Ralf Wölfer

Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact

Research in social psychology has provided impressive evidence that intergroup contact reduces prejudice. However, to the extent that strategies based on direct contact are sometimes difficult to implement, scholars have more recently focused on indirect contact. An effective form of indirect contact is extended contact. According to the extended contact hypothesis, simply knowing that ingroup members have outgroup friends (extended contact), or observing these friendships vicariously (vicarious contact), can improve intergroup relations. Since its initial formulation a large body of studies has supported the validity of the extended contact hypothesis. In reviewing the available literature on two forms of indirect contact (extended and vicarious), we outline a model that identifies their antecedents and consequences, spanning from cognitive to affective to behavioural outcomes. In addition to identifying the main moderators of indirect contact, we also distinguish two different routes, one cognitive and one affective, that underlie what processes mediate their effects. Finally, we indicate some possible avenues for future research and we consider how direct and indirect contact strategies can be used in combination to improve intergroup relations.

Measures of intergroup contact

Allport’s (1954) ‘contact hypothesis’ proposed that intergroup contact is a powerful means for improving intergroup attitudes. Subsequent theory and research has developed this hypothesis into a full-blown theory that makes precise predictions about the effects of different types of contact on mainly attitudinal outcomes, and how and when those effects will occur. This chapter reviews some of the most important measures commonly used in research on intergroup contact; those specifically pertaining to intergroup contact (both direct and extended), mediating (intergroup anxiety) and moderating (membership salience) mechanisms, and outcomes (outgroup attitudes). Our aim is that the information assembled here can serve both (a) as a ‘toolkit’ for the interested novice researcher and (b) as a useful resource to the experienced intergroup contact practitioner regarding the psychometric properties of these commonly used measures. Research on intergroup contact is of great practical and policy importance, hence it behoves us as researchers to take care to use the best possible tools for the job.

Ostracism in childhood and adolescence: Emotional, cognitive, and behavioral effects of social exclusion

Drawing on theories of development, motivation, and personality we examined childrens and adolescents’ emotional and cognitive perception of, and explained their behavioral reactions to, ostracism in two experimental studies. In Study one, 93 fourth- and eighth-graders (49 girls) were either socially included or excluded within a virtual ball-tossing game (cyberball). Results demonstrated that ostracism causes negative emotions and a selective memory for social events, similarly for children and adolescents, which verifies the usefulness of cyberball beyond self-reports. In Study two, 97 fourth- to ninth-graders (43 girls) behaviorally reacted to the previously induced ostracism episode within a modified paradigm (cyberball-R). Multinomial logistic regression demonstrated that psychosocial differences between participants displaying prosocial, avoidant, and antisocial reactions followed the expected pattern, which provides initial evidence concerning moderators that prevent children and adolescents from receiving further aggression.

Cyberball: A Reasonable Paradigm for Research in Developmental Science?

Ostracism is defined as acts of ignorance or social exclusion by another individual or group (Williams, 2001), which can be described as a powerful negative experience that may have a negative impact on a child’s socio-emotional development. When ostracized, people report feeling frustrated, anxious, or nervous (Williams, 2001). The initial reactions to ostracism are similarly felt by all individuals regardless of personality or social and situational factors. Ostracism then instigates actions aimed at recovering thwarted needs of belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence. Ostracism has been studied in many ways according to different traditions in various research areas (for excellent reviews see Williams, 2001; 2007). For example, some researchers have addressed it using methodologically sound survey scales with satisfying psychometric properties (Crick & Grotpeter, 1996; Werner & Crick, 2004) while others have addressed it in experimental studies utilizing rejection paradigms (Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister 2003; Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004). In this respect, the most commonly applied assessment form has been the cyberball paradigm (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000).

Beyond the dyadic perspective: 10 Reasons for using social network analysis in intergroup contact research

This article presents 10 reasons why social network analysis, a novel but still surprisingly underused approach in social psychology, can advance the analysis of intergroup contact. Although intergroup contact has been shown to improve intergroup relations, conventional methods leave some questions unanswered regarding the underlying social mechanisms that facilitate social cohesion between different groups in increasingly diverse societies. We will therefore explain the largely unknown conceptual and methodological advantages of social network analysis for studying intergroup contact in naturally existing groups, which are likely to help contact researchers to gain a better understanding of intergroup relations and guide attempts to overcome segregation, prejudice, discrimination, and intergroup conflict.

Intra- Versus Intersex Aggression Testing Theories of Sex Differences Using Aggression Networks

Two theories offer competing explanations of sex differences in aggressive behavior: sexual-selection theory and social-role theory. While each theory has specific strengths and limitations depending on the victim’s sex, research hardly differentiates between intrasex and intersex aggression. In the present study, 11,307 students (mean age = 14.96 years; 50% girls, 50% boys) from 597 school classes provided social-network data (aggression and friendship networks) as well as physical (body mass index) and psychosocial (gender and masculinity norms) information. Aggression networks were used to disentangle intra- and intersex aggression, whereas their class-aggregated sex differences were analyzed using contextual predictors derived from sexual-selection and social-role theories. As expected, results revealed that sexual-selection theory predicted male-biased sex differences in intrasex aggression, whereas social-role theory predicted male-biased sex differences in intersex aggression. Findings suggest the value of explaining sex differences separately for intra- and intersex aggression with a dual-theory framework covering both evolutionary and normative components.

Influence of segregation versus mixing: Intergroup contact and attitudes among White-British and Asian-British students in high schools in Oldham, England

We report findings from three longitudinal studies investigating the extent, quality and consequences of intergroup contact in schools between young Asian-British and White-British secondary (high-school) students. Results provide robust support for Allport’s ‘contact hypothesis’ in this setting. Specifically, mixing (vs segregation) in high schools does actually promote intergroup contact (although there is still resegregation), and contact improves attitudes and trust towards the outgroup. We conclude that faith schools, to the extent that they are segregated, deprive young people of the opportunity to mix across ethnic and religious lines during the school day; in the absence of positive contact in a safe setting, intergroup contact and especially cross-group friendships are restricted, and positive outgroup attitudes are thwarted.

The “Wallpaper Effect” revisited: Divergent findings on the effects of intergroup contact on attitudes in diverse versus nondiverse contexts

This article reexamines the so-called “wallpaper effect” of intergroup contact, which contends that for minority group members living in areas more densely populated by majority group members, intergroup contact fails to reduce prejudice. We tested this claim in five studies, using data from five countries, two types of contexts, a range of measures, and involving different minority versus majority groups. Using multilevel cross-level interaction models, we considered whether effects of contact on outgroup attitudes were moderated by relative outgroup size. Results failed to replicate the previously reported findings, revealing, by and large, nonsignificant cross-level moderation effects; instead, we witnessed consistent positive contact effects on attitudes. Findings are discussed against the backdrop of recent research on the consequences of diversity, as well as context-based considerations regarding minority versus majority constellations. We also discuss some exceptions to our findings that emerged for some respondent groups and contexts across the five studies.

What buffers ethnic homophily? Explaining the development of outgroup contact in adolescence.

Although literature provides strong evidence for the beneficial role of outgroup contact, longitudinal knowledge regarding the formation and change of outgroup contact remains improvable. Using a longitudinal, large-scale data set including 6,726 majority and minority participants (Mage = 14.98 years at Wave 1; 55% female) from 4 western European countries that were followed in 3 waves over 2 years, we systematically examined the development of outgroup contact during adolescence and tested the role of hypothesized predictors (i.e., intergroup attitudes and social identity) for explaining this development. In the majority, growth curve models revealed consistent patterns of ethnic homophily characterized by a continuous decline of outgroup contact, whereas this negative growth was buffered by a positive change of intergroup attitudes and a negative change of national identity during adolescence. In contrast, in the minority, outgroup contact was characterized by higher mean levels and a nonlinear development (i.e., no systematic decline or increase) of outgroup contact. Findings highlight the developmental importance of adolescence for promoting positive intergroup relations, especially for the majority, and emphasize the usefulness of contact interventions with adolescent students in school.

Different Outcomes Require Different Explanations.

In general, we agree with almost everything mentioned in the commentary by Cross and Campbell (2017). We feel, however, that their line of argumentation is largely based on a misunderstanding that we will try to clarify in this reply. It is a valuable thought that researchers should be careful not to fall back into the traditional view of sexual-selection theory and social-role theory as competing explanations for sex differences in aggressive behavior. In fact, we believe that it is less helpful to prioritize one theory than it is to consider both equally in one’s conceptual reasoning and analytic models. This is what we did in our original article (Wölfer & Hewstone, 2015), and this is in line with recent integrative approaches that consider both sides of the nature-nurture debate underlying this theoretical competition (Eagly & Wood, 2013; Geary, 1999; van den Berghe, 2009). What has to be differentiated—and this is actually the key point of our original article—are intrasex and intersex aggression (or same-sex and other-sex aggression, respectively), because they represent different outcomes that are based on different mechanisms and, consequently, require different explanations. As outlined in our original article, the literature indicates that intrasex aggression can be better explained by sexual-selection theory as being a result of same-sex competition in order to achieve reproductive success, while intersex aggression can be better explained by social-role theory as resulting from the socialized gender roles within a particular setting. At the same time, sexual-selection theory falls short in explaining intersex aggression, because male-female aggression is, at least in humans, evolutionarily ineffective compared with nonviolent and stable long-term relationships that facilitate biparental care that, in turn, increases the chance that the offspring attains reproductive age (Fernandez-Duque, Valeggia, & Mendoza, 2009). In turn, social-role theory falls short in explaining intrasex aggression, because male-male aggression, despite continuous socialization experiences, does not increase evenly over the life course but reaches a peak in early adulthood when men enter the mating arena (Daly & Wilson, 1990). In their commentary, Cross and Campbell argue that sexual-selection theory already addresses intersex aggression and that social-role theory already addresses intrasex aggression, because mediating domain-general traits shaped by sexual selection (e.g., risk taking) or social roles (e.g., gender norms) facilitate aggression in general. It is correct that these factors influence sex differences in aggressive behavior, but the importance of these underlying mechanisms, in turn, differs between intraand intersex aggression in the sense of a moderated mediation. More specifically, the mediating effect of risk-taking behavior between sex and aggression is stronger for intrathan intersex aggression, as Cross concluded in a different article: “Aggression towards opposite-sex partners has been shown to relate less strongly than aggression towards same-sex targets to [risky] impulsivity” (2010, p. 789). Similarly, the mediating effect of gender norms between sex and aggression is stronger for interthan intrasex aggression, as indicated by research demonstrating a stronger effect of (culturally varying) gender norms on intersex aggression compared with (historically varying) gender norms on intrasex aggression (cf. Archer, 2009). Disentangling both types of sex differences in aggressive behavior will improve not only their theoretical fit with sexual-selection theory and with social-role theory, but also the accuracy of analytic models. Table S1 in the Supplemental Material available online presents a reanalysis 687730 PSSXXX10.1177/0956797616687730Wölfer, HewstoneDifferent Outcomes Require Different Explanations research-article2017