Verification of ingroup identity as a longitudinal mediator between intergroup contact and outgroup evaluation

  1. Gómez, Ángel 1
  2. Eller, Anja 2
  3. Vázquez, Alexandra 1
  1. 1 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02msb5n36

  2. 2 Universidad Nacional Autónoma (Mexico)
Journal:
The Spanish Journal of Psychology

ISSN: 1138-7416

Year of publication: 2013

Issue: 16

Pages: 1-11

Type: Article

DOI: 10.1017/SJP.2013.66 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: The Spanish Journal of Psychology

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

Almost six decades of research have consistently demonstrated that intergroup contact is one of the most powerful ways of improving intergroup attitudes. At least two important limitations, however, still compel researchers to continue work in this area: the issue of long-term effects of contact, and the processes underlying such effects. This report makes a theoretical and empirical contribution with regard to these two aspects introducing a new mediator of the effects of contact: verification of qualities of typical ingroup members that may or may not characterize individual group members (e.g. verification of ingroup identities). One hundred and forty-two high school students participated in a two-wave longitudinal study with 12 weeks� lag in Spain. Cross-sectional and longitudinal mediational analyses using multiple imputation data showed that intergroup contact improves general outgroup evaluation through increasing verification of ingroup identities. This research demonstrates the relevance of considering verification of ingroup identity as a mediator for the positive effects of intergroup contact.

Bibliographic References

  • Allport G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Baraldi A. N., & Enders C. K. (2010). An introduction to modern missing data analyses. Journal of School of Psychology, 48, 5-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.10.001.
  • Binder J., Zagefka H., Brown R., Funke F., Kessler T., Mummendey A., Leyens J.-P. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis amongst majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 843-856. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013470.
  • Brown R., Eller A., Leeds S., & Stace K. (2007). Intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 692-703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.384.
  • Brown R., & Hewstone M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5.
  • Chen S., Chen K. Y., & Shaw L. (2004). Self-verification motives at the collective level of self-definition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 77-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0087890.
  • Chen S., Shaw L., & Jeung K. Y. (2006). Collective selfverification among members of a naturally-occurring group: Possible antecedents and long-term consequences. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 101-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2802-1.
  • Cole D. A., & Maxwell S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558-577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558.
  • Cooley C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. London, UK: Transaction Publishers.
  • Craig J., Cairns E., Hewstone M., & Voci A. (2002). Young people's attitudes to and contact with members of the religious out-group. Unpublished manuscript. University of Ulster, Londonderry, UK.
  • Dovidio J., Gaertner S., & Kawakami K. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past, present and the future. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 5-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001009.
  • Eller A., & Abrams D. (2003). "Gringos" in Mexico: Cross-sectional and longitudinal effects of language school-promoted contact on intergroup bias. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 55-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001012.
  • Eller A., & Abrams D. (2004). Come together: Longitudinal comparisons of Pettigrew's reformulated intergroup contact model and the common ingroup identity model in Anglo-French and Mexican-American contexts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 229-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.194.
  • Eller A., & Abrams D. (2006). A people's entente cordiale? The role of implicit attitude in the relationship between English-French contact, levels of categorization, and explicit intergroup attitudes. Current Research in Social Psychology, 11, 92-110.
  • Eller A., Abrams D., & Zimmermann A. (2011). Two degrees of deparation: Longitudinal and cross-cultural effects of extended contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 175-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430210391120.
  • Enders C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  • Feddes A. R., Noack P., & Rutland A. (2009). Direct and extended friendship effects on minority and majority children's interethnic attitudes: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 80, 377-390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01266.x.
  • Finkel S. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Gaertner S. L., & Dovidio J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
  • Gómez A. (2002). Metastereotypes and intergroup relations. If my group stereotypes others, others stereotype my group... and we know. Concept, research lines and future perspectives of metastereotypes. Revista de Psicología Social, 17, 253-282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/02134740260372982.
  • Gómez A., Huici C., & Morales J. F. (2004). ¡Nos gusta que nos vean... como somos! Implicaciones de la teoría de la auto-verificación a nivel intergrupal [We like others to see us... the way we are. Implications of self-verification theory at a group level]. Revista de Psicología Social, 19, 139-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/021347404773820954.
  • Gómez A., Seyle C., Huici C., & Swann W. B. Jr. (2009). Can self-verification strivings fully transcend the self-other barrier? Seeking verification of ingroup identities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1021-1044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016358.
  • Graham J. W. (2003). Adding missing-data relevant variables to FIML-based structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 80-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1001-4.
  • Graham J. W., Olchowski A. E., & Gilreath T. D. (2007). How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clari?cations of multiple imputation theory. Prevention Science, 8, 206-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9.
  • Hamilton D. L., & Bishop G. D. (1976). Attitudinal and behavioral effects of initial integration of White suburban neighborhoods. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 47-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1976.tb02494.x.
  • Hovland C. I., & Weiss W., (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/266350.
  • Islam M. R., & Hewstone M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700-710. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196005.
  • Klein O., & Azzi A. E. (2001). The strategic confirmation of metastereotypes: How group members attempt to tailor an out-group's representation of themselves. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 279-293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466601164759.
  • Kramer R. M., & Wei J. (1999). Social uncertainty and the problem of trust in social groups: The social self in doubt. In T. R. Tyler, R. M. Kramer, & O. P. John (Eds.), The psychology of the social self (pp. 145-168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Levin S., van Laar C., & Sidanius J. (2003). The effects of ingroup and outgroup friendships on ethnic attitudes in college: A longitudinal study. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 76-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001013.
  • McNulty S. E., & Swann W. B. (1994). Identity negotiation in roommate relationships: The self as architect andconsequence of social reality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1012-1023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1012.
  • Mead G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • North R. J. & Swann W. B. Jr. (2009). Self-Verification 360°: Illuminating the light and dark sides. Self and Identity, 8, 131-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860802501516.
  • Paolini S., Hewstone M., Cairns E., & Voci A. (2004). Effects of direct and indirect cross-group friendships on judgments of catholics and protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediating role of an anxiety-reduction mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 770-786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262848.
  • Pettigrew T. (1996). How to think like a social scientist. New York, NY: Harper Collins College Publishers.
  • Pettigrew T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65.
  • Pettigrew T. F., Christ O., Wagner U., & Stellmacher J. (2007). Direct and indirect intergroup contact effects on prejudice: A normative interpretation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 411-425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.11.003.
  • Pettigrew T. F., & Tropp L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 93-114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Pettigrew T. F., & Tropp L. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751.
  • Pettigrew T. F., & Tropp L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922-934. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504.
  • Preacher K. J., & Hayes A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.
  • Preacher K. J., & Kelley K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16, 93-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022658.
  • Rubin D. B. (1987) Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY: J. Wiley & Sons.
  • Schafer J. L., & Graham J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147.
  • Schafer J. L., & Olsen M. K. (1998). Multiple imputation for multivariate missing-data problems: A data analyst's perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 545-571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3304-5.
  • Sigelman L., & Tuch S. A. (1997). Metasterotypes: Blacks' perceptions of whites' stereotypes of blacks. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 87-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/297788.
  • Stephan W. G., & Stephan C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues 41, 157-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01134.x.
  • Swann W. B. Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Social psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 33-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Swann W. B. Jr. (2011). Self-verification theory. In P. Van Lang, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 23-42). London, UK: Sage.
  • Swann W. B. Jr., Chang-Schneider C., & Angulo S. (2007). Self-verification in relationships as an adaptive process. In J. Wood, A. Tesser, & J. Holmes (Eds.), Self and relationships (pp 49-72). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  • Swann W. B. Jr., Griffin J. J., Predmore S., & Gaines B. (1987). The cognitive-affective crossfire: When selfconsistency confronts self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 881-889. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.881.
  • Swann W. B. Jr., Kwan V. S. Y., Polzer J. T., & Milton L. P. (2003). Fostering group identification and creativity in diverse groups: The role of individuation and selfverification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1396-1406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203256868.
  • Swann W. B. Jr., Milton L. P., & Polzer J. T. (2000). Should we create a niche or fall in line? Identity negotiation and small group effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 238-250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.2.238.
  • Swart H., Hewstone M., Christ O., & Voci A. (2011). Affective mediators of intergroup contact: A three-wave longitudinal study in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1221-1238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024450.
  • Tausch N., Hewstone M., Schmid K., Hughes J., & Cairns E. (2011). Extended contact effects as a function of closeness of relationship with ingroup contacts. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14, 239-254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430210390534.
  • Tropp L. R. (2003). The psychological impact of prejudice: Implications for intergroup contact. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 131-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006002001.
  • Turner R. N., Hewstone M., & Voci A. (2007). Reducing explicit and implicit outgroup prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 369-388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.369.
  • Turner R. N., Hewstone M., Voci A., Paolini S., & Christ O. (2007). Reducing prejudice via direct and extended cross-group friendship. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 212-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10463280701680297.
  • van Dick R., Wagner U., Pettigrew T. F., Christ O., Wolf C., Petzel T., ... Jackson J. S. (2004). Role of perceived importance in intergroup contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 211-227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.211.
  • Verkuyten M., Thijs J., & Bekhuis H. (2010). Intergroup contact and ingroup reappraisal: Examiningthe deprovincialization thesis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73, 398-416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0190272510389015.
  • Vorauer J. D., Main K. J., & O'Connell G. B. (1998). How do individuals expect to be viewed by members of lower status groups? Content and implications of meta-stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 917-937. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.75.4.917.
  • Wright S. C., Aron A., McLaughlin-Volpe T., & Ropp S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73.
Data source: Dialnet