Intergroup contact theory
Páginas: 39 (9640 palabras)
Publicado: 24 de febrero de 2012
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1998. 49:65–85 Copyright © 1998 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY
Thomas F. Pettigrew
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1998.49:65-85. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by University of Leiden - Bibliotheek on 02/07/12. For personal use only.
Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064; e-mail:pettigr@cats.ucsc.edu
KEY WORDS: affective ties, ingroup reappraisal, group categorization
ABSTRACT
Allport specified four conditions for optimal intergroup contact: equal group status within the situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation and authority support. Varied research supports the hypothesis, but four problems remain. 1. A selection bias limits cross-sectional studies, since prejudicedpeople avoid intergroup contact. Yet research finds that the positive effects of cross-group friendship are larger than those of the bias. 2. Writers overburden the hypothesis with facilitating, but not essential, conditions. 3. The hypothesis fails to address process. The chapter proposes four processes: learning about the outgroup, changed behavior, affective ties, and ingroup reappraisal. 4. Thehypothesis does not specify how the effects generalize to other situations, the outgroup or uninvolved outgroups. Acting sequentially, three strategies enhance generalization—decategorization, salient categorization, and recategorization. Finally, both individual differences and societal norms shape intergroup contact effects. The chapter outlines a longitudinal intergroup contact theory. Itdistinguishes between essential and facilitating factors, and emphasizes different outcomes for different stages of contact.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Allport’s Intergroup Contact Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INITIAL EMPIRICALEVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RECENT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Causal Sequence Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Independent Variable Specification Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unspecified Processes of Change Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Generalization of Effects Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOURPROCESSES OF CHANGE THROUGH INTERGROUP CONTACT. . . . . . . . . . . THREE TYPES OF GENERALIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66 66 67 68 69 69 69 70 70 70 73
65 0066-4308/98/0201-0065$08.00
66
PETTIGREW
75 77 78 79 80
A REFORMULATION OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Individual Differences ShapeContact Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Societies Shape Contact Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GENERAL EVALUATIONS OF CONTACT EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION
Social scientists began to theorize about intergroup contact after World War II (Watson 1947, Williams 1947). Allport’s (1954) hypothesis proved the most influential by specifying the critical situational conditions for intergroup contact to reduce prejudice. His hypothesis has received extensive attention both for its rare theoretical status and...
INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY
Thomas F. Pettigrew
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1998.49:65-85. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by University of Leiden - Bibliotheek on 02/07/12. For personal use only.
Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064; e-mail:pettigr@cats.ucsc.edu
KEY WORDS: affective ties, ingroup reappraisal, group categorization
ABSTRACT
Allport specified four conditions for optimal intergroup contact: equal group status within the situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation and authority support. Varied research supports the hypothesis, but four problems remain. 1. A selection bias limits cross-sectional studies, since prejudicedpeople avoid intergroup contact. Yet research finds that the positive effects of cross-group friendship are larger than those of the bias. 2. Writers overburden the hypothesis with facilitating, but not essential, conditions. 3. The hypothesis fails to address process. The chapter proposes four processes: learning about the outgroup, changed behavior, affective ties, and ingroup reappraisal. 4. Thehypothesis does not specify how the effects generalize to other situations, the outgroup or uninvolved outgroups. Acting sequentially, three strategies enhance generalization—decategorization, salient categorization, and recategorization. Finally, both individual differences and societal norms shape intergroup contact effects. The chapter outlines a longitudinal intergroup contact theory. Itdistinguishes between essential and facilitating factors, and emphasizes different outcomes for different stages of contact.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Allport’s Intergroup Contact Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INITIAL EMPIRICALEVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RECENT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Causal Sequence Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Independent Variable Specification Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unspecified Processes of Change Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Generalization of Effects Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOURPROCESSES OF CHANGE THROUGH INTERGROUP CONTACT. . . . . . . . . . . THREE TYPES OF GENERALIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66 66 67 68 69 69 69 70 70 70 73
65 0066-4308/98/0201-0065$08.00
66
PETTIGREW
75 77 78 79 80
A REFORMULATION OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Individual Differences ShapeContact Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Societies Shape Contact Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GENERAL EVALUATIONS OF CONTACT EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION
Social scientists began to theorize about intergroup contact after World War II (Watson 1947, Williams 1947). Allport’s (1954) hypothesis proved the most influential by specifying the critical situational conditions for intergroup contact to reduce prejudice. His hypothesis has received extensive attention both for its rare theoretical status and...
Leer documento completo
Regístrate para leer el documento completo.