May the odds be ever in your favor: The Hunger Games and the fight for a more equal society. (Negative) Media vicarious contact and collective action

Mobilizing or Sedative Effects? A Narrative Review of the Association Between Intergroup Contact and Collective Action Among Advantaged and Disadvantaged Groups

ACADEMIC ABSTRACT

In this narrative review, we examined 134 studies of the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action benefiting disadvantaged groups. We aimed to identify whether, when, and why contact has mobilizing effects (promoting collective action) or sedative effects (inhibiting collective action). For both moderators and mediators, factors associated with the intergroup situation (compared with those associated with the out-group or the in-group) emerged as the most important. Group status had important effects. For members of socially advantaged groups (examined in 98 studies, 100 samples), contact had a general mobilizing effect, which was stronger when contact increased awareness of experiences of injustice among members of disadvantaged groups. For members of disadvantaged groups (examined in 49 studies, 58 samples), contact had mixed effects. Contact that increased awareness of injustice mobilized collection action; contact that made the legitimacy of group hierarchy or threat of retaliation more salient produced sedative effects.

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

We present a review of existing studies that have investigated the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action aimed at promoting equity for disadvantaged groups. We further consider the influence of contact that is positive or negative and face-to-face or indirect (e.g., through mass or social media), and we distinguish between collective action that involves socially acceptable behaviors or is destructive and violent. We identified 134 studies, considering both advantaged (100 samples) and disadvantaged groups (58 samples). We found that intergroup contact impacts collective action differently depending on group status. Contact generally leads advantaged groups to mobilize in favor of disadvantaged groups. However, contact has variable effects on members of disadvantaged groups: It sometimes promotes their collective action in support of their own group; in other cases, it leads them to be less likely to engage in such action. We examine when and why contact can have these different effects.

The contact hypothesis and the virtual revolution: Does face-to-face interaction remain central to improving intergroup relations?

Research on the contact hypothesis has traditionally prioritized the role of positive, direct, face-to-face interactions in shaping intergroup prejudices, but it has recently expanded to study indirect vicarious, negative, and online contact experiences. In the majority of studies though, there has been little direct comparison of the relationship between these different forms of contact and prejudice. The present research set out to compare the amount and effects of negative, online, and vicarious contact in the context of positive, face-to-face and direct contact in two studies. Study 1 comprised a national cross-sectional survey of relations between White and Black UK residents (n = 1014), and Study 2 comprised a national longitudinal survey of relations between Catholic and Protestant residents of Northern Ireland (n = 1030). The results of both studies indicated that positive face-to-face contact occurred more frequently and had a comparatively stronger relationship with prejudice than other forms of contact. However, they also indicated the effects of online, negative and vicarious forms of contact existed independently of those of direct, positive face-to-face contact. Moreover, online negative contact generally had a stronger relationship to prejudice than negative contact experienced face-to-face. Exploratory mediation analyses suggested the affective pathways from contact to prejudice may vary for different forms of contact.

Using fiction to improve intergroup attitudes: Testing indirect contact interventions in a school context

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of an intervention using indirect intergroup contact for improving intergroup attitudes in schools, in particular anti-Roma prejudice. Vicarious contact—a form of indirect intergroup contact—can be experienced through fictional book characters, who can serve as positive role models in terms of intergroup attitude improvement. A vicarious contact experiment was conducted with sixth grade students (N = 177) from three Slovak elementary schools, using passages from the Harry Potter series. A three-group pretest-posttest design was adopted; experimental condition 1 involved reading passages without subsequent discussion, experimental condition 2 involved reading the same passages followed by a discussion, while the control group was not involved in any activities. There was a significant improvement of intergroup attitudes in experimental condition 2 compared to the control group, while condition 1 did not show any such improvement. The first contribution of the study is in tackling conceptually distinct mediators of the intervention’s effect – perspective taking and narrative transportation. The second contribution is in demonstrating the added value of discussion in interventions focused on prejudice reduction in schools.