Intergroup Contact With Refugees Shapes Levels of Social Fear of Crime

The study examined factors associated with discrimination against gay people in a public referendum aimed at the restriction of gay rights. We tested whether positive and negative intergroup contact with gay people and intergroup contact with another stigmatized minority, the Roma, were associated with how the heterosexual majority voted in the referendum (i.e., discrimination). We tested two mechanisms underlying the link between intergroup contact and discrimination—the mediation by intergroup threat and the mediation by outgroup attitudes. We found that negative contact with both gay people and the Roma was associated with a higher probability of gay discrimination while positive contact was associated with a lower probability of gay discrimination. Intergroup threat, not intergroup attitudes, mediated the link between intergroup contact and discrimination. In the case of contact with gay people, intergroup contact was linked to discrimination through threat from gay people. In the case of contact with Roma, intergroup contact was linked to discrimination through the generalization of threats from the Roma to gay people but not via the generalization of outgroup attitudes. Our research brings novel evidence that contact with one minority can affect discrimination against another minority in both positive and negative way and that perceived threat, but not attitudes, plays a key role in majority's decision to discriminate against gay people.

Over 60 years of research has established that positive contact between members of opposing social groups is one of the most important factors in improving relations. Despite this large body of research on positive contact, the importance of negative contact has been largely overlooked. In particular, the processes that mediate the relationship between negative contact and intergroup antipathy remain largely understudied. Furthermore, contact scholars have primarily focused on the effects of contact on prejudice. Thus, it is still unclear whether positive contact and negative contact are predictors of intergroup outcomes beyond prejudice. Contact studies have also primarily been conducted in Western nations, leading to an uncertainty about the degree to which the effects of positive and negative contact are culturally specific or universal. In addition, while substantial evidence has indicated that positive contact with sexual minorities predicts reduced sexual prejudice among heterosexuals, little attention has been paid to the importance of gender of contact partners. The current program of research aims to fill these four gaps in the contact literature. Studies 1-3 examine positive and negative contact as predictors of prejudice and intergroup outcomes beyond prejudice (i.e., negative metaperceptions), and the underlying psychological process that mediates the relationship between negative contact and intergroup attitudes. The studies also test the generalizability of positive and negative contact effects, drawing on data from White Americans (Study 1, N = 207), Hong Kong Chinese (Study 2, N = 145), and Buddhist Thais (Study 3, N = 161). Results were similar across all three nations. More specifically, when negative contact was not taken into account results indicated that positive contact reliably predicted lower levels of old-fashioned and modern prejudice toward, and negative metaperceptions about, Black Americans (Study 1), Mainland Chinese (Study 2), and Muslim Thais (Study 3). When negative contact was controlled for, however, positive contact became a less reliable predictor of intergroup outcomes. Furthermore, negative contact appeared to be a more consistent predictor of these intergroup outcomes than positive contact. Finally, intergroup anxiety acted as a mediator of both positive contact and negative contact effects. Study 4 extends the previous studies by testing whether positive and negative contact with sexual minorities predict collective action for equal rights among heterosexual Australians (N = 294). This study also explores whether the relationships between both types of contact and collective action intentions vary depending on the gender of heterosexuals and the gender of sexual minorities. In this correlational study, I found that positive contact with gay men and positive contact with lesbian women both independently predicted heterosexuals’ intentions to fight for equal marriage rights. However, for heterosexual men, positive contact with gay men predicted increased collective action intentions more strongly than positive contact with lesbian women. In contrast, for heterosexual women, positive contact with gay men and positive contact with lesbian women emerged as equally powerful predictors of collective action intentions. On the other hand, negative contact with gay men and negative contact with lesbian women were not significant predictors of collective action intentions for either heterosexual men or women. In addition, the inclusion of negative contact with gay men and negative contact with lesbian women in the analyses did not have any impact the positive contact-collective action relationship. Overall, the current thesis advances our understanding of intergroup contact in several ways. Specifically, the present empirical studies provide evidence that (a) positive and negative contact are associated both with prejudice and intergroup outcomes beyond prejudice (i.e., negative metaperceptions and collective action for equal rights); (b) while negative contact is the more robust predictor of several negative intergroup outcomes (i.e., old-fashioned prejudice, modern prejudice, negative metaperceptions), positive contact is the more robust predictor of collective action; (c) intergroup anxiety serves as a core mediating factor that explains why negative contact is linked to increased intergroup negativity; (d) the effects of positive and negative contact on intergroup attitudes appear to be generalizable to non-Western populations; (e) the relationship between positive contact and collective action intentions appears to vary depending on the gender of heterosexuals and the gender of sexual minorities. Theoretical significance, practical implications, limitations and avenues for future research are discussed.

Intergroup contact is an established pathway to improve intergroup relations. Research has long focused on mainly positive intergroup contact and its capability to improve intergroup relations. Yet, if members of different groups meet, they will not only make positive, but possibly also negative intergroup contact experiences. Recent research considering both positive as well as negative intergroup contact has raised concerns about potentially stronger effects of negative compared to positive contact. These new insights and the increasing awareness of potentially detrimental effects of contact could lead to doubts about whether it is always sensible to bring individuals from different groups together. Our article first updates the latest review on joint effects of positive and negative intergroup contact. We find that there is no clear tendency for either positive or negative intergroup contact to yield stronger effects on intergroup relations, and we portray factors that might influence these effects. Such factors—for example an individual's prior experiences—could play a crucial role in defining the relevance of negative contact in everyday settings. We continue by answering calls to increase a more qualitative understanding of what kinds of experiences are seen to be intergroup contact, and where intergroup contact in everyday life is experienced from a lay understanding, with new qualitative data from British White and British Asian individuals. Our results demonstrate that positive as well as negative contact is often rather casual and happens in public spaces and at work. Interventions explicitly addressing these spaces may help to reach more people. We also demonstrate that positive contact is much more frequent than negative contact. This finding is confirmed in the third section, which reviews the relative frequency of positive and negative intergroup contact. Last but not least, we discuss the implications of our review for practitioners and researchers alike.

The present research tested the idea that the ecological impact of intergroup contact on outgroup attitudes can be fully understood only when relative frequency and relative influence of positive and negative contact are considered simultaneously. Participants from five European countries (Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland and Slovakia; N = 1276) freely described their contact experiences with people of neighboring nationalities and then reported on their outgroup attitudes. Contact descriptions were coded for positive versus negative valence and for person versus situation framing. Consistently across the five participant groups, positive intergroup contact was reported to occur three times more frequently than negative intergroup contact; however, positive contact was found to be only weakly related to outgroup attitudes. On the contrary, the less frequent negative (vs. positive) contact was comparatively more influential in shaping outgroup attitudes, especially when negativity was reported around the contact person, rather than the contact situation. This research's findings reconcile contrasting lines of past research on intergroup contact and suggest that the greater prevalence of positive contact may compensate for the greater prominence of negative contact, thus leading to modest net improvements in outgroup attitudes after intergroup contact. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Social psychologists only recently started to examine the joint effects of positive and negative intergroup contact. The present research contributes to this nascent field. After reviewing the current evidence for joint effects of positive and negative intergroup contact, the present work examines factors that influence positive and negative contact effects, specifically the intensity of intergroup contact and the individual’s history of intergroup contact. Manuscript #1 thereby focuses on the contact situation and how it is perceived. Specifically, we find that increasing intensity in the realm of positive contact increased favourable intergroup attitudes. For negative contact on the other hand, the (perceived) intensity of the negative experience did not make a difference. Manuscript #2 moves the focus to how an individual’s history of intergroup contact influences subsequent intergroup contact effects. Building on observations of in- and outgroup behaviour in a behavioural game, we demonstrate that having a positive history of intergroup contact can foster subsequent intergroup contact effects, while a negative history of intergroup contact decreased subsequent effects of intergroup contact. Overall our findings provide further evidence that it is indeed important to take not only positive but also negative contact into consideration when examining intergroup contact effects. The relevance of our findings for society and future research will be discussed.

Prior research recognizes intergroup emotions as crucial for intergroup attitudes and interactions, but the psychological mechanisms linking prior intergroup interactions to contact intentions remain incompletely understood. This study investigated the joint effects and interplay of Chinese students' positive and negative contact on behavioural intentions to interact with international students in the future. Six affective variables (fear, anger, anxiety, empathy, happiness, and trust) were tested as mediators. Results revealed that positive contact directly predicted stronger contact willingness and indirectly affected this variable through lower levels of fear, anger, and anxiety and higher levels of empathy, happiness, and trust. Negative contact, however, was negatively associated with positive emotions and contact willingness and predicted more negative emotions. All intergroup emotions played significant mediating roles in the relationship between intergroup contact and willingness for future contact, and anxiety, fear, and trust emerged as robust mediators. Notably, positive contact had larger effects as compared to negative contact. Moreover, no association was observed between negative contact and intergroup emotions when positive contact was frequent. However, when both positive and negative contact were at higher levels, positive contact emerged as a more influential predictor of all intergroup emotions. This research emphasizes examining both positive and negative contact and affective variables as contact mediators, shedding light on enhancing contact intentions.

This study aims to tackle positive and negative intergroup contact in school and out-of-school contexts to test whether a spillover effect (i.e., the extent to which experiences that individuals have in one context spill over into another) applies to intergroup contact. Participants were 984 adolescents (Mage = 14.66; 62.7% female; 24.8% ethnic minority). Results indicated that positive contact in school was related over time to higher positive contact in out-of-school contexts and vice versa (i.e., valence consistent spillover effect). Positive contact in school was linked over time to lower negative contact in out-of-school contexts (i.e., valence inconsistent spillover effect). Overall, this study provides novel insights into the transmission of adolescents' intergroup contact across socialization contexts by emphasizing the leading role of positive contact in schools.

Research has demonstrated that positive intergroup contact improves intergroup relations among children. However, empirical evidence about how positive and negative intergroup contact relates to intergroup outcomes at different ages is scant. By combining theories and empirical evidence in social and developmental psychology, this study aimed to examine positive and negative intergroup contact in a sample of N = 394, 9 and 12‐year‐old Italian children (females and males). We expected to find interactive effects of positive and negative intergroup contact on outgroup trust and behavioural intentions. Furthermore, for both types of contact, we predicted that associations with intergroup outcomes (outgroup trust, behavioural intentions) would be stronger among older than younger children. Results provided support for the interactive effects of positive and negative intergroup contact (bs ≥ .08, ps ≤ .08, interaction coefficients), but not for age‐related differences. Negative intergroup contact facilitated the effects of positive intergroup contact and positive intergroup contact buffered the effects of negative intergroup contact. These findings suggest that intergroup relations in childhood can be improved by creating opportunities for positive intergroup contact in educational and social settings.

Seventy years of research on intergroup contact, or face-to-face interactions between members of opposing social groups, demonstrates that positive contact typically reduces prejudice and increases social cohesion. Extant syntheses, however, have not considered the full breadth of contact valence (positive/negative) and have treated self-selection as a threat to validity. This research bridges intergroup contact theory with sequential sampling models of impression formation to assess contact effects across all valences. From the premise that positive versus negative contact instigates differential resampling of outgroup experiences when self-selection is possible, we advance and meta-analytically test new predictions for the moderation of valenced contact effects and negativity bias as a function of people's opportunity and motivation to self-select in and out of contact. Our random-effects synthesis of positive and negative intergroup contact studies (238 independent samples, 936 nested effects; total N = 152,985) found significant valenced contact effects: Positive contact systematically associates with lower prejudice, and negative contact associates with higher prejudice. Critically, the detrimental effect of negative contact is significantly larger than the benefit of positive contact. This negativity bias is particularly pronounced under conditions in which one can self-select, is motivated to avoid contact, among male-dominated and prejudiced samples, in contact with stigmatized, low status, low socioeconomic status outgroups, along nonconcealable stigma, with nonintimate contact partners in informal settings and in collectivistic societies. Considering individuals' motivation and opportunity to self-select, together with contact valence, therefore offers a more nuanced and integrated platform to design contact-based interventions and policies across varied contact ecologies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Positive contact between members of different groups reduces prejudice and increases cooperation, findings known as intergroup contact effects. Yet in real-world settings not only positive, but also negative intergroup contact occurs, which have opposing effects. To date little is known about whether and how an individual's valenced history of intergroup contact influences contact effects and how this dynamic change happens during specific instances of intergroup contact. A pilot study examined the psychological impact of a novel paradigm to assess intergroup contact using a behavioral game. We then conducted two studies, which allowed us to observe a sequence of up to 23 in- and outgroup interactions and their behavioral outcomes in a continuous prisoner's dilemma behavioral game (N = 116, 2,668 interactions; N = 89, 1,513 interactions). As expected, participants showed a clear ingroup bias in expectations and cooperation. Furthermore, the quality of contact history moderated contact effects. Specifically, intergroup contact following a positive history of intergroup contact had a stronger effect on intergroup expectations than contact following a negative history thereof. Findings are discussed in view of the importance of considering the valenced history of intergroup contact, as well as new research questions on intergroup contact that can be addressed with this novel contact paradigm. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

This article examines how Palestinians' intergroup contact experiences relate to their attitudes towards interactions with Israelis (i.e., normalization). We draw on four recent advances in intergroup contact literature. First, recent research indicates that positive contact can impede disadvantaged groups' motivation to challenge inequalities. Second, increased endorsement of normalization mediates this sedative effect of positive contact on motivation to resist in the West Bank. Third, negative contact has been related to increased motivation for social change. Fourth, institutions and societal norms shape the meaning of intergroup contact and its effect on intergroup relations. We hypothesize that negative experiences at checkpoints can act as reminders of institutionalized inequalities and thus attenuate sedative effects. Furthermore, we explore the contextual boundary conditions of such reminder effects. Analyses of cross‐sectional survey conducted among a representative sample (N = 1,000) in the West Bank including Jerusalem showed that (1) positive intergroup contact related to normalization endorsement (sedative effect), (2) negative intergroup contact related to decreased normalization endorsement (mobilizing effect), and (3) negative contact experiences (at checkpoints) canceled out the effect of positive contact (reminder effect), but only in Jerusalem. Results suggest that the impacts of intergroup contact need to be interpreted in light of institutionalized forms of group inequality and segregation.

The present research investigates the associations between immigrants' positive and negative contact with the majority group and their psychological well-being, as indicators of their psychosocial adjustment to the host society. Perceived personal discrimination and relative deprivation in comparison to the majority group are assessed as mediators of the associations between intergroup contact and psychological well-being. We conducted a three-wave longitudinal study with newcomer African immigrants living in Italy (N = 240; 61.7% men) with age ranging from 18 to 40 years old. Evidence showed that, across three waves, immigrants' negative contact with Italian natives was longitudinally associated with lower well-being and positive intergroup contact. In turn, well-being was related to immigrants' lower perceptions of relative deprivation across waves. Positive contact with Italian natives was not significantly associated with immigrants' well-being, but it was associated with higher perceived relative deprivation, which was associated with lower well-being. Overall, the results provide insight into the links between differently valenced contact and the psychological well-being of newcomer immigrants. Furthermore, the findings address assumptions about the primacy of negative contact in undermining social attitudes and the important role of positive contact in promoting awareness of the disadvantaged group's situation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Virtual Reality (VR) has often been referred to as an “empathy machine.” This is mostly because it can induce empathy through embodiment experiences in outgroup membership. However, the potential of intergroup contact with an outgroup avatar in VR to increase empathy is less studied. Even though intergroup contact literature suggests that less threatening and more prosocial emotions are the key to understanding why intergroup contact is a powerful mean to decrease prejudice, few studies have investigated the effect of intergroup contact on empathy in VR. In this study, we developed a between-participants design to investigate how VR can be used to create a positive intergroup contact with a member of a stigmatized outgroup (ethnic minority) and present the results of the effect of intergroup contact in VR on empathy. Sixty four participants experienced either positive contact (i.e., equal intergroup status, collaborative) with a black (experimenter-controlled) avatar (experimental condition) or no intergroup contact (i.e., ingroup contact with a white avatar; control condition), with situational empathy (personal distress and empathic interest) being measured through a self-report questionnaire up to a week before and right after the VR contact experience. The experiment showed that satisfying degrees of body ownership of participants’ own avatar and co-presence with the contacted avatar can be achieved in simple and universally accessible virtual environments such as AltspaceVR. The results indicated that while VR intergroup contact had no significant direct effect on empathy, exploratory analyses indicated that post-intervention empathic interest increased with stronger feelings of co-presence in the intergroup contact condition.

Recent advances in intergroup contact research have drawn on methods from human geography to investigate how segregation shapes, and is shaped by, everyday intergroup experiences. Emerging findings suggest that the phenomena might be reciprocally intertwined, but empirical evidence is limited and mixed. This research tested the reciprocal relationship between everyday intergroup contact and segregation using ecological momentary assessment and GPS-GIS tracking in two segregated UK cities with youth aged 15–17. Study 1 (Belfast; nparticipants=15; ninteractions=115; nGPS-point=633) focused on Catholics-Protestants divisions, and Study 2 (Bradford; nparticipants=30; ninteractions=334; nGPS-point=2868) addressed ethnic segregation among Asian, White, and Black communities. In both studies, youths reported on social interactions throughout six days, while their urban mobility in outgroup spaces was tracked. In Belfast, more mixed districts predicted higher anxiety during intergroup interactions, yet positive intergroup contact was followed by increased visits to outgroup spaces. In Bradford, mixed districts increased the likelihood (but not the quality) of intergroup contact, while the link between positive contact and subsequent outgroup space use was replicated. The findings highlight a virtuous cycle depending on contextual norms by which positive contact and desegregation practices might reinforce each other, arguably demonstrating the potential of intergroup contact for levelling urban divisions.

In a longitudinal two-wave study we examined the effects of positive and negative intergroup contact on outgroup attitudes in participants who perceived positive, negative, or ambivalent group stereotypes. We focused on stereotype-consistent contact, occurring when the valence of participants’ contact matches the valence of the perceived group stereotype (e.g., negative–negative), and on stereotype-inconsistent contact, occurring when the valence of contact contradicts the valence of the group stereotype (e.g., positive–negative). In relations of the Czech majority ( N = 890) with two distinctly stereotyped minorities, the Roma and the Vietnamese, stereotype-inconsistent contact predicted changes in attitudes better than stereotype-consistent contact. In the case of negatively stereotyped groups, positive intergroup contact is a viable way to improve attitudes. For positively stereotyped groups, negative contact can worsen attitudes, while positive contact does not have any attitude-improving effect. Interventions aimed at improving outgroup attitudes need to be applied with caution, considering the valence of group stereotypes.