How intergroup contact and communication about group differences predict collective action intentions among advantaged groups

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 ◽  
pp. 7-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda R. Tropp ◽  
Özden Melis Uluğ ◽  
Mete Sefa Uysal
2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 893-912 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hema Preya Selvanathan ◽  
Pirathat Techakesari ◽  
Linda R. Tropp ◽  
Fiona Kate Barlow

Advantaged group members have an important role to play in creating social change, and intergroup contact has tremendous implications in shaping intergroup relations. However, little research has examined how intergroup contact predicts advantaged group members’ inclinations toward collective action to support the interests of disadvantaged groups. The present research investigates how contact with Black Americans shapes White Americans’ willingness to engage in collective action for racial justice and support for the Black Lives Matter movement. Three studies of White Americans (total N = 821) consistently reveal that positive contact with Black Americans predicts greater support for collective action through a sequential process of fostering greater feelings of empathy for Black Americans and anger over injustice. These findings hold even when taking into account other relevant psychological factors (i.e., White guilt and identification, negative contact, group efficacy, and moral convictions). The present research contributes to our understanding of how advantaged group members come to engage in social change efforts.


2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 432-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allard R. Feddes ◽  
Liesbeth Mann ◽  
Bertjan Doosje

AbstractA key argument of Dixon et al. in the target article is that prejudice reduction through intergroup contact and collective action work in opposite ways. We argue for a complementary approach focusing on extreme emotions to understand why people turn to non-normative collective action and to understand when and under what conditions extreme emotions may influence positive effects of contact on reconciliation.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tabea Hässler ◽  
Özden Melis Uluğ ◽  
Mariska Kappmeier ◽  
Giovanni A. Travaglino

Previous research has shown that positive intergroup contact among disadvantaged groupmembers may predict a so-called ‘sedative’ effect according to which positive contact isassociated with reduced support for social change. Conversely, positive contact is associatedwith increased support for social change toward equality among advantaged group members.This raises the important question of under which circumstances intergroup contact canencourage support for social change among both disadvantaged and advantaged groups. Inthis theoretical article, we tackle this question by introducing a new Integrated Contact-Collective Action Model (ICCAM). We first provide an up-to-date review of how intergroupcontact may promote or hinder social change for both disadvantaged and advantaged groups.We, then, use ICCAM to examine when the many forms of intergroup contact promote orhinder support for social change, proposing the existence of two different paths fordisadvantaged and advantaged group members. Finally, we discuss the implications of themodel for social intervention and make policy recommendations stemming from a review ofavailable evidence.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siwar Aslih ◽  
Ruthie Pliskin ◽  
Eric Shuman ◽  
Martijn van Zomeren ◽  
Tamar Saguy ◽  
...  

The current research examines joint collective action (e.g., between Blacks and Whites) from the perspective of disadvantaged group members, for whom such action reflects a dilemma of whether to “sleep with the enemy.” Integrating insights from research on intergroup contact, helping, and collective action, we suggest that an important part of this dilemma lies in the tension between a key motivation (joint action’s perceived instrumentality) and a key barrier (joint action’s perceived potential to normalize power relations between the groups). We test this idea in three studies using different methods and different intergroup contexts. Studies 1 and 2 showed that manipulated instrumentality increased motivation for joint action, whereas manipulated normalization decreased this motivation. Study 3 showed that manipulated normalization decreased perceptions of instrumentality and thus undermined the motivation for joint action, and this occurred mainly among high identifiers with the disadvantaged group, for whom the dilemma should be most salient. We discuss the implications of our findings for theory and research on collective action and call for future research on joint action.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document