scholarly journals Intergroup contact and social change: Implications of negative and positive contact for collective action in advantaged and disadvantaged groups

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nils Karl Reimer ◽  
Julia C. Becker ◽  
Angelika Benz ◽  
Oliver Christ ◽  
Kristof Dhont ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Perceived Discrimination ◽  
Intergroup Contact ◽  
Group Identification ◽  
Lgbt Students ◽  
Lgbt Activism ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Positive Contact ◽  
The Relationship

Previous research has shown that (1) positive intergroup contact with an advantaged group can discourage collective action among disadvantaged-group members and (2) positive intergroup contact can encourage advantaged-group members to take action on behalf of disadvantaged outgroups. Two studies investigated the effects of negative as well as positive intergroup contact. Study 1 (N = 482) found that negative but not positive contact with heterosexual people was associated with sexual-minority students’ engagement in collective action (via group identification and perceived discrimination). Among heterosexual students, positive and negative contact were associated with, respectively, more and less LGB activism. Study 2 (N = 1,469) found that only negative contact (via perceived discrimination) predicted LGBT students’ collective action intentions longitudinally while only positive contact predicted heterosexual/cisgender students’ LGBT activism. Implications for the relationship between intergroup contact, collective action, and social change are discussed.

scholarly journals Intergroup Contact and Social Change

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nils Karl Reimer ◽  
Julia C. Becker ◽  
Angelika Benz ◽  
Oliver Christ ◽  
Kristof Dhont ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Perceived Discrimination ◽  
Intergroup Contact ◽  
Group Identification ◽  
Transgender Students ◽  
Lgbt Activism ◽  
Bisexual And Transgender ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Positive Contact

Previous research has shown that (a) positive intergroup contact with an advantaged group can discourage collective action among disadvantaged-group members and (b) positive intergroup contact can encourage advantaged-group members to take action on behalf of disadvantaged outgroups. Two studies investigated the effects of negative as well as positive intergroup contact. Study 1 ( n = 482) found that negative but not positive contact with heterosexual people was associated with sexual-minority students’ engagement in collective action (via group identification and perceived discrimination). Among heterosexual students, positive and negative contacts were associated with, respectively, more and less LGB (lesbian, gay, bisexual) activism. Study 2 ( N = 1,469) found that only negative contact (via perceived discrimination) predicted LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) students’ collective action intentions longitudinally while only positive contact predicted heterosexual/cisgender students’ LGBT activism. Implications for the relationship between intergroup contact, collective action, and social change are discussed.

scholarly journals Intergroup Contact and Social Change: An Integrated Contact-Collective Action Model

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tabea Hässler ◽  
Özden Melis Uluğ ◽  
Mariska Kappmeier ◽  
Giovanni A. Travaglino
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Intergroup Contact ◽  
Sedative Effect ◽  
Social Intervention ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Action Model ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Positive Contact ◽  
The Many

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.

scholarly journals Whites for racial justice: How contact with Black Americans predicts support for collective action among White Americans

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 893-912 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hema Preya Selvanathan ◽  
Pirathat Techakesari ◽  
Linda R. Tropp ◽  
Fiona Kate Barlow
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Intergroup Contact ◽  
Black Americans ◽  
White Americans ◽  
Racial Justice ◽  
Group Efficacy ◽  
Total N ◽  
Group Members ◽  
White Guilt

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.

scholarly journals When we want them to fear us: The motivation to influence outgroup emotions in collective action

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 724-745 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siwar Hasan-Aslih ◽  
Liat Netzer ◽  
Martijn van Zomeren ◽  
Tamar Saguy ◽  
Maya Tamir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Causal Effect ◽  
Prior Work ◽  
Disadvantaged Group ◽  
Nonviolent Action ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Violent Action ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Action Tendencies

Prior work has shown that the experience of group-based emotions can motivate disadvantaged group members to engage in collective action. In the current research, we tested whether such action can also be driven by the motivation to induce certain emotions among the outgroup to the extent that disadvantaged group members believe this would help them attain their social change goals. We tested this hypothesis in three studies (two correlational and one experimental) within the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Study 1 showed that individuals’ motivation to induce outgroup regret was associated with nonviolent collective action tendencies, whereas the motivation to induce outgroup fear was related to violent action. Study 2 moved beyond Study 1 by assessing corrective and punitive goals of social change. We found that preferences for inducing outgroup regret mediated the relationship between endorsement of corrective goals and nonviolent action tendencies, whereas preferences for outgroup fear mediated the relationship between punitive goals and violent action. Study 3 provided experimental support for the causal effect of goals on emotion motivations and collective action tendencies. Together, our findings are in line with the notion of instrumental emotion regulation as applied to collective action.

Beyond prejudice: Relational inequality, collective action, and social change revisited

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 451-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Dixon ◽  
Mark Levine ◽  
Steve Reicher ◽  
Kevin Durrheim
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Intergroup Relations ◽  
Prejudice Reduction ◽  
Dominant Group ◽  
Negative Attitudes ◽  
Main Target ◽  
Subordinate Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Intergroup Inequality

AbstractThis response clarifies, qualifies, and develops our critique of the limits of intergroup liking as a means of challenging intergroup inequality. It does not dispute that dominant groups may espouse negative attitudes towards subordinate groups. Nor does it dispute that prejudice reduction can be an effective way of tackling resulting forms of intergroup hostility. What it does dispute is the assumption that getting dominant group members and subordinate group members to like each other more is the best way of improving intergroup relations that are characterized by relatively stable, institutionally embedded, relations of inequality. In other words, the main target of our critique is the model of change that underlies prejudice reduction interventions and the mainstream concept of “prejudice” on which they are based.

scholarly journals Needs satisfaction in intergroup contact: A multi-national study of pathways toward social change

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tabea Hässler ◽  
Johannes Ullrich ◽  
Simone Sebben ◽  
Nurit Shnabel ◽  
Michelle Bernardino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Ethnic Minority ◽  
Survey Data ◽  
Intergroup Contact ◽  
National Study ◽  
Mutual Support ◽  
Disadvantaged Groups ◽  
Needs Satisfaction ◽  
Gender Minorities ◽  
Group Members

What role does intergroup contact play in promoting support for social change toward greater equality? Drawing on the needs-based model of reconciliation, we theorized that when inequality between groups is perceived as illegitimate, disadvantaged groups members will experience a need for empowerment and advantaged groups members a need for acceptance. When intergroup contact satisfies each group’s needs, it should result in more mutual support for social change. Using four sets of survey data collected through the Zurich Intergroup Project in 23 countries, we tested several preregistered predictions derived from the above reasoning across a large variety of operationalizations. Two studies of disadvantaged groups (Ns=689 ethnic minority members in Study 1 and 3,382 sexual/gender minorities in Study 2) support the hypothesis that, after accounting for the effects of intergroup contact and perceived illegitimacy, satisfying the need for empowerment (but not acceptance) during contact is positively related with support for social change. Two studies with advantaged groups (Ns=2,937 ethnic majority members in Study 3 and 4,203 cis-heterosexual individuals in Study 4) showed that, after accounting for illegitimacy and intergroup contact, satisfying the need for acceptance (but also empowerment) is positively related with support for social change. Overall, these findings suggest that intergroup contact is compatible with efforts to promote social change when group-specific needs are met. Thus, to encourage support for social change among both disadvantaged and advantaged group members, it is essential that besides promoting mutual acceptance, intergroup contact interventions also give voice to and empower members of disadvantaged groups.

scholarly journals Protesting to protect “us” and/or “them”? Explaining why members of third groups are willing to engage in collective action

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 140-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liga Klavina ◽  
Martijn van Zomeren
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Group Identification ◽  
Black Americans ◽  
Police Brutality ◽  
Gas Extraction ◽  
Latino Americans ◽  
Group Members

In three studies we test whether three key predictors of collective action (i.e., group identification, anger, and efficacy) also predict whether and how members of third groups are willing to undertake collective action. Little is known about this, particularly about whether and how third-group members may engage in collective action to protect their own group and/or to protect an outgroup in need. In three studies that employed different three-group contexts, we found that the three predictors contributed to third-group members’ collective action intentions aimed at protecting the ingroup as well as those aimed at protecting the outgroup. Study 1 found this among Latvians ( N = 89) in response to the Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory; Study 2 found this among residents of a Dutch village ( N = 98) located nearby a gas-extraction-related earthquake region, in response to authorities’ inadequate protection of the residents of that region; and Study 3 found this among Latino Americans ( N = 278) in response to police brutality against Black Americans. Moving beyond replication and application of previous work, our set of studies show first evidence for ingroup and outgroup protection as motives of third-group members’ collective action. We discuss the implications of our findings for the broader social psychology of collective action literature.

Acting together with the enemy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siwar Aslih ◽  
Ruthie Pliskin ◽  
Eric Shuman ◽  
Martijn van Zomeren ◽  
Tamar Saguy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Joint Action ◽  
Power Relations ◽  
Intergroup Contact ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Disadvantaged Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Blacks And Whites ◽  
Perceived Instrumentality ◽  
Key Barrier

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