PSYC 208

FROM DOES AND HOW TO WHEN?

MO D E R ATO R S O F I N T E R G R O U P C O N TA C T

DR. SIMON LOLLIOT

1
 LEARNING OUTCOMES
What is the problem with contact and generalization?

What are the strengths / weaknesses of the

Decategorization approach
The Common Ingroup Identity Approach
The Mutual Intergroup Differentiation Approach

How should one structure contact scenarios to best allow for attitude generalization
and minimize conflict?

2
 LEARNING OUTCOMES
Other things to look out for

-- what is the bookkeeping model of stereotype change?

-- how might it relate to subtyping?
-- what role does contact play in bookkeeping / subtyping?
-- What is the difference between the processes of personalization and differentiation?

3
 WHEN DO THE EFFECTS OF INTERGROUP

CONTACT GENERALIZE FROM THE OUTGROPU

INDIVIDUAL TO THE OUTGROUP AS A WHOLE?

4
IF CONTACT IS TO WORK…

…the effects need to ___________

5
 KEY TERM

___________

PSYCHOLOGICALLY PRESENT

6
 CONTACT GENERALIZATION

DECATEGORIZATION MODEL
(Brewer & Miller, 1984)

COMMON INGROUP IDENTITY MODEL

(Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989)

MUTUAL INTERGROUP DIFFERENTIATION

MODEL
(Hewstone & Brown, 1986)

7
 DECATEGORIZATION MODEL
I like FROM INTERGROUP Me
jam! too!

TO

INTERPERSONAL

contact should de-emphasize group identities

8
 THE PROCESSES BEHIND
DECATEGORIZATION
STEREOTYP After several positive
ES ABOUT interactions with
THE different group members,
OUTGROUP the outgroup is seen as
more heterogeneous.
_____________
1. loose their _____________
Differentiation
(outgroup members
2. gradually _____________ (outgroup members
are different to theare
different tostereotype)
outgroup the outgroup
stereotype)
9
THE PROCESSES BEHIND
DECATEGORIZATION
_____________
Learning about
idiosyncratic
information about the
individual

10
 BOOKKEEPING MODEL OF
STEREOTYPE
DISCONFIRMATION
Keep a tally of each
disconfirming piece of
information

Overall stereotype change is

possible, but _____________

11
DECATEGORIZATION
2 lines of evidence

Intergroup friendships
Experimental Manipulations

12
 DECATEGORIZATION
Contact based on personal friendships especially effective at reducing
prejudice

“Whatever makes…for more intimate acquaintance is likely to make for

increased tolerance” (Allport, 1954, p. 489)

Friendships = _____________ _____________

serve to _____________ & _____________ intergroup contact

Positive contact _____________ the _____________ of group identities (Árnadóttir,
Lolliot, Brown, & Hewstone, 2019)

13
 PROBLEMS WITH
DECATEGORIZATION?
Intergroup friendships – more disclosure & empathy (Turner et al., 2007)
– more cultural knowledge (Eller & Abrams, 2004; Stephan & Stephan, 1984)

Arguably friendships function at the “_____________”

If contact is truly decategorized – what is to stop “_____________”?

– how do you connect individual with the _____________?

Individuals are _____________ to give up important group identities (lack of positive

distinctiveness)
14
 CONTACT GENERALIZATION

DECATEGORIZATION MODEL
(Brewer & Miller, 1984)

COMMON INGROUP IDENTITY MODEL

(Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989)

MUTUAL INTERGROUP DIFFERENTIATION

MODEL
(Hewstone & Brown, 1986)

15
SOME
REDRAW
GROUP
GROUP
CATEGORIZATION
BOUNDARIES
MAKES
TO INCLUDE
INGROUP
BOTH
BIASGROUPS
PRESENT
BRITISH COLUMBIANS

you vs. me
to a more inclusive
“we”

16
 SUPERORDINATE IDENTITY

INGROUP BIAS IS NOW EXTENDED TO THE OUTGROUP,

WHO BECOMES PART OF THE INGROUP

Leverages ingroup bias

Common goals creates superordinate identities

17
EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
(Gaertner et al., 1989)
Met in groups of three and taken to separate rooms

As a group, complete the

Winter Survival Problem

18
WINTER SURVIVAL PROBLEM

19
 EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
(Gaertner et al., 1989)
Met in groups of three and taken to separate rooms

As a group, complete the

1 1 Winter Survival Problem 2 2
2
1 Rank items for their usefulness

20
SECOND STAGE OF THE
EXPERIMENT

1 1 2 2
2
1

21
COMMON TWO
INGROUP GROUP

1 2 1 2

2 1 1 2

1 2 1 2

22
 GAERTNER ET AL. (1989)
6

5.8
1 = least favourable rating; 7 = most

5.6

5.4
favourable rating

5.2

5 Ingroup Members
Outgroup Members
4.8

4.6

4.4

4.2

4
One group Two groups

23
 Per cent of participants choosing outgroup
member as leader

0
10
20
30
40
50
60

One group
Two groups
GAERTNER ET AL. (1989)

24
DRAWBACKS?

25
 DRAWBACKS?
1. Are new outgroup members encountered elsewhere
immediately ______________________________?
2. Doesn’t require ____________________of identities
3. …but it does require _______________identities in favour
of a different identity
4. Superordinate identity may constitute a __________
(Brewer, 2000)

26
CASE STUDY

27
 DRAWBACKS?
1. Are new outgroup members encountered elsewhere immediately subsumed
under the common identity?

2. Doesn’t require wholesale abandonment of identities

3. …but it does require relinquishing important identities in favour of a different
identity
4. Superordinate identity may constitute a threat (Brewer, 2000)
5. Conflict – common ingroup identities _______________
6. __________________taxing
7. ____________ groups less likely to accept superordinate identity if suggested
by a ____________ group member
28
 SOLUTION?

COMMON INGROUP IDENTITY

__________________
Both ______ and ______ordinate
identities are salient?
29
 CONTACT GENERALIZATION

DECATEGORIZATION MODEL
(Brewer & Miller, 1984)

COMMON INGROUP IDENTITY MODEL

(Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989)

MUTUAL INTERGROUP DIFFERENTIATION

MODEL
(Hewstone & Brown, 1986)

30
CONTACT GENERALIZATION

If there are issues with decategorizing…

If there are issues with recategorizing...

Do we keep group identities intact?

31
RE- AND DECATEGORIZATION

32
SALIENT CATEGORIZATION?
ALLPORT’S CONDITIONS

33
MUTUAL INTERGROUP DIFFERENTIATION
MODEL
(Hewstone & Brown, 1986)

If the beneficial effects of contact with an outgroup member

are to generalize to the whole group, that outgroup
member must be seen as a sufficiently typical member of
that group.

…as long as Allport’s conditions apply…

34
MUTUAL INTERGROUP DIFFERENTIATION
MODEL
(Hewstone & Brown, 1986)

Groups are not required to give up identities

Less likely to resit contact interventions

More likely to achieve positive & optimal distinctiveness

35
MUTUAL INTERGROUP DIFFERENTIATION
MODEL
(Hewstone & Brown, 1986)

Disconfirming information associated with an otherwise

typical outgroup member should generalize to the whole
group

36
WILDER (1988, Study 1)

typical / atypical
positive / negative

37
 WILDER (1988, Study 1)
7
1 = lower quality of outgroup col-

6
lege; 7 = higher quality of out-

5
group college

4
Pleasant
3 Unpleasant

0
Typical Atypical Control (No Contact)

38
VOCI & HEWSTONE (2003, Study 2)
Nurses from Milan

Contact with an immigrant co-worker and attitudes towards that

immigrant co-worker

Attitudes towards immigrants (from outside the EU)

Measured intergroup anxiety and group salience

39
VOCI AND HEWSTONE (2003) – STUDY 2

Attitude
toward
.21* out-group

.59***

.20* Attitude
toward
Contact co-workers
-.32**
at work Anxiety -.46***
at work
.23*

.21*
Rights for
immigrants
 WHAT ABOUT COMBINING
COMMON INGROUP IDENTITY
MODEL & MIDM?

Keep salient both the superordinate group identity

But also important subgroup identities?

41
MUTUAL INTERGROUP DIFFERENTIATION
MODEL
(Hewstone & Brown, 1986)
PROBLEMS:

History of animosity between two groups, meeting a “group

members” ______________

Lead to _______ contact outcomes (Islam & Hewstone, 1993)

42
 COMBINING STRATEGIES
(Pettigrew, 1998)
Decategorization is good when there is a history of animosity – reduces
anxiety
Problem: attitudes do not generalize

Mutual Intergroup Differentiation is good to aid generalization of positive

contact effects

Recategorization: affords “ingroup” privileges to outgroup members

(bolstered when both superordinate and subordinate identities are salient)

43
 LEARNING OUTCOMES
What is the problem with contact and generalization?

What are the strengths / weaknesses of the

Decategorization approach
The Common Ingroup Identity Approach
The Mutual Intergroup Differentiation Approach

How should one structure contact scenarios to best allow for attitude generalization
and minimize conflict?

44