced in...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science
2016
|
| _version_ | 1826275679701827584 |
|---|---|
| author | Kauff, M Schmid, K Lolliot, S Al Ramiah, A Hewstone, M |
| author_facet | Kauff, M Schmid, K Lolliot, S Al Ramiah, A Hewstone, M |
| author_sort | Kauff, M |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Five studies tested whether intergroup contact reduces negative outgroup attitudes through a process of ingroup distancing. Based on the deprovincialization hypothesis and Social Dominance Theory, we hypothesized that the indirect effect of cross-group friendship on outgroup attitudes via reduced ingroup identification is moderated by individuals' Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), and occurs only for members of high status majority groups. We tested these predictions in three different intergroup contexts, involving conflictual relations between social groups in Germany (Study 1; N = 150; longitudinal Study 2: N = 753), Northern Ireland (Study 3: N = 160; Study 4: N = 1,948), and England (Study 5; N = 594). Cross-group friendship was associated with reduced ingroup identification and the link between reduced ingroup identification and improved outgroup attitudes was moderated by SDO (the indirect effect of cross-group friendship on outgroup attitudes via reduced ingroup only occurred for individuals scoring high, but not low, in SDO). Although there was a consistent moderating effect of SDO in high-status majority groups (Studies 1-5), but not low-status minority groups (Studies 3, 4, and 5), the interaction by SDO was not reliably stronger in high- than low-status groups. Findings are discussed in terms of better understanding deprovincialization effects of contact. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T23:02:27Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:629e19c4-cdc1-4fb4-9c45-35207a8d7920 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T23:02:27Z |
| publishDate | 2016 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:629e19c4-cdc1-4fb4-9c45-35207a8d79202022-03-26T18:07:28ZIntergroup contact effects via ingroup distancing among majority and minority groups: moderation by social dominance orientationJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:629e19c4-cdc1-4fb4-9c45-35207a8d7920EnglishSymplectic Elements at OxfordPublic Library of Science2016Kauff, MSchmid, KLolliot, SAl Ramiah, AHewstone, MFive studies tested whether intergroup contact reduces negative outgroup attitudes through a process of ingroup distancing. Based on the deprovincialization hypothesis and Social Dominance Theory, we hypothesized that the indirect effect of cross-group friendship on outgroup attitudes via reduced ingroup identification is moderated by individuals' Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), and occurs only for members of high status majority groups. We tested these predictions in three different intergroup contexts, involving conflictual relations between social groups in Germany (Study 1; N = 150; longitudinal Study 2: N = 753), Northern Ireland (Study 3: N = 160; Study 4: N = 1,948), and England (Study 5; N = 594). Cross-group friendship was associated with reduced ingroup identification and the link between reduced ingroup identification and improved outgroup attitudes was moderated by SDO (the indirect effect of cross-group friendship on outgroup attitudes via reduced ingroup only occurred for individuals scoring high, but not low, in SDO). Although there was a consistent moderating effect of SDO in high-status majority groups (Studies 1-5), but not low-status minority groups (Studies 3, 4, and 5), the interaction by SDO was not reliably stronger in high- than low-status groups. Findings are discussed in terms of better understanding deprovincialization effects of contact. |
| spellingShingle | Kauff, M Schmid, K Lolliot, S Al Ramiah, A Hewstone, M Intergroup contact effects via ingroup distancing among majority and minority groups: moderation by social dominance orientation |
| title | Intergroup contact effects via ingroup distancing among majority and minority groups: moderation by social dominance orientation |
| title_full | Intergroup contact effects via ingroup distancing among majority and minority groups: moderation by social dominance orientation |
| title_fullStr | Intergroup contact effects via ingroup distancing among majority and minority groups: moderation by social dominance orientation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Intergroup contact effects via ingroup distancing among majority and minority groups: moderation by social dominance orientation |
| title_short | Intergroup contact effects via ingroup distancing among majority and minority groups: moderation by social dominance orientation |
| title_sort | intergroup contact effects via ingroup distancing among majority and minority groups moderation by social dominance orientation |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kauffm intergroupcontacteffectsviaingroupdistancingamongmajorityandminoritygroupsmoderationbysocialdominanceorientation AT schmidk intergroupcontacteffectsviaingroupdistancingamongmajorityandminoritygroupsmoderationbysocialdominanceorientation AT lolliots intergroupcontacteffectsviaingroupdistancingamongmajorityandminoritygroupsmoderationbysocialdominanceorientation AT alramiaha intergroupcontacteffectsviaingroupdistancingamongmajorityandminoritygroupsmoderationbysocialdominanceorientation AT hewstonem intergroupcontacteffectsviaingroupdistancingamongmajorityandminoritygroupsmoderationbysocialdominanceorientation |