794873

research-article2018
GPI0010.1177/1368430218794873Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsMaunder et al.

G
Group Processes & P
Intergroup Relations I
Article R

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Modern avenues for intergroup contact: 1­–17

© The Author(s) 2018

Using E-contact and intergroup

Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1368430218794873
emotions to reduce stereotyping and
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218794873
journals.sagepub.com/home/gpi

social distancing against people with

schizophrenia

Rachel D. Maunder,1 Fiona A. White1, and Stefano Verrelli1

Abstract
Intergroup contact is the leading strategy for reducing the stigma associated with mental illness. For
the first time, the current study examines the effectiveness of a contemporary intergroup contact
strategy, called electronic or E-contact, to reduce stigma against people diagnosed with schizophrenia.
It also examines the mediating role of three target-relevant intergroup emotions, namely fear, anger,
and pity. In total, 133 participants engaged in E-contact with a person diagnosed with schizophrenia
(intergroup E-contact), E-contact with a person without a mental illness (intragroup E-contact), or
no contact. Compared to the intragroup E-contact and no-contact conditions, intergroup E-contact
reduced fear, anger, and stereotyping toward people with schizophrenia. Additionally, fear and anger,
but not pity, were found to be significant affective mediators of the E-contact effect. The findings
demonstrate the value of computer-mediated intergroup contact for stigma reduction, and emphasize
the importance of intergroup emotions in this domain.

Keywords
computer-mediated communication, intergroup contact, intergroup emotions, schizophrenia, stigma

Paper received 22 November 2017; revised version accepted 20 July 2018.

The stigma faced by people with mental illness is the resulting prejudice and discrimination—have
a significant barrier to the implementation of deleterious consequences for sufferers, including
effective mental health treatments (Henderson
et al., 2014; World Health Organization [WHO], 1University of Sydney, Australia
2001). In comparison to other mental illnesses,
such as depression, individuals diagnosed with Corresponding author:
Rachel D. Maunder, School of Psychology, University of
schizophrenia are perceived to be more danger- Sydney, Camperdown, Sydney, New South Wales 2006,
ous, unpredictable, and incompetent (Angermeyer Australia.
& Matschinger, 2003). These stereotypes—and Email: rachel.maunder@sydney.edu.au
2 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 00(0)
lower well-being and reduced employment
opportunities (Link & Phelan, 2001), delayed
treatment seeking (Clement et al., 2015), and
exacerbated symptoms (Farrelly et al., 2015).
Thus, with the aim of reducing stigma against
people with schizophrenia, the current study
sought to experimentally evaluate a modern
extension of the intergroup contact hypothesis,
which suggests that positive online contact
between groups can reduce stigma (White,
Harvey, & Abu-Rayya, 2015). Moreover, given
the increasing focus on affective processes to
explain stigma reduction (e.g., Seger, Banerji,
Park, Smith, & Mackie, 2017), the study also
aimed to examine the mediating role of three dis-
tinct intergroup emotions related to schizophre-
nia, namely fear, anger, and pity.
Intergroup Contact: Reducing
Stigma Against People With
Schizophrenia
One of the leading strategies to reduce stigma is
intergroup contact. Here, positive interactions
with a member of a stigmatized group are
hypothesized to improve attitudinal and emo-
tional evaluations of the group as a whole
(Allport, 1954). While the benefits of intergroup
contact for stigma reduction have been exten-
sively demonstrated, in particular toward ethnic
and racial groups (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006),
there is markedly less research that has attempted
to extend these findings to people with schizo-
phrenia. In the context of mental health stigma,
meta-analytic evidence suggests that intergroup
contact can reduce stigma against people with
mental illness in general, and that contact is more
effective than other education- and protest-based
interventions in both the short and long term
(Corrigan, Morris, Michaels, Rafacz, & Rüsch,
2012). However, the lack of diagnostic specificity
in these studies has restricted the conclusions that
can be drawn.1 Nevertheless, research specifically
targeting schizophrenia has found that both self-
reported (West, Hewstone, & Lolliot, 2014) and
experimentally manipulated direct (i.e., face-to-
face; Giacobbe, Stukas, & Farhall, 2013) and
indirect contact (e.g., imagined contact; Stathi,
Tsantila, & Crisp, 2012; West, Holmes, &
Hewstone, 2011) with a person diagnosed with
schizophrenia reduced negative and avoidance-
related attitudes, emotions, and behaviors toward
the entire group.
Recently, White and Abu-Rayya (2012) devel-
oped a contemporary form of intergroup con-
tact, termed electronic or E-contact, which may
be particularly suitable for reducing stigma against
people with schizophrenia. E-contact constitutes
a computer-mediated form of communication
where members of different groups never physi-
cally meet but interact online (Amichai-
Hamburger & McKenna, 2006). This intervention
has been conceptualized as a bridge between
direct and indirect forms of contact. Similar to
direct contact, E-contact involves a dyadic inter-
action and reciprocal communication with an
outgroup member. These situational features
allow for greater engagement of the self in the
immediate contact situation compared to indirect
contact (White, Harvey, & Abu-Rayya, 2015).
But, unlike direct contact, participants do not
interact face-to-face and are not required to
occupy the same physical space as the outgroup
member. As such, E-contact may lack some of
the multisensory complexities and richness char-
acteristic of face-to-face contact (Harwood,
2010). However, the indirect nature of E-contact
may make it a more suitable strategy when face-
to-face interactions are impractical, particularly
when groups are divided either physically or
psychologically.
White and Abu-Rayya (2012) recently utilized
a structured E-contact program that required
Muslim and Christian students from segregated
high schools to collaborate on problem-based
activities in a synchronous and text-based chat
room. Compared to the control condition, which
involved an intragroup interaction (i.e., E-contact
between students of the same religion), the inter-
group E-contact program successfully reduced
intergroup bias and anxiety. While there is grow-
ing empirical support for the benefits of
E-contact for improving intergroup relations
between religious and ethnic groups (e.g., White,
Maunder et al. 3
Turner, Verrelli, Harvey, & Hanna, in press) and
between heterosexuals and homosexuals (White,
Verrelli, Maunder, & Kervinen, in press), the effi-
cacy of E-contact for reducing stigma against
mental illnesses such as schizophrenia remains
untested (for a review of past E-contact research,
see White, Harvey, & Abu-Rayya, 2015).
There are several reasons to expect online
interactions, particularly the structured and text-
based E-contact program developed by White
and Abu-Rayya (2012), to be a practical and
effective contact strategy for reducing stigma
against people with schizophrenia. Specifically,
E-contact does not require individuals to occupy
the same physical space. This characteristic may
be particularly important for intergroup contact
with people with schizophrenia, as this group is
often stereotyped as dangerous and unpredicta-
ble (Angermeyer & Matschinger, 2003, 2004).
Interacting with this outgroup online may shift
the focus away from securing one’s physical
safety and onto achieving the specific goals of
the intergroup interaction. E-contact also pro-
vides both interaction partners with a high
degree of psychological control over the contact
situation (e.g., being able to edit one’s message
before sending it), and can reduce negative ste-
reotyping by ameliorating the nonverbal cues
that are often used to adversely appraise the out-
group (Amichai-Hamburger & McKenna, 2006).
Together, these factors have been shown to
reduce anxiety and create more intimate interac-
tions (White, Harvey, & Abu-Rayya, 2015), which
are critical for disconfirming the negative stereo-
types that often contribute to stigma (Stephan &
Stephan, 1985).
Moreover, the anonymity of online contact
makes it more likely that individuals will disclose
a stigmatized identity (Amichai-Hamburger &
McKenna, 2006). This is particularly pertinent to
people with mental illness, as many members of
this group conceal their diagnosis (Schulze &
Angermeyer, 2003). Without identity disclosure,
groups remain psychologically divided, which sig-
nificantly limits the extent to which the positive
impression one forms of the outgroup contact
partner will generalize to the outgroup as a whole.
Finally, E-contact enables members of both
majority and minority groups to be actively
involved in the same intergroup interaction
(White, Harvey, & Verrelli, 2015), which can be
structured to incorporate Allport’s (1954) facili-
tating contact conditions of equal status, coop-
eration, common goal, and authority support
(White & Abu-Rayya, 2012; see the Procedure
and Materials section for how this can be
achieved). Although the adherence to these con-
ditions has been shown to significantly facilitate
stigma reduction (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), they
are consistently absent from contact interven-
tions aimed at reducing mental health stigma in
general.
Reducing Stigma Through
Intergroup Emotions
Past research has emphasized the critical role of
intergroup emotions, in particular intergroup
anxiety, for stigma reduction (Pettigrew & Tropp,
2008). Intergroup contact with the outgroup is
thought to reduce the anxiety or discomfort an
individual may feel when anticipating or experi-
encing an interaction with an outgroup member,
which in turn reduces stigma (Stephan & Stephan,
1985). Research specific to intergroup contact
with people with schizophrenia has also high-
lighted the importance of intergroup emotions.
For example, Stathi et al. (2012) found that imag-
ining contact with a person with schizophrenia
decreased stereotyping and improved intentions
for future contact via reduced anxiety. Similarly,
West et al. (2014) demonstrated that contact with
a person with schizophrenia improved attitudes
and reduced avoidance via decreased fear.
Nevertheless, this small body of research has
either focused entirely on negative emotions,
such as fear and anxiety (Stathi et al., 2012; West
et al., 2014), or has treated distinct emotions as a
single affective response toward the outgroup
(Giacobbe et al., 2013). These approaches are
inconsistent with current theorizing in intergroup
emotions research, which has emphasized the
importance of differentiating between qualita-
tively distinct group-targeted emotions (e.g., fear
4 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 00(0)
vs. anger), in addition to considering the role of
positive emotions (e.g., pity) alongside negative
ones (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005).
The sociofunctional approach (Cottrell &
Neuberg, 2005) to stigma underscores the impor-
tance of focusing on, and differentiating between,
distinct intergroup emotions. According to this
framework, it is essential to consider people’s
cognitive, threat-based appraisals of an outgroup
when predicting their specific affective reactions
toward that outgroup (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005).
For example, research has consistently demon-
strated that people with schizophrenia are often
evaluated as (a) dangerous and unpredictable, (b)
incompetent and unable to follow accepted social
norms, and (c) not personally responsible for
their illness (Angermeyer & Matschinger, 2003,
2004). These three distinct appraisals make it rea-
sonable to expect an affective profile character-
ized by fear, anger, and pity when examining
emotions targeted at people with schizophrenia,
rather than other intergroup emotions such as
disgust, guilt, or admiration. This is because fear,
anger, and pity are evoked when the outgroup is
perceived to (a) threaten one’s physical safety, (b)
violate social norms, and (c) not be personally
accountable for their current affliction, respec-
tively (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). While past
research has shown that increased fear and
anger as well as reduced pity play a significant
role in accounting for the discrimination toward
people with schizophrenia (Corrigan, Markowitz,
Watson, Rowan, & Kubiak, 2003), these distinct
emotions have not been investigated together in
the context of intergroup contact with a person
diagnosed with schizophrenia.
Further emphasizing the critical role of distinct
emotions for stigma reduction, White, Abu-Rayya,
Bliuc, and Faulkner (2015) demonstrated that
reduced expressions of text-based anger and sad-
ness, but not positive affect, during interreligious
E-contact were related to reduced intergroup bias.
However, this study only assessed participants’
general expressions of positive and negative emo-
tions during the interaction, rather than their spe-
cific affective responses toward the outgroup. It is,
therefore, unclear if E-contact reduced bias via
group-targeted emotions. By experimentally
manipulating intergroup E-contact, the current
study aimed to investigate the causal relationship
between contact and emotions. Specifically, we
sought to replicate past research (see West et al.,
2014) by examining fear toward people with schiz-
ophrenia as an affective mediator of the effect of
contact on stereotyping and social distance. But
more importantly, we also aimed to extend this
preliminary work by investigating the mediating
role of additional intergroup emotions, namely
anger and pity.
Overview of Aims and
Hypotheses
By integrating recent advances in intergroup
contact and emotions research, the current study
is the first to experimentally evaluate the efficacy
of E-contact for reducing stereotyping and
social distance toward people with schizophre-
nia. Consistent with the sociofunctional account
of stigma (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005), it was
expected that positive contact with a person
diagnosed with schizophrenia would reduce
stigma through group-targeted emotions specific
to people with schizophrenia, namely fear, anger,
and pity. Specifically, it was predicted that
E-contact would reduce stereotyping and social
distance by reducing anger and fear and increas-
ing pity toward people with schizophrenia.
Method
Participants and Design
In total, 175 undergraduate psychology students
were recruited through the University of Sydney’s
research recruitment program, in which first-year
psychology students participate in research in
exchange for partial course credit. Participants
were excluded from the analysis if they reported
a history of mental illness (n = 22), expressed
suspicion about the study (n = 18), or failed to rec-
ognize their online interaction partner had schizo-
phrenia (n = 2). Thus, the final sample included 133
participants (Mage = 18.8 years, SD = 1.50), of
Maunder et al. 5
which the majority identified as female (64.7%),
White (49.6%), and heterosexual (94.0%).
The study had a three-group between-subjects
design, with participants randomly allocated to an
intergroup E-contact, intragroup E-contact, or
no-contact condition.2 Two control groups (intra-
group E-contact and no contact) were utilized to
verify that, if any change in stigma occurred, it
was due to the intergroup nature of contact
rather than contact itself and that intragroup
contact did not raise stigma relative to intergroup
contact, respectively.3 The dependent variables
included intergroup emotions (i.e., fear, anger,
and pity), stereotyping, and social distance.
Procedure and Materials
All participants provided written consent.
Participants in the intergroup and intragroup
E-contact conditions were informed that they
would be participating in an online, text-only chat
with an interaction partner under the supervision
of a chat moderator. The researchers were pur-
portedly developing this chat program to be dis-
tributed to future first-year university students.
Participants believed that their interaction partner
(named Jasmine or Joseph) was another university
student on campus; however, unknown to partici-
pants, the responses of their interaction partner
and chat moderator were preprogrammed. This
method has been utilized successfully in other
studies (e.g., White, Turner, et al., in press; White,
Verrelli, et al., in press) to standardize the interac-
tion across participants and remove the need for
outgroup confederates. To increase the match
between participants’ responses and the responses
of the virtual confederates, the preprogrammed
moderator and interaction partner always led and
initiated the online chat. This structure encour-
aged participants to stay on track and only answer
the specific questions that were asked of them
during the short exchange. In doing so, the mod-
erator designated a turn-taking style of respond-
ing by indicating when and how the participant
and their interaction partner should respond.
Moreover, to increase participants’ perceptions
that they were experiencing a real, reciprocal
conversation with a fellow student, the interaction
partner addressed the participant by name and
commented on the responses made by the partici-
pant (e.g., “Good advice, [participant]!”).
Participants were notified when the moderator
and interaction partner were typing by a message
on the bottom of the screen (e.g., “Jasmine is typ-
ing…”), which appeared after a delay to account
for time spent reading the preceding messages.
The duration for which the moderator and inter-
action partner were ostensibly typing was also var-
ied to account for differing lengths of responses.
The interaction, which had a median duration
of 16.85 minutes, was divided into two stages:
introduction and cooperation. In the introduction
stage, the moderator asked participants to intro-
duce themselves with their name, age, and other
personal information such as hobbies. During this
stage, the interaction partner disclosed that they
had chosen to study psychology because they had
been diagnosed with schizophrenia (intergroup
E-contact), or had an interest in mental illness
(intragroup E-contact). For example:
Moderator: 
So, firstly, what subjects are you
currently studying? Jasmine, you
go first.
Jasmine: 
ok. Hi [participant]! Nice to
meet you :) I’m studying psych,
and also government and inter-
national relations, writing, and
history
 hanks Jasmine. And what
Moderator: T
about you [participant]?
Participant: 
Hi there! Nice to meet you too!
I’m studying science so maths,
stats, chemistry, psyc and bio.
In the cooperation stage, participants then com-
pleted a collaborative task with their interaction
partner that was guided by Allport’s (1954) facili-
tating contact conditions. This task required the
two first-year, gender-matched university stu-
dents (i.e., equal status) to work together (i.e.,
cooperation) to develop strategies to assist future
first-year students transition from high school to
6 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 00(0)

university (i.e., common goal), under the supervi- about the demographic characteristics of the par-
sion of a chat moderator (i.e., authority support). ticipant’s interaction partner, such as their gender
As the participants were first-year students them- and ethnicity. To elicit any suspicion over the pre-
selves, this topic was highly relevant to their inter- programmed nature of the interaction, partici-
ests. For example: pants were also asked for any comments they had
about the interaction, their interaction partner,
Moderator: 
Now let’s discuss the transition and the chat tool.
from high school to uni in terms Before completing the dependent variables,
of workload. Obviously it’s very which were presented in a randomized order,
different. What would you tell new participants indicated their gender, age, ethnicity,
students to help them, [Participant]? sexuality, and history of mental illness. Corrigan
et al.’s (2003) 10-item Emotional Response Scale
Participant: the best advice I can have is to keep
was used to measure the extent participants
a diary with all the dates of assess-
would experience fear (four items; e.g., “I would
ments and assignments of when
feel frightened”; Cronbach’s α = .96), anger
things are due as teachers aren’t at
(three items; e.g., “I would feel irritated”;
uni to remind you - and to not
Cronbach’s α = .85), and pity (three items; e.g.,
stress but try and stay on top with
“I would feel sympathy”; Cronbach’s α = .72)
notes etc. throughout the semester
toward a person with schizophrenia (1 = strongly
Moderator: Nice one. What do you think, disagree, 7 = strongly agree). O’Reilly, Bell, and
Jasmine? Chen’s (2010) eight-item Stigmatization Scale
was used to measure the extent participants
Jasmine: 
Good advice, [Participant]! I
endorsed (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)
wasn’t prepared for the differ-
stereotypes about people with schizophrenia (e.g.,
ence in work between hs and uni.
“People with schizophrenia will not improve
You have to organise yourself a
after treatment”; Cronbach’s α = .71). Link’s
lot more and do things before
(1987) Social Distance Scale was used to measure
lectures so you can understand
participants’ willingness (1 = definitely willing, 4 =
the content better. No one told
definitely unwilling) to be in seven different social
me about readers and things and
relationships with a person with schizophrenia
it took me a while to work it out.
(e.g., “Share a flat with a person with schizophre-
New people coming to uni for
nia”; Cronbach’s α = .90). In the no-contact
the first time should be told
control condition, participants answered the
about readings and how to struc-
same scales with no E-contact preceding them.
ture their time better
Finally, participants were fully debriefed, and the
researcher probed for suspicion by asking par-
At the end of the interaction, participants’ per-
ticipants for any comments or questions about
ception of Allport’s (1954) facilitating conditions
the study. Participants who reported guessing the
was assessed. Participants were asked to rate (1 =
interaction was preprogrammed or who identi-
not at all, 5 = extremely) the extent to which the
fied a connection between the two studies were
interaction was positive, of equal status, cooper-
excluded.
ative, goal-oriented, and had support from
authority. Further, to ensure that participants
were aware of the interaction partner’s diagnosis, Results
participants in both E-contact conditions were
asked to identify the mental illness their partner
Preliminary Analyses
had been diagnosed with, if any. Importantly, First, to evaluate participants’ perception of the
this question was couched with others asking quality of the interaction, one-sample t tests were
Maunder et al. 7

Table 1.  Means (and standard deviations) of Allport’s (1954) facilitating contact conditions.
E-contact condition
Overall mean t p d
  Intergroup Intragroup
Positive interaction 3.96 (0.69) 3.98 (0.71) 3.97 (0.69) 13.21 < .001 1.39
Equal status 4.04 (0.86) 3.84 (0.79) 3.94 (0.83) 10.85 < .001 1.14
Cooperation 3.94 (0.84) 3.98 (0.60) 3.96 (0.73) 12.37 < .001 1.30
Goal achievement 3.85 (0.88) 3.88 (0.73) 3.87 (0.81) 10.15 < .001 1.07
Authority support 3.98 (0.98) 4.26 (0.82) 4.11 (0.91) 11.65 < .001 1.23

Note. Scores range from 1 (low perception of condition) to 5 (high perception of condition). t statistics compare the overall mean to the
midpoint of the scale (midpoint = 3).

Table 2.  Pearson’s correlations of condition and loadings of the emotions: frightened (.97), scared
dependent variables. (.96), threatened (.95), and dangerous (.76); the
1 2 3 4 5 anger factor contained high loadings of the emo-
tions: angry (.92), irritated (.78), and aggravated
1. Conditiona -   (.68); and the pity factor contained high loadings
2. Fear −.39*** -   of the emotions: sympathy (.72), concern (.69),
3. Anger −.29*** .61*** -   and pity (.67). No cross-loadings greater than .25
4. Pity −.23** .29*** .15 -   were observed.
5. Stereotyping −.33*** .55*** .50*** .16 - Finally, a Pearson’s correlation analysis was
6. Social distance −.18* .56*** .46*** .19* .56*** conducted between condition and the dependent
aCondition: 0 = control (i.e., intragroup E-contact and no variables. As displayed in Table 2, the intergroup
contact), 1 = intergroup E-contact. contact condition was significantly related to
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. reduced fear, anger, pity, stereotyping, and social
distance compared to the two control conditions
conducted to compare participants’ ratings of (i.e., intragroup E-contact and no contact).
each of Allport’s (1954) facilitating contact con- Additionally, the majority of the outcome varia-
ditions, averaged over E-contact condition, to the bles were significantly and positively correlated,
midpoint (= 3) on the scale.4 As displayed in with the exception of pity, which did not corre-
Table 1, the results indicated that all of these con- late significantly with anger or stereotyping.
ditions were perceived to be satisfied. Moreover,
there was no difference between the intergroup
and intragroup conditions in any of these ratings
Main Analyses
(all ps > .05). First, we conducted a series of one-way
Second, to confirm that fear, anger, and pity ANOVAs on each of the dependent variables to
were distinct group-targeted emotions, the 10 determine if there was any significant difference
items were submitted to a factor analysis using between the three experimental conditions. The
principal axis factoring and promax rotation. The results revealed a significant difference between
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling ade- the conditions on fear, F(2, 130) = 11.37, p <
quacy was .84 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was .001, ηp2 = .15; anger, F(2, 130) = 6.18, p = .003,
significant, χ2 (120) = 2479.82, p < .001, indicat- ηp2 = .09; pity, F(2, 130) = 5.94, p = .003, ηp2 =
ing that the data were suitable for factor analysis. .08; and stereotyping, F(2, 130) = 8.12,
Fear, anger, and pity accounted for 50.1%, 18.3%, p < .001, ηp2 = .11. However, there was no sig-
and 10.9% of the observed variance, respectively. nificant difference on social distance, F(2, 130)
As expected, the fear factor contained high = 2.32, p = .101, ηp2 = .03.
8 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 00(0)

Table 3.  Descriptive statistics including means (and standard deviations) for measures by condition.

E-contact
No contact
Measures Possible range Intergroup Intragroup
n = 43
n = 47 n = 43
Fear 1–7 2.24a (1.29) 3.37b (1.36) 3.38b (1.28)
Anger 1–7 1.93a (0.96) 2.60b (1.01) 2.57b (1.10)
Pity 1–7 4.85a (1.08) 5.51b (0.87) 5.09a (0.76)
Stereotyping 1–5 2.01a (0.56) 2.34b (0.42) 2.37b (0.42)
Social distance 1–4 2.21 (0.60) 2.46 (0.59) 2.40 (0.51)

Note. Higher scores = greater fear, anger, pity, stereotyping, or social distance. Means in the same row that do not share a
subscript are significantly different at p < .05. Subscripts are not shown on social distance as the nonsignificant one-way
ANOVA on this variable precluded us from conducting contrasts.

Planned orthogonal contrasts were used to
compare the three conditions on each intergroup
emotion and stereotyping. These results are dis-
played in Table 3. We began by comparing the
intergroup E-contact condition to the two con-
trols together (i.e., intragroup E-contact and no-
contact conditions). Consistent with hypotheses,
compared to the controls, intergroup E-contact
significantly reduced fear, t(130) = −4.77, p <
.001, d = 0.87; anger, t(130) = −3.51, p < .001, d
= 0.65; and stereotyping, t(130) = −4.02, p <
.001, d = 0.70. On these dependent measures, no
significant differences were observed between
the two control conditions (all ps > .610).
Unexpectedly, however, compared to the con-
trols, intergroup E-contact also reduced pity,
t(130) = −2.69, p = .008, d = 0.46. Pity was also
lower in the no-contact control, t(130) = 2.16,
p = .033, d = 0.52, than in the intragroup
E-contact condition. To probe this further, pity in
the intergroup E-contact condition was compared
to the two controls separately using Bonferroni
corrections. Pity was significantly lower in the
intergroup E-contact condition than in the intra-
group E-contact condition, t(130) = −3.41, p <
.001, d = 0.68; but the intergroup E-contact con-
dition did not significantly differ from the no-con-
tact condition, t(130) = −1.21, p = .229, d = 0.25.
Next, a path model was developed to investi-
gate the role of fear, anger, and pity as parallel
mediators of the effect of E-contact on stereotyp-
ing and social distance. As past research has shown
stereotypes to be related to social distance (e.g.,
West et al., 2014), a direct path from stereotyping
to social distance was also considered. Similar to
the analyses conducted before, the experimental
conditions were included as a set of two orthogo-
nally coded contrasts; the contrast coefficients
were constructed such that the regression coeffi-
cients were readily interpretable as the relevant
effects. The contrasts compared the intergroup
E-contact condition to the two controls (i.e., intra-
group E-contact and no-contact conditions; .66,
−.33, −.33); and the two controls to each other (0,
.5, −.5). This model (Model A; see Figure 1) was
estimated using the PROCESS macro for SPSS
(Hayes, 2018), with 10,000 bootstrap samples and
95% percentile bootstrap confidence intervals
(CI). The mediators and dependent variables were
standardized prior to estimating the model.
The indirect effects for Model A are displayed
in Table 4. As predicted, both specific indirect
effects of intergroup E-contact (vs. the two con-
trols) on social distance that serially mediated
through fear and stereotyping, and anger and ste-
reotyping, were significant. The specific indirect
effect of E-contact on social distance through
fear only, was also significant. Contrary to predic-
tions, however, the specific indirect effect of
intergroup E-contact (vs. the two controls) on
social distance through pity and stereotyping was
not significant. All other indirect effects of inter-
group E-contact (vs. the two controls) on social
distance where only one variable (i.e., anger, pity,
Maunder et al. 9

Figure 1.  Standardized path model (SE in parentheses) for Model A representing the effect of E-contact on
stereotyping and social distance mediated by fear, anger, and pity toward people with schizophrenia.
Note. In the first stage of the model (i.e., the direct effect of condition on intergroup emotions, stereotyping, or social dis-
tance), the regression coefficients above the path represent the effect of intergroup E-contact condition versus the two con-
trol conditions (i.e., intragroup E-contact and no-contact conditions), and the regression coefficients below the path represent
the effect of intragroup E-contact versus no contact.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

or stereotyping) functioned as a mediator were
not significant. Moreover, all the indirect effects
of the control conditions (intragroup E-contact
and no-contact conditions) on social distance
were also not significant.
Despite finding partial support for our media-
tional hypothesis, an alternate mediation model
(Model B; see Figure 2) was tested, where the order
of the intergroup emotions and stereotyping were
reversed, with stereotyping and the three inter-
group emotions—still operating in parallel—seri-
ally mediated the E-contact effect on social
distance. The indirect effects for Model B are dis-
played in Table 5. In this revised model, only the
specific indirect effect of intergroup E-contact (vs.
the two controls) on social distance serially medi-
ated through stereotyping and fear was significant.
Additionally, the specific indirect effects of
E-contact on social distance through stereotyping
only, and fear only, were also significant. No other
indirect effects from intergroup E-contact (vs. the
two controls) on social distance, where only one
intergroup emotion (i.e., anger or pity) functioned
as a mediator, were significant. Furthermore, all
the indirect effects of the control conditions
(intragroup E-contact and no-contact conditions)
on social distance were also not significant.
Discussion
The present study aimed to investigate the effec-
tiveness of a contemporary intergroup contact
intervention to reduce stigma against people with
schizophrenia. By utilizing a preprogrammed
outgroup member, as well as two control condi-
tions, the study represents a highly controlled
experimental test of the effect of intergroup
E-contact on mental health stigma. Additionally,
we were able to investigate the role of intergroup
emotions in the relationship between contact and
stigma. In the domain of mental health stigma,
researchers have previously limited their focus to
negative emotions (Stathi et al., 2012; West et al.,
2014), or have amalgamated distinct group-targeted
10 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 00(0)

Table 4.  Indirect effects for Model A.

Independent variable Mediator variable(s) Dependent variable β (SE) 95% CI

Intergroup E-contact  
(vs. controlsa) →
  Fear → Stereotyping −0.28 (0.10) [−0.49, −0.11]
  Anger → Stereotyping −0.16 (0.07) [−0.31, −0.03]
  Pity → Stereotyping −0.00 (0.04) [−0.08, 0.08]
  Fear → Social distance −0.26 (0.10) [−0.49, −0.10]
  Anger → Social distance −0.06 (0.06) [−0.19, 0.04]
  Pity → Social distance −0.02 (0.04) [−0.10, 0.06]
  Stereotyping → Social distance −0.09 (0.07) [−0.24, 0.02]
  Fear → Stereotyping → Social distance −0.10 (0.04) [−0.20, −0.03]
  Anger → Stereotyping → Social distance −0.06 (0.03) [−0.13, −0.01]
  Pity → Stereotyping → Social distance 0.00 (0.02) [−0.03, 0.03]
Intragroup E-contact  
(vs. no contact) →
  Fear → Stereotyping 0.00 (0.07) [−0.14, 0.16]
  Anger → Stereotyping −0.01 (0.06) [−0.13, 0.11]
  Pity → Stereotyping −0.00 (0.04) [−0.08, 0.09]
  Fear → Social distance 0.00 (0.07) [−0.13, 0.15]
  Anger → Social distance 0.00 (0.03) [−0.07, 0.06]
  Pity → Social distance −0.01 (0.04) [−0.09, 0.06]
  Stereotyping → Social distance 0.03 (0.06) [−0.09, 0.16]
  Fear → Stereotyping → Social distance 0.00 (0.03) [−0.05, 0.06]
  Anger → Stereotyping → Social distance 0.00 (0.02) [−0.05, 0.04]
  Pity → Stereotyping → Social distance 0.00 (0.02) [−0.03, 0.03]

Note. Boldfaced effects are significant.

aControls represent the intragroup E-contact and no-contact conditions.

emotions into a single affective variable (Giacobbe
et al., 2013). By adopting a sociofunctional
approach to understanding stigma (Cottrell &
Neuberg, 2005) that emphasizes the need to distin-
guish between positive and negative emotions, the
current study contributes greater depth to mental
health stigma reduction research.
Consistent with expectations, intergroup
E-contact reduced fear, anger, and stereotyping
compared to both intragroup E-contact and no
contact. The data also suggested that stereotyping
and group-targeted fear and anger played an
important role in explaining the E-contact effect
on reduced social distance toward people with
schizophrenia. Unexpectedly, however, pity did
not emerge as a key affective mediator of the
E-contact effect. Specifically, participants’ feelings
of pity toward people with schizophrenia decreased
(rather than increased) following intergroup
E-contact, but only in comparison to intragroup
E-contact. These findings are the first to demon-
strate the distinct roles of anger and fear in the
context of intergroup contact with a person with
schizophrenia, and they provide the first causal
evidence to support the benefits of E-contact as a
contact strategy to improve several intergroup
outcomes related to mental health stigma.
The E-Contact Effect and the
Role of Intergroup Emotions
The current findings contribute to the small, but
growing, body of contact research that has specifi-
cally targeted the stigma toward schizophrenia
(e.g., Giacobbe et al., 2013; Stathi et al., 2012; West
et al., 2014) by demonstrating for the first time the
Maunder et al. 11

Figure 2.  Standardized path model (SE in parentheses) for Model B representing the effect of E-contact on
social distance mediated by stereotyping as well as fear, anger, and pity toward people with schizophrenia.
Note. In the first stage of the model (i.e., the direct effect of condition on intergroup emotions, stereotyping, or social dis-
tance), the regression coefficients above the path represent the effect of intergroup E-contact condition versus the two con-
trol conditions (i.e., intragroup E-contact and no-contact conditions), and the regression coefficients below the path represent
the effect of intragroup E-contact vs. no contact.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

effectiveness of computer-mediated interactions
for reducing fear, anger, and stereotyping toward
people with schizophrenia. In contrast to educa-
tional approaches to reducing mental health
stigma, which directly disconfirm inaccurate stere-
otypes and replace them with factual information
(Corrigan et al., 2012), we did not explicitly target
participants’ prior knowledge of people with
schizophrenia during the E-contact intervention.
However, by getting to know an outgroup mem-
ber, intergroup contact is believed to similarly
reduce stigma by challenging people’s beliefs about
the outgroup (Allport, 1954; Amichai-Hamburger
& McKenna, 2006). In the current study, partici-
pants met and worked with a person with schizo-
phrenia who was not aggressive or unpredictable,
that is, a counterstereotypical group member. In
doing so, the E-contact intervention may have
subtly disconfirmed the belief that people with
schizophrenia are dangerous and unable to follow
social norms, characteristics which are known to
elicit fear and anger, respectively (Corrigan et al.,
2003; Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). Past research has
shown that counterstereotypical information
either separate from (Ramasubramanian, 2011) or
integrated into (Dunaev, Brochu, & Markey, 2018)
an intergroup interaction has beneficial effects on
stigma in comparison to stereotypical information.
Thus, if the interaction partner in the present
study had exhibited characteristics stereotypical of
people with schizophrenia, we may not have
observed the same effects.
It is currently unclear whether intergroup con-
tact was solely responsible for the reduction in
stigma, or whether this effect could also be attrib-
uted to exposing participants to stereotype-discon-
firming information in the form of a
counterstereotypical outgroup member. In this
regard, however, Corrigan et al. (2002) showed that
contact targeting specific stereotypes about people
with schizophrenia is more effective at reducing
stigma than educational interventions targeting the
12 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 00(0)

Table 5.  Indirect effects for Model B.

Independent variable Mediator variable(s) Dependent variable β (SE) 95% CI

Intergroup E-contact  
(vs. controlsa) →
  Stereotyping → Fear −0.33 (0.10) [−0.53, −0.15]
  Stereotyping → Anger −0.31 (0.10) [−0.51, −0.14]
  Stereotyping → Pity −0.07 (0.07) [−0.24, 0.05]
  Stereotyping → Social distance −0.25 (0.09) [−0.45, −0.09]
  Fear → Social distance −0.16 (0.08) [−0.34, −0.04]
  Anger → Social distance −0.03 (0.03) [−0.11, 0.02]
  Pity → Social distance −0.01 (0.03) [−0.09, 0.05]
  Stereotyping → Fear → Social distance −0.11 (0.05) [−0.21, −0.03]
  Stereotyping → Anger → Social distance −0.03 (0.03) [−0.10, 0.02]
  Stereotyping → Pity → Social distance 0.00 (0.01) [−0.03, 0.01]
Intragroup E-contact  
(vs. no contact) →
  Stereotyping → Fear 0.03 (0.09) [−0.14, 0.20]
  Stereotyping → Anger 0.03 (0.08) [−0.13, 0.20]
  Stereotyping → Pity 0.01 (0.02) [−0.05, 0.06]
  Stereotyping → Social distance 0.03 (0.07) [−0.10, 0.16]
  Fear → Social distance −0.01 (0.06) [−0.13, 0.12]
  Anger Social distance −0.01 (0.03) [−0.07, 0.05]
  Pity Social distance −0.02 (0.04) [−0.09, 0.06]
  Stereotyping → Fear → Social distance 0.01 (0.03) [−0.04, 0.08]
  Stereotyping → Anger → Social distance 0.00 (0.01) [−0.02, 0.03]
  Stereotyping → Pity → Social distance 0.00 (0.00) [−0.00, 0.01]

Note. Boldfaced effects are significant.

aControls represent the intragroup E-contact and no-contact conditions.

same stereotypes. Nevertheless, future studies counterstereotypical characteristics of the out-

should address the issue of outgroup member ste-
reotypicality (for a recent discussion of this issue,
see McIntyre, Paolini, & Hewstone, 2016) by exam-
ining the effectiveness of E-contact with more ste-
reotypical outgroup members, as well as by
comparing contact with counterstereotypical group
members to counterstereotypical group members
that are merely described.
In the current study and contrary to expecta-
tions, pity toward people with schizophrenia was
also reduced following E-contact, although only
in comparison to the intragroup E-contact condi-
tion. This finding is inconsistent with previous
research that has found higher levels of contact
with people with mental illness to predict increased
pity (Corrigan et al., 2003). Nevertheless, this
unexpected finding may also be explained by the
group member in the current study. It has been
argued that pity stems from the perception that
the outgroup is afflicted by an uncontrollable situ-
ation (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). In the current
study, the outgroup member disclosed that they
were studying psychology to learn more about
managing their diagnosis. This information may
have suggested that the outgroup member had a
degree of control over their condition, which in
turn, may have reduced participants’ feelings of
pity (Corrigan et al., 2003). Seger et al. (2017) have
also argued that pity is not an unambiguously pos-
itive emotion because, despite facilitating helping
behaviors, it implies that the target outgroup is
lower in status than the ingroup. Therefore,
reducing pity is not necessarily inconsistent with
reducing stigma against schizophrenia.
Maunder et al. 13
It should be reemphasized that pity was only
reduced in the intergroup contact condition in
comparison to the intragroup contact condition
and not the no-contact condition. This finding
suggests that there may be something particular
about intragroup contact that increases pity rela-
tive to the two other conditions. In the present
study, the ingroup member expressed a desire to
learn more about mental illness, which may have
framed this group as one in need of help and
understanding, thereby increasing pity in this con-
dition. Nevertheless, such a result reinforces the
need for both intragroup and no-contact control
conditions to be utilized when investigating the
effects of intergroup contact for stigma reduc-
tion. Moreover, over and above the positive rela-
tionships between fear and anger on social
distance, reduced pity did not independently pre-
dict increased social distance. This finding may
suggest that, while distinct perceived threats are
important for eliciting different affective responses
toward people with schizophrenia, pity does not
necessarily play an important mediating role for
the E-contact effect. Additional research is now
needed to further substantiate this hypothesis.
Consistent with the sociofunctional approach
to prejudice (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005), the cur-
rent findings highlight the important role of inter-
group emotions in stigma reduction. It was
through the group-targeted emotions of fear and
anger that negative stereotypes about and social
distance toward people with schizophrenia were
reduced. However, this interpretation of the find-
ings should only be made in light of the following
consideration. An alternative mediation model,
where stereotyping and intergroup emotions were
positioned as serial mediators of the E-contact
effect on social distance, was also found to fit the
data equally well. In this model, compared to both
control conditions, intergroup E-contact was
found to reduce the negative stereotypes about
people with schizophrenia, which in turn reduced
participants’ intergroup feelings of fear (but not
anger or pity), and which in turn reduced their
desire for social distance. This alternative finding
is consistent with past literature that has argued
for intergroup cognitions, such as stereotypes, to
causally precede intergroup emotions (Stephan &
Stephan, 1985). For example, evaluating a group
as dangerous could be a necessary precondition to
fearing that group (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005).
However, numerous past studies have placed
emotions first in the causal order, both when spe-
cifically examining the effect of contact on stereo-
typing against schizophrenia (e.g., Stathi et al.,
2012; West et al., 2014) and when observing preju-
dice against other stigmatized groups (e.g.,
Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). Taken together, it is
likely that intergroup emotions and stereotyping
are cyclically related; thus, both the originally
hypothesized and the alternate model may be
equally important in elucidating the E-contact
effect. One way to further investigate these find-
ings might be to manipulate intergroup emotions
and/or outgroup stereotypes experimentally,
rather than measuring them cross-sectionally.
Finally, the intergroup emotions considered in
the present study did not comprise an exhaustive
list. Although it is intuitive to expect fear, anger,
and pity to be the most relevant emotions elicited
by people with schizophrenia (Corrigan et al.,
2003), researchers are encouraged to consider the
mediating role of other group-targeted emotions,
such as admiration and contempt. One way for-
ward may be to examine intergroup contact with
people with other mental illnesses that may be
associated with different perceived threats and
affective profiles (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). For
example, fear and anger may be weaker mediators
of the E-contact effect when the outgroup mem-
ber is diagnosed with major depression. Compared
to people diagnosed with schizophrenia, people
who suffer from depression are less likely to be
perceived as dangerous and dependent on others
(Angermeyer & Matschinger, 2003), and therefore,
are less likely to elicit threat perceptions related to
fear and anger (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005).
Strengths, Limitations, and
Future Directions
In regard to the E-contact intervention, it is
promising that a brief online interaction was suc-
cessful at reducing stigma against people with
schizophrenia. Many intergroup contact inter-
ventions aimed at reducing mental health stigma,
14 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 00(0)
in particular contact interventions that occur
face-to-face, require significantly more resources
than the computer-mediated intervention used in
the current study. Thus, there is potential for
E-contact to be a practical and cost-effective
stigma-reduction strategy. However, to have con-
fidence in such a strategy, it is imperative that
future research first determine the long-term
consequences of E-contact in the context of
mental health stigma. Previously, the beneficial
effects of an eight-session E-contact program on
interreligious bias between Muslims and
Christians were found to endure for 12 months
postintervention (White, Abu-Rayya, & Weitzel,
2014). In a similar vein, we contend that the long-
term benefits of E-contact are likely to rely on
participants experiencing multiple interactions
with the outgroup, rather than a single online
interaction. Future research is now needed to
examine the longevity of the E-contact effect on
the stigma towards mental illness.
There is an opportunity for E-contact to
evolve further, by incorporating video and voice
communication, as well as other emerging tech-
nologies such as virtual and augmented reality.
Contact via these channels, in comparison to text-
only communication, would heighten the richness
of the contact experience as well as participants’
self-involvement in the interaction (Harwood,
2010). In the present study, we chose to use text-
only E-contact since (a) it has been empirically
validated and shown to be an effective strategy for
improving outgroup attitudes, (b) the supporting
technology is practical and readily available, (c)
participants have psychological control over how
they present themselves, (d) the outgroup mem-
ber’s nonverbal characteristics (e.g., appearance
and behavior) cannot be used to bias a partici-
pant’s evaluation of them, and (e) the real-time
chat structure of the medium engages participants
in the intergroup interaction. However, future
research should compare these alternative contact
strategies, and also explore whether text-only con-
tact could be a productive preparatory step that
acclimatizes participants to contact with outgroup
members prior to engaging in other contact expe-
riences (for a similar argument, see White, Harvey,
& Abu-Rayya, 2015).
One limitation that should be considered when
interpreting the present results is the use of an
undergraduate student sample, which typically
limits the generalizability of the findings to the
general population. However, it should also be
noted that the sample consisted of undergraduate
psychology students, who are more likely to be
responsible for the care of people with mental ill-
ness in the future than individuals from the gen-
eral population. In their review of the extant
literature, Henderson et al. (2014) found evidence
to suggest that mental health care professionals
often report similar levels of stigma toward peo-
ple with mental illness compared to the general
population. Additionally, many individuals with
mental illness report experiencing stigma when
seeking treatment, which can discourage adher-
ence to the treatment program (Mestdagh &
Hansen, 2014). Therefore, there is a need to
reduce stigma in students enrolled in health-care-
related subjects before they become responsible
for the care and mental well-being of others.
Nevertheless, future studies should investigate the
use of E-contact for stigma reduction in commu-
nity samples as well. Now that we have established
the basic effect of E-contact on stigma against
people with schizophrenia using a tightly con-
trolled experimental design, further investigation
is required to improve the ecological validity of
this research. Brief, highly structured, text-only,
and supervised online interactions with a prepro-
grammed outgroup member may not reflect inter-
actions with real people with schizophrenia
outside of the laboratory. Although this proce-
dure afforded the researchers a high degree of
control over the experiment, including ensuring
that the outgroup member disclosed their stigma-
tized identity, it is essential that future research
explore the impact of an unsupervised E-contact
interaction with real people with schizophrenia.
Conclusion
The present study provides new evidence to sup-
port the benefits of intergroup contact for stigma
reduction by investigating a modern avenue for
contact with people with schizophrenia. Given
the increasing focus on web-based interventions
Maunder et al. 15
for promoting mental health literacy (Corrigan
et al., 2012), and the increase in the use of the
Internet for communication (White, Harvey, &
Abu-Rayya, 2015), we encourage researchers to
examine the contemporary role of computer-
mediated communication, such as E-contact, for
reducing mental health stigma. Additionally, we
are hopeful that these findings will encourage
researchers to further investigate the role of dis-
tinct, negative and positive, group-targeted emo-
tions in the context of mental health stigma.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Stephen Rogers from the School
of Psychology at The University of Sydney for program-
ming the E-contact tool. We would also like to express
our gratitude to two anonymous reviewers for their help-
ful comments on a previous version of this manuscript.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any fund-
ing agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.
Notes
1. There exists a large body of research that has
focused on the effects of intergroup contact
with “a person with a mental illness” on atti-
tudes and behaviors toward “people with a men-
tal illness” (for a recent meta-analytic review,
see Corrigan et al., 2012). Other research has
focused on the effects of intergroup contact
with “a person with a mental illness” on atti-
tudes and behaviors toward “people with schizo-
phrenia” (Angermeyer & Matschinger, 2004).
However, given the significant differences in
stereotypes about different diagnostic catego-
ries (Angermeyer & Matschinger, 2003), contact
measured in relation to the superordinate cat-
egory of “a person with a mental illness” may be
inappropriate for understanding the effects of
intergroup contact on stereotyping toward a spe-
cific diagnosis. This lack of attention to specificity
has also made it difficult to evaluate the mediat-
ing role of different intergroup emotions, which
are hypothesized to vary depending on the target
group (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). Therefore, we
have restricted our review to empirical studies
that have examined both contact and outcomes
specific to people with schizophrenia.
2. Originally, we also manipulated the duration of
the E-contact interaction. However, E-contact
duration did not significantly moderate the
E-contact effect on any of the dependent vari-
ables. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, we have
omitted a discussion of this independent variable.
3. A reviewer suggested that the supervised nature of
the interaction may have encouraged participants
to adhere to social norms of respect and polite-
ness during the interaction and when reporting
their attitudes towards people with schizophrenia.
However, our two control conditions allow us to
rule out this possibility. First, participants in the no-
contact control condition did not experience super-
vision in an interaction, and yet reported equivalent
levels of fear, anger, and stereotyping as partici-
pants in the intragroup contact condition who did
experience supervision. Second, participants in the
intergroup and intragroup E-contact conditions
experienced identical interactions, which is further
evidenced by their equivalent ratings of Allport’s
(1954) facilitating conditions. Thus, the signifi-
cant difference between the intergroup E-contact
condition and the two control conditions on the
dependent variables cannot be attributed to the
supervised nature of the interaction.
4. In their meta-analysis, Pettigrew and Tropp (2006)
found a stronger effect of intergroup contact on
stigma when Allport’s (1954) facilitating contact
conditions were satisfied. To explore whether
perceptions of Allport’s conditions moderated
the effect of intergroup E-contact on stigma in
our study, we conducted separate moderated hier-
archical regression analyses with fear, anger, pity,
stereotyping, and social distance as the depend-
ent variables. Prior to the analysis, we created a
single index of Allport’s facilitating conditions
by averaging participants’ ratings of perceived
positivity, equal status, cooperation, common
goal, and authority support. E-contact condi-
tion and the index of Allport’s conditions were
entered in the first step, followed by the two-way
interaction. The results demonstrated that, over
and above the effect of E-contact, increased per-
ceptions of Allport’s facilitating conditions were
negatively related to fear (β = −0.20, p = .039),
anger (β = −0.55, p = .006), stereotyping (β =
−0.26, p = .013), and social distance (β = −0.30,
p = .014), but positively related to pity (β = 0.48,
p = .019). Interestingly, the interaction between
E-contact condition and perceptions of Allport’s
16 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 00(0)
conditions did not significantly explain additional
variance across all dependent variables (all ΔR2s <
.01 and ps > .25). Together, these results suggest
that perceptions of Allport’s conditions may not
necessarily facilitate the E-contact effect, despite
their unique relationship with improved intergroup
outcomes. Nevertheless, it is possible that these
findings are related to the outgroup examined in
the current study. Past research has found that few
people report a history of contact with people
with schizophrenia (e.g., West et al., 2014). Under
these circumstances, merely meeting a member of
the outgroup may be sufficient for stigma reduc-
tion without the need to perceive the interaction
as collaborative and goal-oriented. Consequently,
it is possible that Allport’s facilitating conditions
will only be useful in situations when past con-
tact is more frequent or when relations between
the groups are marred by a history of intergroup
conflict.
ORCID iDs
Rachel D. Maunder https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
8436-691X
Stefano Verrelli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
4268-7061
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading,
MA: Addison Wesley-Brown.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2006).
The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Interact-
ing via the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 11, 825–843. doi:10.1111/j.1083-
6101.2006.00037.x
Angermeyer, M. C., & Matschinger, H. (2003). Pub-
lic beliefs about schizophrenia and depression:
Similarities and differences. Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidemiology, 38, 526–534. doi:10.1007/
s00127-003-0676-6
Angermeyer, M. C., & Matschinger, H. (2004). The
stereotype of schizophrenia and its impact on
discrimination against people with schizophrenia:
Results from a representative survey in Germany.
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 30, 1049–1061. doi:10.1093/
oxfordjournals.schbul.a007120
Clement, S., Schauman, O., Graham, T., Maggioni, F.,
Evans-Lacko, S., Bezborodovs, N., . . . Thorni-
croft, G. (2015). What is the impact of mental
health-related stigma on help-seeking? A systematic
review of quantitative and qualitative studies.
Psychological Medicine, 45, 11–27. doi:10.1017/
S0033291714000129
Corrigan, P. W., Markowitz, F. E., Watson, A., Rowan,
D., & Kubiak, M. A. (2003). An attributional
model of public discrimination towards persons
with mental illness. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 44, 162–179. doi:10.2307/1519806
Corrigan, P. W., Morris, S. B., Michaels, P. J., Rafacz,
J. D., & Rüsch, N. (2012). Challenging the pub-
lic stigma of mental illness: A meta-analysis of
outcome studies. Psychiatric Services, 63, 963–973.
doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201100529
Corrigan, P. W., Rowan, D., Green, A., Lundin, R.,
River, P., Uphoff-Wasowski, K., . . . Kubiak, M.
A. (2002). Challenging two mental illness stigmas:
Personal responsibility and dangerousness. Schizo-
phrenia Bulletin, 28, 293–309. doi:10.1093/oxford-
journals.schbul.a006939
Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different
emotional reactions to different groups: A soci-
ofunctional threat-based approach to “prejudice.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 770–
789. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.770
Dunaev, J. L., Brochu, P. M., & Markey, C. H. (2018).
Imagine that! The effect of counterstereotypic
imagined intergroup contact on weight bias. Health
Psychology, 37, 81–88. doi:10.1037/hea0000545
Farrelly, S., Jeffery, D., Rüsch, N., Williams, P.,
Thornicroft, G., & Clement, S. (2015). The link
between mental health-related discrimination
and suicidality: Service user perspectives. Psy-
chological Medicine, 45, 2013–2022. doi:10.1017/
S0033291714003158
Giacobbe, M. R., Stukas, A. A., & Farhall, J. (2013).
The effects of imagined versus actual contact with
a person with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, 35, 265–271. doi:10.1
080/01973533.2013.785403
Harwood, J. (2010). The contact space: A novel frame-
work for intergroup contact research. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 29, 147–177. doi:10.
1177/0261927X09359520
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, modera-
tion, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based
approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Henderson, C., Noblett, J., Parke, H., Clement, S., Caf-
frey, A., Gale-Grant, O., . . . Thornicroft, G. (2014).
Mental health-related stigma in health care and
mental health-care settings. The Lancet: Psychiatry,
1, 467–482. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(14)00023-6
Maunder et al. 17
Link, B. G. (1987). Understanding labelling effects in
the area of mental disorders: An assessment of the
effects of expectations of rejection. American Soci-
ological Review, 52, 96–112. doi:10.1086/228672
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing
stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385.
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363
McIntyre, K., Paolini, S., & Hewstone, M. (2016).
Changing people’s views of outgroups through
individual-to-group generalisation: Meta-analytic
reviews and theoretical considerations. European
Review of Social Psychology, 27, 63–115. doi:10.1080/
10463283.2016.1201893
Mestdagh, A., & Hansen, B. (2014). Stigma in patients
with schizophrenia receiving community mental
health care: A review of qualitative studies. Social
Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 49, 79–87.
doi:10.1007/s00127-013-0729-4
O’Reilly, C. L., Bell, S., & Chen, T. F. (2010). Con-
sumer-led mental health education for pharmacy
students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Educa-
tion, 74, 167. doi:10.5688/aj7409167
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-ana-
lytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does inter-
group contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic
tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 38, 922–934. doi:10.1002/ejsp.504
Ramasubramanian, S. (2011). The impact of stereotypi-
cal versus counterstereotypical media exemplars
on racial attitudes, causal attributions, and sup-
port for affirmative action. Communication Research,
38, 497–516. doi:10.1177/0093650210384854
Schulze, B., & Angermeyer, M. C. (2003). Subjective
experiences of stigma. A focus group study of
schizophrenia patients, their relatives and mental
health professionals. Social Science and Medicine, 56,
299–312. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00028-X
Seger, C. R., Banerji, I., Park, S. H., Smith, E. R., &
Mackie, D. M. (2017). Specific emotions as medi-
ators of the effect of intergroup contact on preju-
dice: Findings across multiple participant and
target groups. Cognition and Emotion, 31, 923–936.
doi:10.1080/02699931.2016.1182893
Stathi, S., Tsantila, K., & Crisp, R. J. (2012). Imagin-
ing intergroup contact can combat mental health
stigma by reducing anxiety, avoidance, and nega-
tive stereotyping. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152,
746–757. doi:10.1080/00224545.2012.697080
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Inter-
group anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–175.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01134.x
West, K., Hewstone, M., & Lolliot, S. (2014). Inter-
group contact and prejudice against people with
schizophrenia. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154,
217–232. doi:10.1080/00224545.2014.888327
West, K., Holmes, E., & Hewstone, M. (2011). Enhancing
imagined contact to reduce prejudice against people
with schizophrenia. Group Processes & Intergroup Rela-
tions, 14, 407–428. doi:10.1177/1368430210387805
White, F. A., & Abu-Rayya, H. M. (2012). A dual
identity-electronic contact (DIEC) experiment
promoting short- and long-term intergroup har-
mony. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48,
597–608. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.01.007
White, F. A., Abu-Rayya, H. M., Bliuc, A.-M., & Faulkner,
N. (2015). Emotion expression and intergroup bias
reduction between Muslims and Christians: Long-
term Internet contact. Computers in Human Behavior,
53, 435–442. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.074
White, F. A., Abu-Rayya, H. M., & Weitzel, C. (2014).
Achieving twelve-months of intergroup bias
reduction: The dual identity-electronic contact
(DIEC) experiment. International Journal of Inter-
cultural Relations, 38, 158–163. doi:10.1016/j.ijin-
trel.2013.08.002
White, F. A., Harvey, L. J., & Abu-Rayya, H. M. (2015).
Improving intergroup relations in the Internet
age: A critical review. Review of General Psychology,
19, 129–139. doi:10.1037/gpr0000036
White, F. A., Harvey, L. J., & Verrelli, S. (2015). Includ-
ing both voices: A new bidirectional framework
for understanding and improving intergroup
relations. Australian Psychologist, 50, 421–433.
doi:10.1111/ap.12108
White, F. A., Turner, R. N., Verrelli, S., Harvey, L. J.,
& Hanna, J. R. (in press). Improving intergroup
relations between Catholics and Protestants in
Northern Ireland via E-contact. European Journal
of Social Psychology. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2515
White, F. A., Verrelli, S., Maunder, R. D., & Kervinen,
A. (in press). Using electronic contact to reduce
homonegative attitudes, emotions, and behavioral
intentions among heterosexual men and women:
A contemporary extension of the contact hypoth-
esis. The Journal of Sex Research. doi:10.1080/00224
499.2018.1491943
World Health Organization (WHO). (2001). World
health report 2001 – Mental health: New understanding,
new hope. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.