Hanna Zagefka

Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries.

A widely researched panacea for reducing intergroup prejudice is the contact hypothesis. However, few longitudinal studies can shed light on the direction of causal processes: from contact to prejudice reduction (contact effects) or from prejudice to contact reduction (prejudice effects). The authors conducted a longitudinal field survey in Germany, Belgium, and England with school students. The sample comprised members of both ethnic minorities (n = 512) and ethnic majorities (n = 1,143). Path analyses yielded both lagged contact effects and prejudice effects: Contact reduced prejudice, but prejudice also reduced contact. Furthermore, contact effects were negligible for minority members. These effects were obtained for 2 indicators of prejudice: negative intergroup emotions and desire for social distance. For both majority and minority members, contact effects on negative emotions were stronger when outgroup contacts were perceived as being typical of their group. Contact effects were also mediated by intergroup anxiety. This mediating mechanism was impaired for minority members because of a weakened effect of anxiety on desire for social distance. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

The dynamics of acculturation: an intergroup perspective

Abstract The growing global trend of migration gives social psychological enquiry into acculturation processes particular contemporary relevance. Inspired by one of the earliest definitions of acculturation [Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. (1936). Memorandum on the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38 , 149–152.], we present a case for considering acculturation as a dynamic intergroup process. We first review research stimulated by the dominant perspective in the field, Berrys acculturation framework. Noting several limitations of that work, we identify five issues which have defined our own research agenda: (1) the mutual influence of acculturation preferences and intergroup attitudes; (2) the influence of the perceived acculturation preferences of the outgroup on own acculturation and intergroup attitudes; (3) discrepancies between ingroup and outgroup acculturation attitudes as a determinant of intergroup attitudes; (4) the importance of the intergroup climate in which acculturation takes place; and (5) acculturation as a process—developmental and longitudinal perspectives. We review research of others and our own that document each of these points: longitudinal and experimental studies, rarities in the acculturation literature, figure prominently. Research settings include Turkish–German relations in Germany, indigenous–nonindigenous relations in Chile, African migrants to Italy and ethnic majority–minority relations in the United Kingdom. We conclude with an agenda for future acculturation research and some policy implications of our analysis.

Chapter three – The Dynamics of Acculturation: An Intergroup Perspective

Abstract The growing global trend of migration gives social psychological enquiry into acculturation processes particular contemporary relevance. Inspired by one of the earliest definitions of acculturation [Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. (1936). Memorandum on the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38 , 149–152.], we present a case for considering acculturation as a dynamic intergroup process. We first review research stimulated by the dominant perspective in the field, Berrys acculturation framework. Noting several limitations of that work, we identify five issues which have defined our own research agenda: (1) the mutual influence of acculturation preferences and intergroup attitudes; (2) the influence of the perceived acculturation preferences of the outgroup on own acculturation and intergroup attitudes; (3) discrepancies between ingroup and outgroup acculturation attitudes as a determinant of intergroup attitudes; (4) the importance of the intergroup climate in which acculturation takes place; and (5) acculturation as a process—developmental and longitudinal perspectives. We review research of others and our own that document each of these points: longitudinal and experimental studies, rarities in the acculturation literature, figure prominently. Research settings include Turkish–German relations in Germany, indigenous–nonindigenous relations in Chile, African migrants to Italy and ethnic majority–minority relations in the United Kingdom. We conclude with an agenda for future acculturation research and some policy implications of our analysis.

Comparisons and Perceived Deprivation in Ethnic Minority Settings

Two studies investigated comparison choices among ethnic minorities and majorities. The perceived status of the self vis-àvis different comparison targets also was assessed. Antecedents and consequences of comparisons and relative deprivation were examined. Predictions were derived from social comparison, stigma, social identity, and relative deprivation research. Two surveys were conducted, one in London with mainly Asian participants (N = 235) and one in Germany with Turkish and Aussiedler participants (N = 166) and German majority members (N = 351). Participants preferred intragroup and temporal comparisons (with other ingroup members and with the self in the past) to various types of cross-group comparisons (with outgroup members). Perceived similarity and contact with a target positively predicted interest in comparing with this target, and perceived higher status of the target was a negative predictor. Some evidence was found that feelings of deprivation depend on comparison choices. Deprivation negatively predicted self-esteem and life satisfaction. Deprivation and group identification were negatively correlated.

To know you is to love you: Effects of intergroup contact and knowledge on intergroup anxiety and prejudice among indigenous Chileans

Two surveys were conducted in Chile with indigenous Mapuche participants (N study 1: 573; N study 2: 198). In line with previous theorising, it was predicted that intergroup contact with the non-indigenous majority reduces prejudice. It was expected that this effect would be because of contact leading to more knowledge about the outgroup, which would then lead to less intergroup anxiety. The two studies yielded converging support for these predictions.

On the psychological barriers to the workplace: when and why metastereotyping undermines employability beliefs of women and ethnic minorities.

We investigated the effect of how one might expect one’s group to be viewed by a dominant outgroup (i.e., metastereotypes) on employability beliefs of members of disadvantaged groups. Based on the extensive literature on stereotype threat, we hypothesized that activating negative metastereotypes would undermine employability beliefs of members of disadvantaged groups, because such beliefs are likely to threaten their state self-esteem. In particular, we expected that an effect of negative metastereotyping on employability beliefs would be explained by momentary self-doubts and be particularly evident among members whose dispositional self-esteem is high rather than low to begin with. Taken jointly, results from a correlational study (n = 80) and an experimental study (n = 56) supported these hypotheses, and discussion focuses on their implications for mobility into the workplace.

The effects of group memberships of victims and perpetrators in humanly caused disasters on charitable donations to victims

Department of Psychology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London Correspondence Trevor Keith James, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK. Email: Trevor.James@ncl.ac.uk Abstract The effects of group memberships of disaster victims and perpetrators on charitable donations were measured. In Study 1 (N592), victim group membership was experimentally varied to demonstrate an ingroup bias. In Study 2 (N584), a similar bias was demonstrated by varying perpetrator group membership. In Study 3 (N5182), both victim and perpetrator group memberships were assessed. Perpetrator group membership interacted with victim group membership. Moreover, donations were highest when both victims and perpetrators shared a group membership. These effects were mediated by empathy with the victims, and perceived responsibility of the donor to intervene and aid the victim. Findings show that a salient perpetrator group can be harnessed to encourage helping of disaster victims.

The importance of national identities and intergroup relations in disaster Aid

In this chapter, we examine how a salient intergroup relationship can affect individual donation decisions. We discuss findings and theoretical considerations under four pertinent categories: (1) group memberships and donor familiarity; (2) the donor–perpetrator relationship; (3) the donor–victim relationship; and (4) intergroup relations as perceived by the donor. With regard to group memberships and donor familiarity, we find that participants are more willing to help Asian victims after a 5 min quiz that improves their knowledge of an outgroup. With regard to donor–perpetrator and donor–victim relationships, we find that both perpetrator and victim categories can be manipulated in order to engender a more prosocial response. Moreover, consideration of perpetrator roles, in addition to the more frequently studied role of the victim, can aid in eliciting a charitable response. Finally, with regard to intergroup relations as perceived by the donor, we find that Chinese participants are more willing to help Japanese tsunami victims if they have a positive image of Japan as a nation; however, this same positive image can also decrease donations if Japanese victims are seen to be highly competent. In sum, we demonstrate the importance of intergroup contexts in understanding donation behaviour and suggest that such contexts can be used to promote helping behaviour. We end with both suggestions for future work and a discussion of practical implications for fund raisers.

Akkulturation und Integration ethnischer Gruppen

Migration pragt heute den Alltag vieler europaischer Staaten. In Deutschland zum Beispiel liegt der Anteil der Bevolkerung mit Migrationshintergrund mittlerweile bei 19 Prozent (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2006). Eine Konsequenz dieser Entwicklung ist, dass immer ofter Menschengruppen mit verschiedenen kulturellen Hintergrunden in Kontakt miteinander kommen. Oft hat interkultureller Kontakt Veranderungen in der Kultur und Lebensweise einer oder mehrerer Gruppen zur Folge. Diese Veranderungen sind von Redfield, Linton und Herskovits (1936) als ‚Akkulturation’ bezeichnet worden. Akkulturation ist allerdings kein Vorgang, der nur passiv erlebt wird. Im Gegenteil haben viele Menschen – ob sie selbst migriert sind oder nicht – bestimmte Vorstellungen davon, welche Formen der Akkulturation wunschenswert sind. Diese Meinungen werden im Weiteren als Akkulturationseinstellungen bezeichnet. Migranten und Menschen ohne Migrationshintergrund nehmen oft aktiv Einfluss auf den Akkulturationsprozess, um ein bestimmtes Resultat zu erzielen.

Antecedents of intra/intergroup friendships and stress levels among ethnic and religious minority members.

Two studies tested a model, whereby, identification with the minority group was predicted to impact on acculturation preferences, which in turn were proposed to impact involvement in intragroup friendships with other minority members, intergroup friendships with majority members and stress experienced by minority members. A direct path from minority identification to stress was also included in the model. The model was tested using structural equation modelling on survey data collected from Muslim women (N = 250) and from Somali minority members (N = 198) in Britain. Results supported predictions and revealed that identification was associated with more culture maintenance preference and less culture adoption preference. Culture maintenance preference was associated with involvement in intragroup friendships, and culture adoption preference was associated with involvement in intergroup friendships and increased stress. Practical applications of the findings are discussed.