DOCSLIB.ORG

Social Projection Vs. Self-Stereotyping

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Social Projection Vs. Self-Stereotyping Social projection vs. self-stereotyping The role of socio-cognitive mindsets in the activation of cognitive inferential processes Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Sozialwissenschaften der Universität Mannheim vorgelegt von Dipl.-Psych. Florian Thurner geboren am 01.12.1984 in Stuttgart Dekan zum Zeitpunkt der Veröffentlichung: Prof. Dr. Michael Diehl Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Thorsten Meiser Prof. Dr. Jochen E. Gebauer Prof. Dr. Dagmar Stahlberg Tag der Disputation: 5. September 2018 Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1 Theoretical Background .................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Social and Personal Identity: The Self and the Ingroup ............................................. 3 1.1.1 Social projection .......................................................................................................... 3 1.1.2 Self Categorization Theory and its implications ............................................. 5 1.1.3 The issue of directionality ....................................................................................... 7 1.2 Proposed Contexts and Constructs of Relevance for Social Projection or Self- Stereotyping ................................................................................................................................ 9 1.2.1 Social status ................................................................................................................ 10 1.2.2 Cross-cultural differences..................................................................................... 14 1.2.3 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 16 2 Socio-cognitive Mindsets................................................................................................ 18 2.1 Main Hypothesis ..................................................................................................................... 20 2.2 Overview of Experiments 1 to 3 ....................................................................................... 21 3 Part I: Consequences of a Priming of Socio-Cognitive Mindsets for Social Projection and Self-Stereotyping ................................................................................ 22 3.1 Experiment 1 ........................................................................................................................... 22 3.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 22 3.1.2 Method ......................................................................................................................... 22 3.1.3 Results .......................................................................................................................... 27 3.1.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 32 3.2 Experiment 2 ........................................................................................................................... 35 3.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 35 3.2.2 Method ......................................................................................................................... 35 3.2.3 Results .......................................................................................................................... 39 3.2.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 41 3.3 Experiment 3 ........................................................................................................................... 44 3.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 44 3.3.2 Method ......................................................................................................................... 44 3.3.3 Results .......................................................................................................................... 48 3.3.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 50 3.4 Discussion of Part I ................................................................................................................ 54 4 Part II: Ironic Effects Following the Induction of Socio-cognitive Mindsets 56 4.1 Optimal Distinctiveness Theory ....................................................................................... 56 4.2 Alternative Hypotheses ....................................................................................................... 61 4.3 Experiment 4 ........................................................................................................................... 62 4.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 62 4.3.2 Method ......................................................................................................................... 62 4.3.3 Results .......................................................................................................................... 65 4.3.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 70 5 General Discussion ........................................................................................................... 73 5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 73 5.2 Limitations of the Presented Experiments .................................................................. 80 5.3 Future Research...................................................................................................................... 82 5.4 Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 85 References................................................................................................................................. 87 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 100 Appendix A: Tables .............................................................................................................. 101 Appendix B: Priming Procedures ................................................................................... 107 Appendix C: Description of Research Paradigms ...................................................... 113 „Wir zwei, lieber Freund, sind Sonne und Mond, sind Meer und Land. Unser Ziel ist nicht, ineinander überzugehen, sondern einander zu erkennen und einer im andern das sehen und ehren zu lernen, was er ist: des andern Gegenstück und Ergänzung.“ [“We are sun and moon, dear friend; we are sea and land. It is not our purpose to become each other; it is to recognize each other, to learn to see the other and honor him for what he is: each the other's opposite and complement.”] ― Hermann Hesse: Narziss und Goldmund Introduction 1 Introduction For humans as social beings, it is important to belong to groups to satisfy basic needs as the need for safety, reproduction, and finally survival (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Brewer, 1991). A quarter of a century ago, Social Identity Theory (SIT, Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and especially Self-Categorization Theory (SCT, Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) introduced the idea that the group and the individual are intrinsically connected, implying that the group can become part of the self to a certain degree. This way, one cannot study people’s self-concepts without also taking into account their social group. One of SCT’s hypotheses is that salience of a comparative dimension on the ingroup-outgroup level will increase the perception of similarity with ingroup members. This process is called self-stereotyping and is defined as a depersonalization of the individual's self-perception. This means that the individual will fall back on stereotypes which describe the character of the ingroup membership, and will attribute ingroup stereotypic traits to the self. In the field of social cognition, also the opposite mechanism has drawn much attention: the attribution of characteristics of the self (preferences, attitudes, traits, or experiences) to another person or the ingroup. It is called social projection (Allport, 1924; e.g., Krueger & Clement, 1996), self-anchoring (e.g., Cadinu & Rothbart, 1996), or false consensus (e.g., Ross, Greene, & House, 1977), respectively. This process has, for the most part, been considered to be a cognitive phenomenon (e.g., Ames, 2004a, 2004b; Krueger & Clement, 1996). In contrast to cognition-based models of social projection, motivational accounts of social projection have received far less attention. Nevertheless, there is some empirical evidence for a motivational approach to social projection (Machunsky, Toma, Yzerbyt, & Corneille, 2014). It has been found that social projection serves a need for connectedness to others, a need for
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Agency and Communion in Social Comparison
    7 Agency and Communion in Social Comparison Kenneth D. Locke The aim of the current chapter is to clarify and illustrate how social motives and social comparisons shape each other and how their expression and implications are shaped by the social context. Agentic and Communal Social Motives Social motives—the motives that energize and direct social life—can be or- ganized into two broad categories: agentic and communal (Hogan & Roberts, 2000; Horowitz et al., 2006; Locke, 2015). Agentic motives energize and di- rect efforts to “get ahead”—to enhance one’s skills, assets, achievements, status, prominence, or power. Communal motives energize and direct efforts to “get along”—to create and nurture solidarity with others based on mutual interests, affection, goodwill, kinship, and trust. The “Big Two” dimensions of agency and communion also shape social cognition, including how people perceive and describe themselves, other individuals, and groups (Abele & Wojciszke, 2014; Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008). A substantial literature supports the premise that agentic (e.g., status; Anderson, Hildreth, & Howland, 2015) and communal (e.g., belonging- ness; Baumeister & Leary, 1995) motives are fundamental and universal. Expressing agentic and communal actions and fulfilling agentic and com- munal needs predict greater hedonic well-being (positive affective valence and self-esteem) and eudaimonic well-being (experiencing one’s life as meaningful and self-actualizing; Buchanan & Bardi, 2015; Church et al., 2013), and stimulate specific positive agentic or communal emotions such as pride and confidence or love and gratitude. Conversely, threats to com- munion (e.g., being disliked) or agency (e.g., being disrespected) can activate Kenneth D.
    [Show full text]
  • Imagining Intergroup Contact Promotes Projection to Outgroups Q
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Kent Academic Repository Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44 (2008) 943–957 www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp Imagining intergroup contact promotes projection to outgroups q Sofia Stathi *, Richard J. Crisp * Department of Psychology, Keynes College, Centre for the Study of Group Processes, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NP, UK Received 24 August 2007; revised 5 February 2008 Available online 13 February 2008 Abstract Three studies investigated the conditions under which imagining intergroup contact would lead to greater projection of positive traits to outgroups. In Experiment 1 (Mexico) imagined contact predicted greater self-outgroup positive trait overlap for majority but not minority ethnic groups. In Experiment 2 (UK) imagined contact led to greater projection of positive traits to the outgroup for lower compared to higher identifiers. In Experiment 3 (UK) imagined contact led to greater projection of positive traits to the outgroup when the self was salient compared to when the outgroup was salient. These findings suggest that the social cognitive consequences of imagined contact are most favorable for intergroup relations when the personal self, but not social self, is salient. We discuss the implications of these findings for a developing model of imagined contact effects. Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Intergroup contact; Imagined contact; Indirect contact; Social projection Introduction we report our investigation into the conditions that most favor positive outcomes for a novel intervention strategy Improving intergroup relations has always been a cen- based on the mental simulation of intergroup contact.
    [Show full text]
  • Stereotypes Focus Defensive Projection
    10.1177/0146167205285556PERSONALITYGovorun et al. / AND DEFENSIVE SOCIAL PROJECTION PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Stereotypes Focus Defensive Projection Olesya Govorun Kathleen Fuegen The Ohio State University B. Keith Payne University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Defensive projection is the process of perceiving one’s undesirable with the notion of unconscious denial, many psychoana- qualities in others. The present research shows how stereotypes lytic treatments of projection assumed the individual was guide and justify the projection of specific traits onto specific unaware of possessing the traits he or she projected onto group members. In four studies, the authors demonstrated that others (Campbell, Miller, Lubetsky, & O’Connell, 1964; people who experienced a threat to a specific dimension of their Murstein & Pryer, 1959; Singer, 1963; cf. Horney, 1939). self-concept selectively activated this dimension in a stereotype However, in a review of the contemporary literature on and derogated stereotyped others on this dimension. They further projection, Holmes (1968) found no empirical evidence showed that stereotyped individuals are more likely to serve as for these assumptions. Rather, evidence for projection targets of projection than are nonstereotyped individuals. These was found only when persons were aware of the trait in results demonstrate the functional role of stereotypes in guiding themselves (e.g., Feshbach & Singer, 1957). and constraining motivated self-enhancement. A second controversy has concerned the defensive properties of projection. Although some research points to the benefits of projection for the self (Burish & Hous- Keywords: projection; stereotyping; accessibility; self-threat; compen- ton, 1979; Schimel et al., 2003), other studies failed to satory self-enhancement find similar effects (Halpern, 1977; Holmes & Houston, 1971).
    [Show full text]
  • Social Projection to Outgroups: Japanese Students Refer to Psychologically Distant Others
    Social Projection to Outgroups: Japanese Students Refer to Psychologically Distant Others Chieko Yoshihara,1 Reina Takamatsu,2 and Jiro Takai2 1 Department of Clinical Psychology, Nihon Fukushi University, Aichi, Japan 2 Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan his study focused on social projection (SP) to outgroups. Two studies were conducted to show that T SP to outgroups was greater than to ingroups when an issue is more relevant to the outgroup than to the ingroup and vice versa. These experiments were conducted for students of different schools (N1 = 92, N2 = 203). The results confirmed that students overestimated agreement with working adults when the topic was more relevant to working people. Also, when the topic was relevant to students, they overestimated agreement of other students relative to the working adults. These results suggested the relevance of the opinion was more important than perceived social distance when Japanese students refer to others. Keywords: social projection, perceived social distance, outgroup, consensus estimation Studies dealing with Japanese uniqueness thrived in the ( : watarusekennioniwanashi 1980s, when scholars marvelled at how the Japanese peo- = Strangers can be very kind), and such expressions illus- ple had rebuilt their society from the ashes of World trate how much the Japanese pay attention to this group War II into what then was the second largest economy in their daily lives. As Inoue (1977) asserts, the reference of the world. One unique feature that had drawn much group of the Japanese may not always be the group that one attention was how the Japanese distinguished their be- identifies closest to, but to distant people such as seken.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Projection to Ingroups and Outgroups: a Review and Meta-Analysis
    Personality and Social Psychology Review Copyright © 2005 by 2005, Vol. 9, No. 1, 32–47 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Social Projection to Ingroups and Outgroups: A Review and Meta-Analysis Jordan M. Robbins and Joachim I. Krueger Department of Psychology Brown University Social projection is the tendency to expect similarities between oneself and others. A review of the literature and a meta-analysis reveal that projection is stronger when people make judgments about ingroups than when they make judgments about outgroups. Analysis of moderator variables further reveals that ingroup projection is stronger for laboratory groups than for real social categories. The mode of analysis (i.e., nomothetic vs. idiographic) and the order of judgments (i.e., self or group judged first) have no discernable effects. Outgroup projection is positive, but small in size. Together, these findings support the view that projection can serve as an egocentric heuristic for inductive reasoning. The greater strength of ingroup projection can con- tribute to ingroup-favoritism, perceptions of ingroup homogeneity, and cooperation with ingroup members. Social projection can be defined as a process, or a When, for example, their own mortality is made sa- set of processes, by which people come to expect oth- lient, many people project more vigorously to others, ers to be similar to themselves. Associations between presumably in an effort to stave off anxiety (Arndt, judgments about the self and judgments about the Greenberg, Solomon, Pyszczynski, & Schimel, 1999). group capture this phenomenon statistically. The func- Of the many mechanisms that have been proposed to tional importance of social projection lies in the fact explain projection, most have been shown to matter.
    [Show full text]
  • The Roles of Group Identity and Ideology in Examining the Effects of Social Consensus on Weight Bias
    THE ROLES OF GROUP IDENTITY AND IDEOLOGY IN EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF SOCIAL CONSENSUS ON WEIGHT BIAS Amanda Gumble A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2012 Committee: Robert Carels, Advisor William O’Brien Dara Musher-Eizenman Nancy Orel © 2012 Amanda Gumble All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Robert Carels, Advisor Weight bias is strongly influenced by multiple sources, including attributions of blame, social consensus, and ideological beliefs. Social consensus interventions have shown promise in reducing weight bias, especially when the consensus information comes from an in-group. No research has looked at the effects of social consensus when coming from an individual’s in-group based on weight status. Given that overweight and obese individuals appear to lack a strong in- group identity, it is possible that social consensus could be less effective in reducing bias for these individuals compared to normal weight individuals, who appear to possess a strong in- group identity. This study sought to determine the effects of social consensus based on weight status on both explicit and implicit weight bias for normal weight and overweight individuals. The study also sought to determine whether Protestant work ethic and just world beliefs would moderate these effects and lessen the effects of social consensus. Participants included approximately 110 students at Bowling Green State University. The current study found an impact of social consensus feedback on positive explicit bias, as well as negative explicit bias when covariates were not controlled for.
    [Show full text]
  • A Thesis Entitled Implications of Self for Content and Process Models Of
    A Thesis entitled Implications of Self for Content and Process Models of Stereotypes by Heather Haught Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts Degree in Psychology ___________________________________________ Jason P. Rose, Ph.D., Committee Chair ___________________________________________ Yeuh-Ting Lee, Ph.D., Committee Member ___________________________________________ Andrew L. Geers, Ph.D., Committee Member ___________________________________________ Patricia Komuniecki, Ph. D., Dean College of Graduate Studies The University of Toledo May 2013 An Abstract of Implications of Self for Content and Process Models of Stereotypes by Heather Haught Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts Degree in Psychology The University of Toledo May 2013 The current study examined whether self-construal—independent vs. interdependent—moderates intergroup judgments within the Inductive Reasoning Model (IRM). Participants (N=144) were placed into groups using a crossed-categories minimal group paradigm and asked to make judgments about their own and other groups. It was hypothesized that participants with an independent self-construal (IndSC) would project independent attributes to the ingroup whereas participants with an interdependent self- construal (InterSC) would project interdependent attributes to the ingroup. Results support this hypothesis, but only with regard to momentarily activated self-construal. Chronic self-construal did not moderate projection. Furthermore, and in accordance with the IRM, it was hypothesized that participants would view construal-consistent attributes more positively than construal-inconsistent attributes and that groups perceived to possess the greatest number of construal-consistent attributes would be viewed most positively. These hypotheses were generally not supported.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Valorization of Preference for Consistency in Equivalent and Asymmetric Intergroup Relations
    Sénémeaud, C et al (2016). When Attribution of Consistency Depends on Group Value: Social Valorization of Preference for Consistency in Equivalent and Asymmetric Intergroup Relations. International Review of Social Psychology, 29(1), 127–135, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/irsp.13 RESEARCH ARTICLE When Attribution of Consistency Depends on Group Value: Social Valorization of Preference for Consistency in Equivalent and Asymmetric Intergroup Relations Cécile Sénémeaud∗, Jessica Mange† and Alain Somat‡ The social valorization of Preference For Consistency (PFC) was examined via a minimal group paradigm activating either equivalent or asymmetric intergroup relations. After an aesthetic judgment task and assignment to one of two groups, participants (N = 298) completed the PFC scale according to three instructions: on their own behalf, as an ingroup member, or as an outgroup member (order counter-bal- anced). Results showed that in equivalent intergroup relations, participants attributed greater PFC to the ingroup and to the self than to the outgroup. In asymmetric intergroup relations, participants attributed greater PFC to the high-status group and to the self than to the low-status group, and this was inde- pendent of the participants’ group membership. We discuss the contribution the minimal group paradigm can make to revealing the social valorization of psychological constructs and the mechanisms underlying the social value accorded to PFC. Keywords: Preference for Consistency; Social Valorization; Equivalent and Asymmetric Intergroup Relations; Minimal Group Paradigm Introduction expressing a preference for consistency should be socially The desire to be consistent in one’s choices, attitudes approved and valued (see Testé, Jouffre, & Somat, 2010, or and decision-making has fascinated social psychologists Sénémeaud, Mange, Gouger, Testé, & Somat, 2011, for a since the 1950s (Abelson et al., 1968).
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Stereotyping and Self-Anchoring As Two Cognitive Pathways
    PSRXXX10.1177/1088868315576642Personality and Social Psychology Reviewvan Veelen et al. 576642research-article2015 Article Personality and Social Psychology Review 2016, Vol. 20(1) 3 –26 An Integrative Model of Social © 2015 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. Reprints and permissions: Identification: Self-Stereotyping sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1088868315576642 and Self-Anchoring as Two pspr.sagepub.com Cognitive Pathways Ruth van Veelen1, Sabine Otten2, Mara Cadinu3, and Nina Hansen2 Abstract Social identification denotes individuals’ psychological bond with their ingroup. It is an indispensable construct in research on intragroup and intergroup dynamics. Today’s understanding of social identification is firmly grounded in self-stereotyping principles (i.e., assimilation to the ingroup prototype). However, we argue for a more integrative approach to understand social identification, including a more prominent role for the personal self. We present the Integrative Model of Social Identification (IMSI) and postulate that there are two cognitive pathways to self–group overlap that can simultaneously yet distinctly explain social identification: self-stereotyping and self-anchoring (i.e., projection of personal self onto ingroup). We review different theoretical and methodological approaches to both processes and integrate them into one model. Subsequently, we empirically demonstrate the positive relationship between self-stereotyping, self-anchoring, and identification in various group contexts and individuals. In sum, our model highlights the dynamic interplay of personal and social self as cornerstones of social identification. Keywords self-anchoring, self-stereotyping, social identification, social inference “No man is an island, entire of itself, every man is a piece of the processes explain group members’ level of social identifi- continent, a part of the main.” cation? Currently, our understanding of the intraindividual —John Donne mechanisms that determine social identification levels is still limited.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Categorization and Social Identification: Making Sense of Us and Them1 Nils Karl Reimer, Katharina Schmid, Miles Hewstone, & Ananthi Al Ramiah
    Self-Categorization and Social Identification: Making Sense of Us and Them1 Nils Karl Reimer, Katharina Schmid, Miles Hewstone, & Ananthi Al Ramiah Social identity processes are central to social psychological theory and research. Social identity plays an important role in many individual and social phenomena, including health and well-being (e.g., C. Haslam, Jetten, Cruwys, Dingle & Haslam, 2018), educational achievement (e.g., Steele, Spencer & Aronson, 2002), and collect- ive action and social change (e.g., van Zomeren, Postmes & Spears, 2008). In this chapter, we provide an overview of social psychological theories on social identity, including social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987). Prior to Tajfel’s and Turner’s seminal writings, two types of theory dominated ex- planations of intergroup relations and intergroup conflict. First, so-called ‘prejudice’ accounts proposed that intergroup conflict results from individual-level variation in a prejudiced personality (Son Hing & Zanna, 2010). Second, realistic group conflict theory (Campbell, 1965; Sherif, 1966) contended that negative intergroup relations stem from conflicting group goals and competition over resources or power (see Jackson, 1993, for a review). Compared to these explanations, social identity theory and self-categorization theory offered a unique and refined account of intergroup relations that remains important to this day. This chapter is dedicated to these interrelated approaches for understanding intergroup relations. Rather than present these theories chronologically—or focus on differences and similarities across the two theories—we take a more encompassing approach to what is often called the ‘social identity perspective’ (Abrams & Hogg, 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Thresholds and Social Influence
    Psychological Review © 2012 American Psychological Association 2012, Vol. 119, No. 2, 345–372 0033-295X/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0027121 The Burden of Social Proof: Shared Thresholds and Social Influence Robert J. MacCoun University of California at Berkeley Social influence rises with the number of influence sources, but the proposed relationship varies across theories, situations, and research paradigms. To clarify this relationship, I argue that people share some sense of where the “burden of social proof” lies in situations where opinions or choices are in conflict. This suggests a family of models sharing 2 key parameters, one corresponding to the location of the influence threshold, and the other reflecting its clarity—a factor that explains why discrete “tipping points” are not observed more frequently. The plausibility and implications of this account are examined using Monte Carlo and cellular automata simulations and the relative fit of competing models across classic data sets in the conformity, group deliberation, and social diffusion literatures. Keywords: conformity, deliberation, jury, influence, threshold Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027121.supp Regimes topple, neighborhoods gentrify, financial bubbles col- 1968; Milgram, Bickman, & Berkowitz, 1969), an “s-curve” (ob- lapse, and fads burst onto the scene. These stark discontinuities of served in the classic Asch study and in research on small group social life galvanize our attention, marked by many labels, includ- decision processes), or even a checkmark pattern (Cialdini, Reno, ing critical mass, information cascades, bandwagons, domino ef- & Kallgren, 1990). While many constructs and processes in the fects, the “hundredth monkey phenomenon,” and most famously, influence literature can be deployed to verbally explain such tipping points—a phrase attributed to Grodzins (1958), formalized qualitative discrepancies, our existing formal models fail to ac- by Schelling (1969, 1978), and popularized by Gladwell (2000).
    [Show full text]
  • The Imagined Contact Hypothesis
    The Imagined Contact Hypothesis Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2012). The Imagined Contact Hypothesis. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 125-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00003-9 Published in: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Document Version: Peer reviewed version Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal: Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal Publisher rights Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. This is the author final version of a work published in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, volume 46, 2012 here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123942814000039 General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact [email protected]. Download date:27. Sep. 2021 Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal The Imagined Contact Hypothesis Crisp, R., & Turner, R. (2012). The Imagined Contact Hypothesis.
    [Show full text]