DOCSLIB.ORG

Imagined Contact As a Means to Improving Attitudes Towards People with Learning Disabilities and Reducing Intergroup Anxieties

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Imagined Contact As a Means to Improving Attitudes Towards People with Learning Disabilities and Reducing Intergroup Anxieties Imagined contact as a means to improving attitudes towards people with learning disabilities and reducing intergroup anxieties Alessia Price A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of East London for the degree of Doctor of Clinical Psychology. May, 2016 ABSTRACT Background: It is well evidenced that people with learning disabilities are exposed to multiple disadvantages including stigma and discrimination; however, few interventions have been developed to tackle this. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention called 'imagined contact' as a way to improve attitudes and reduce intergroup anxieties towards people with learning disabilities. This was the first time imagined contact had been delivered as a face-to-face intervention for this target group. Method: University students (N = 107) were randomised to four experimental conditions (imagined contact condition; imagined contact control condition; educational film condition; and education delivered as text condition). Participants attitudes, anxiety and desire for social distance towards people with learning disabilities were measured post-intervention and at one-month follow- up. Results: Imagined contact did not improve attitudes, reduce intergroup anxiety, or reduce participants’ desire for social distance towards people with learning disabilities, compared to the other experimental conditions. Instead results indicated that imagined contact significantly increased participants’ intergroup anxiety towards people with learning disabilities. However, at one-month follow- up it was found that imagined contact reduced intergroup anxiety and desire for social distance. Conclusions: More exploration of the mechanisms of imagined contact are needed, particularly for highly stigmatised groups, such as people with learning disabilities, in order for it to be shown to be effective, above and beyond educational interventions. Due to the small sample size and convenience sample utilised, the findings in the present study should be viewed primarily as pointers for recommendations for future research. i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES…………………………..…………………………………………V LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………...……………………….V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................ VI 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 2. DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................... 1 2.1. Learning Disability ............................................................................... 1 2.2. Attitudes ............................................................................................... 2 2.2.1. Prejudice ......................................................................................... 3 2.2.2. Stereotypes ..................................................................................... 3 2.3. Stigma ................................................................................................... 4 3. LITERATURE SEARCH ............................................................................... 4 3.1. Search Strategy ................................................................................... 4 3.1.1. Inclusion Criteria.............................................................................. 5 3.1.2. Exclusion Criteria ............................................................................ 5 4. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 6 4.1. Stigma and Learning Disabilities ....................................................... 6 4.2. Contact Hypothesis ........................................................................... 10 4.2.1. Intergroup Anxiety ......................................................................... 12 4.2.2. Limitations Of Direct Contact ......................................................... 13 4.3. Extended Contact .............................................................................. 13 4.4. Imagined Intergroup Contact ............................................................ 15 4.4.1. Mental Imagery Research ............................................................. 15 4.4.2. Behavioural Theories .................................................................... 16 4.4.3. Evidence For Imagined Contact .................................................... 17 4.4.4. Imagined Contact Paradigm .......................................................... 17 4.5. Imagined Contact And People With LDs .......................................... 22 4.5.1. Imagined Contact And Physical Disabilities .................................. 22 4.5.2. Imagined Contact And Humanity Perceptions ............................... 24 4.5.3. Imagined Contact Via The Internet ................................................ 26 5. PRESENT STUDY ..................................................................................... 28 5.1. Justification ........................................................................................ 28 5.2. Hypotheses ........................................................................................ 29 6. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 30 6.1. Epistemological Position .................................................................. 30 6.2. Methodology ...................................................................................... 31 6.3. Design ................................................................................................. 31 6.4. Selection and Recruitment of Participants ...................................... 33 ii 6.4.1. Sample .......................................................................................... 33 6.4.2. Inclusion And Exclusion Criteria .................................................... 33 6.4.3. Power Analysis .............................................................................. 33 6.4.4. Recruitment ................................................................................... 34 6.5. Participants ........................................................................................ 35 6.5.1. Follow-up Study............................................................................. 35 6.6. Materials – Stimuli and Measures .................................................... 36 6.6.1. Educational Film ............................................................................ 36 6.6.2. Education In Text .......................................................................... 36 6.6.3. Intervention – Imagined Contact ................................................... 37 6.6.4. Measures ...................................................................................... 37 6.7. Ethical Issues ..................................................................................... 38 6.7.1. Ethical Approval ............................................................................ 38 6.7.2. Consent ......................................................................................... 38 6.7.3. Confidentiality And Anonymity ....................................................... 39 6.7.4. Debrief ........................................................................................... 39 6.8. Procedure ........................................................................................... 40 6.8.1. Imagined LD Contact Condition .................................................... 41 6.8.2. Imagined Contact Control Condition .............................................. 41 6.8.3. Educational Film Only Condition ................................................... 42 6.8.4. Education In Text Only Condition .................................................. 42 6.9. Statistical Analysis ............................................................................ 43 6.10. Content Analysis ............................................................................... 43 7. RESULTS ................................................................................................... 45 7.1. Initial Assumption Tests of the Data ................................................ 45 7.2. Descriptive Characteristics ............................................................... 45 7.3. Effects of the Interventions at Time 1 .............................................. 47 7.4. Effects of the Interventions at Time 2 .............................................. 49 7.4.1. Repeated Measures ANOVA ........................................................ 49 7.4.2. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test ........................................................ 49 7.4.3. Time 2 Results .............................................................................. 49 7.5. Analysis of Imagined Contact Written Text ..................................... 52 8. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................. 55 8.1. Summary of Findings ........................................................................ 55 8.2. Evaluation of the Findings ................................................................ 56 8.2.1. Self-Report Measures ................................................................... 56 8.2.2. Differences In Group Characteristics ............................................. 57 8.2.3. Follow-up Results
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Intergroup Threat Theory Walter G. Stephan University of Hawaii Oscar
    Intergroup Threat Theory Walter G. Stephan University of Hawaii Oscar Ybarra University of Michigan Kimberly Rios Morrison Stanford University To be published T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of Prejudice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Address correspondence to: Walter G. Stephan, 2097 Aliali Pl. Hononlulu, HI 96821. Email: [email protected] Intergroup Threat Theory We live in a world polarized by religion, nationality, political ideology, race, ethnicity, sex, social class, and so many more divisions they are too numerous to mention. These social groups shape our identities and our lives. All of these social groups are characterized by membership criteria and boundaries – they include some people and exclude others. Although it is not logically necessary for these boundaries to imply any tension between groups, in practice relations between groups are far more likely to be antagonistic than complementary. Social identity theorists argue that one reason for intergroup antagonism is the psychological benefits conferred on group members, particularly those associated with identification with ingroups (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). These benefits include acceptance, belonging, and social support, as well as a system of roles, rules, norms, values, and beliefs to guide behavior. Groups also provide our lives with meaning by boosting our self-esteem (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990), increasing our sense of distinctiveness from others (Turner, 1987), and making us more certain of the social world and our place within it (Abrams & Hogg, 1988). Because of the needs they fill, groups are as dear to us as life itself, and we fear their destruction almost as much as we fear our own. As a result, we tend to favor our own group and exhibit hostility toward other groups, especially during dangerous or contentious times (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 1986).
    [Show full text]
  • Contact, Perspective Taking, and Anxiety As Predictors of Stereotype Endorsement, Explicit Attitudes, and Implicit Attitudes Christopher L
    Contact, Perspective Taking, and Anxiety as Predictors of Stereotype Endorsement, Explicit Attitudes, and Implicit Attitudes Christopher L. Aberson, Sarah C. Haag To cite this version: Christopher L. Aberson, Sarah C. Haag. Contact, Perspective Taking, and Anxiety as Predictors of Stereotype Endorsement, Explicit Attitudes, and Implicit Attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, SAGE Publications, 2007, 10 (2), pp.179-201. 10.1177/1368430207074726. hal-00571645 HAL Id: hal-00571645 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00571645 Submitted on 1 Mar 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2007 Vol 10(2) 179–201 Contact, Perspective Taking, and Anxiety as Predictors of Stereotype Endorsement, Explicit Attitudes, and Implicit Attitudes Christopher L. Aberson Humboldt State University Sarah C. Haag University of Iowa We proposed a model of intergroup contact wherein contact promotes understanding of outgroup perspectives, perspective taking relates to reduced intergroup anxiety that in turn is associated with lessened stereotyping and more positive intergroup attitudes. Additionally, we examined if implicit attitudes followed this model or were directly impacted by contact. White undergraduates (n = 153) completed measures of contact, perspective taking, intergroup anxiety, stereotype endorsement, and implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Imagined Contact Hypothesis: Prejudice Towards Asylum Seekers in Australia
    International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net . Volume 3, Issue 4, March, 2018. Special Edition: Teaching and Training in Cross Cultural Competencies The Imagined Contact Hypothesis: Prejudice towards asylum seekers in Australia Samuel C. McWaters and Russell Hawkins, Department of Psychology, James Cook University, Cairns, Australiai The present study was prompted by awareness of prejudicial attitudes towards refugees evident in Australian media and politics. It used some innovative measures of prejudice including the distance apart in chair placements made by respondents prior to sitting next to a refugee and estimates of the hypothetical dollar value of resources to be allocated to refugees in comparison with the amount to be allocated to indigenous Australians and other social groups. More conventional attitude scale measures were also used (the Attitudes Towards Asylum Seekers Scale, an infrahumanisation measure, an empathy measure, a measure of perspective taking). In an attempt to reduce prejudice levels, the social psychology technique of imagined contact with an outgroup (asylum seekers who travel to Australia by boat) was used. The experimental design used randomised, independent groups (imagined contact and control conditions) with repeated measures for time (post intervention and follow up). University students (N = 54) who imagined an interaction with an asylum seeker showed higher levels of empathy than did the control group. While measures of prejudice did not differ between experimental conditions, notably low levels of prejudice in this student sample from a north Queensland university were found. The low levels of prejudice found in the present sample were both gratifying and somewhat unexpected. The study needs to be replicated with a community sample comparison group included or one initially shown to hold more strongly prejudicial attitudes.
    [Show full text]
  • Obstacles to Intergroup Contact
    1 British Journal of Social Psychology (2013) © 2013 The British Psychological Society www.wileyonlinelibrary.com Brief report Obstacles to intergroup contact: When outgroup partner’s anxiety meets perceived ethnic discrimination Luca Andrighetto1*, Federica Durante2, Federica Lugani2, Chiara Volpato2 and Alberto Mirisola3 1University of Genova, Italy 2University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy 3Italian National Research Council, Institute for Educational Technology, Palermo, Italy Emerging research suggests that outgroup partner’s anxiety can disrupt intergroup rapport-building. This study extends previous findings by investigating the interactive effects of anticipated outgroup partner’s anxiety and perceived ethnic discrimination on self-anxiety and intergroup contact avoidance. A sample of immigrant adolescents belonging to different ethnic minorities in Italy (N = 118) was considered. Results showed that when participants expected to interact with an anxious outgroup (Italian) versus in-group partner, self-anxiety increased and, as a consequence, their intentions to avoid future encounters. However, these effects were observed only for participants with higher (vs. lower) perceptions of being discriminated against. The implications of these results for interethnic communication and misunderstandings are discussed. In the last few decades, most European countries have become host to an unprecedented number of immigrants (Stanley, 2008). Consequently, the opportunities for interethnic encounters have constantly increased. Unfortunately,
    [Show full text]
  • Intergroup Anxiety and Willingness to Partner: Heterosexual
    INTERGROUP ANXIETY AND WILLINGNESS TO PARTNER: HETEROSEXUAL RESPONSE TO SEXUAL MINORITY CO-WORKERS by COREY S. MUÑOZ (Under the Direction of Kecia M. Thomas) ABSTRACT The diversification of the workplace is a growing trend in organizations today. Traditionally this diversity has focused on gender and racial diversity. However, this study broadens the definition of diversity to include sexual minority issues in the workplace. More specifically, this research accessed participant’s willingness to partner with a sexual minority coworker. Employee biographical forms have been provided as a means for manipulating variables (job level & sexuality). Previous contact experiences and intergroup anxiety towards sexual minorities were also examined as possible influences on participant’s willingness to partner. The results indicated that the sexuality of the co-workers did play an important part in participant’s willingness to partner as heterosexual employees were rated higher than homosexual. Gender differences were found in intergroup anxiety and previous contact experiences. Job level influenced distancing behaviors as the greatest differences in ratings between heterosexual and homosexual employees were found at the senior manager job level. INDEX WORDS: Gay & lesbian employees, Intergroup anxiety, Interpersonal heterosexism, Job partner, Co-worker attitudes, Employee job level INTERGROUP ANXIETY AND WILLINGNESS TO PARTNER: HETEROSEXUAL RESPONSE TO SEXUAL MINORITY CO-WORKERS by COREY S. MUÑOZ B.A., The Oklahoma State University, 2000 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE ATHENS, GEORGIA 2003 © 2003 Corey S. Muñoz All Rights Reserved INTERGROUP ANXIETY AND WILLINGNESS TO PARTNER: HETEROSEXUAL RESPONSE TO SEXUAL MINORITY CO-WORKERS by COREY S.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumulative Subject Index Volumes 1–25 (Contains Links to Entries) ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
    European Review of Social Psychology Cumulative Subject Index Volumes 1–25 (contains links to entries) ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ Locators in bold refer to figures/tables goal-based explanations (12) 201–235 – Action control, behavioural intentions Ability, praise and criticism (3) 259 283 (12) 21 Abnormal conditions focus model (2) 59–61 – Action control, emotion regulation (23) Aboriginal Peoples, Canada (24) 15 16 146–156 Absentminded relapses (22) 20 Action initiation, implementation intentions Abstract language use (25) see Linguistic (4) 166–171 abstraction Action readiness (22) 116, 117; (22) 153 Abstract modelling, indirect intergroup Action for social change (24) 244 contact (25) 319, 375 Action-oriented personality factors (24) 146, Abstract reasoning (22) 169 146–147 Abstraction, intragroup variability (7) – Action tendencies, conflict resolution (25) 4, 111 113 9–10, 18 Abu Ghraib, prisoners (24) 2 Activation of attitudes (24) 270–273 Academic personnel selection (25) see Actor effects (22) 367, 369 Personnel selection Actor perspective, positive–negative Academic procrastination (24) 155, 156 asymmetry (1) 38–39 Access consciousness (22) 8–9 – – Actor observer bias Access dissociations (22) 4, 10 17 agent vs. recipient (16) 182–184 Acceptance of death, terror management – linguistic category model (LCM) (2) theory (25) 57, 58 59 17–18 Accessible knowledge prediction (6) 13–16 meta-cognition (22) 185–186 – Actor-Partner Interdependence Model priming (22) 183 185 (APIM) (22) 350; (22) 367 Accessibility of thoughts Acute stress
    [Show full text]
  • The Affective Consequences of Imagined Contact: a Review and Some Suggestions for Future Research
    THE AFFECTIVE CONSEQUENCES OF IMAGINED CONTACT: A REVIEW AND SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH LORIS VEZZALI UNIVERSITY OF MODENA AND REGGIO EMILIA RICHARD J. CRISP UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD SOFIA STATHI UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH DINO GIOVANNINI UNIVERSITY OF MODENA AND REGGIO EMILIA Recent research has provided consistent support for imagined intergroup contact (Crisp & Turner, 2012), a new indirect contact strategy for reducing prejudice. In the present review, we focus on the af- fective consequences of imagined contact. In particular, we review studies showing that imagined con- tact has powerful effects on reduced intergroup and performance anxiety, as well as increased trust and empathy toward outgroup members. Moreover, these effects extend to the affective part of intergroup attitudes tapped at both an explicit and at an implicit level. We also present evidence that some of these variables mediate the effects of imagined contact on reduced prejudice. Finally, we discuss the double nature, cognitive and affective, of imagined contact. Key words: Imagined contact; Indirect contact; Intergroup relations; Prejudice reduction; Intergroup contact. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Loris Vezzali, Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Dipartimento di Educazione e Scienze Umane, Viale Allegri 9, 42121 Reggio Emilia (RE), Italy. Email: loris.vezzali @unimore.it There is a general agreement among social psychologists that direct, face-to-face inter- group contact is an effective method for reducing prejudice, as supported by impressive evidence over almost 60 years from the initial formulation of the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954; Petti- grew & Tropp, 2006, 2011). Research has consistently demonstrated that intergroup contact is related to more positive intergroup attitudes, and that this is largely a function of its effects on in- tergroup emotions.
    [Show full text]
  • Prejudice 57 Unconscious Behaviour 58 Stereotype Threat 58 Dual Process Theories 65 Chapter Summary 67
    00_CRISP_TURNER_4E_FM.indd 1 17/03/2020 6:07:52 PM Sara Miller McCune founded SAGE Publishing in 1965 to support the dissemination of usable knowledge and educate a global community. SAGE publishes more than 1000 journals and over 800 new books each year, spanning a wide range of subject areas. Our growing selection of library products includes archives, data, case studies and video. SAGE remains majority owned by our founder and after her lifetime will become owned by a charitable trust that secures the company’s continued independence. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Melbourne 00_CRISP_TURNER_4E_FM.indd 2 17/03/2020 6:07:52 PM 4th edition 00_CRISP_TURNER_4E_FM.indd 3 17/03/2020 6:07:53 PM CONTENTS Preface xiii A Guided Tour xiv About the Authors xvii Publisher’s Acknowledgements xix 1 HISTORY, METHODS AND APPROACHES 1 A History 2 Research Methods 4 Archival Approaches 5 Correlational Approaches 6 Experimental Approaches 7 Laboratory Experiments 10 Online Experiments 11 Field Experiments 12 Qualitative Approaches 14 Research Ethics 15 Reproducibility 16 Chapter Summary 16 2 ATTRIBUTION 21 The Naive Scientist 22 Attribution Theory 22 Types of Attribution 23 Making Attributions 24 Correspondent Inference Theory 24 The Co-variation Model 25 Attributional Biases 28 The Fundamental Attribution Error 29 The Actor–Observer Bias 30 Self-serving Attributions 31 Intergroup Attributions 31 Attribution and Social Processes 33 Social Representations 35 Chapter Summary 36 00_CRISP_TURNER_4E_FM.indd 5 17/03/2020 6:07:54
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Intergroup Threat in Attitudes Toward Same-Sex
    THE ROLE OF INTERGROUP THREAT IN ATTITUDES TOWARD SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND ITS BENEFICIARIES HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY By James Patrick Clifton A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Psychology Academic Research May, 2011 THE ROLE OF INTERGROUP THREAT IN ATTITUDES TOWARD SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND ITS BENEFICIARIES HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY By James Patrick Clifton Approved by the Master's Thesis Committee: Dr. Chris Aberson, Major Professor Date Dr. Gregg Gold, Committee Member Date Dr. Dave Campbell, Committee Member Date Dr. Chris Aberson, Graduate Coordinator Date Dr. Jená Burges, Vice Provost Date Abstract The Role of Intergroup Threat in Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage and its Beneficiaries James Patrick Clifton This study investigated the relationship between perceptions of threat and attitudes toward same-sex marriage from the framework of intergroup threat theory (ITT). Intergroup threat theory postulates that outgroup prejudice and discrimination are driven by threats to the ingroup. Threats in ITT include realistic threat (i.e., perceived impediments to ingroup welfare), symbolic threat (i.e., threats to the integrity of ingroup worldview), and intergroup anxiety. As a set, threats explained 84% of the variance in policy attitudes and 67% of the variance in beneficiary attitudes. Symbolic threat was most strongly tied to policy opposition, followed by intergroup anxiety and realistic threat. Prejudice toward beneficiaries of same-sex marriage was predicted by symbolic threat and intergroup anxiety, but not realistic threat. This work supported the prediction that stronger perceptions of intergroup threat are associated with greater resistance to same-sex marriage and more prejudiced attitudes toward its beneficiaries.
    [Show full text]
  • The Negative and Positive Influences of Threat and Nonthreat Media Messages About Immigrants
    International Journal of Communication 12(2018), 950–972 1932–8036/20180005 The Negative and Positive Influences of Threat and Nonthreat Media Messages About Immigrants CHANJUNG KIM JAKE HARWOOD JUN XIANG University of Arizona, USA We examined (a) the effect of threat messages (media messages suggesting that an outgroup is threatening to an ingroup) versus nonthreat messages (messages refuting the outgroup’s threat) on intergroup bias, (b) the mechanisms underlying that effect, and (c) whether nonthreat messages would result in smaller effects of negative stereotypes on intergroup bias, compared with threat messages. We found that exposure to a threat message about immigrants (compared with a nonthreat message) resulted in more support for punitive immigration policies. This occurred via two sequential mediators: feelings of anger and contempt toward the outgroup, and outgroup derogation. The effect of negative stereotypes on intergroup bias was smaller in the nonthreat message condition than the threat message condition. We discuss implications for the effects of minority news portrayals. Keywords: threat message, stereotypes, intergroup bias, immigration policy “Whatever is sensed as a threat is hated” (Allport, 1954, p. 413). In his seminal work, Allport warned about the importance of threat in intergroup relations. Allport’s insight is still valid. Research has consistently documented that threat is a critical factor exacerbating negative intergroup relations (Kinder & Sears, 1981; Stephan & Stephan, 1996). In the intergroup context, threat exists when “one group’s actions, beliefs, or characteristics challenge the goal attainment or well-being of another group” (Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006, p. 336). The U.S. media often frame minority groups as a threat to the majority (Devin & Baker, 1991; Domke, 2001; Mastro & Behm-Morawitz, 2005), by describing minorities as a burden on the national economy and as violators of traditional American values (Borjas, 1999; Dunaway, Branton, & Abrajano, 2010; Kim, Carvalho, Davis, & Mullins, 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Intergroup Anxiety Effects on the Control of Racial Stereotypes: a Psychoneuroendocrine Analysis Q
    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (2009) 60–67 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Experimental Social Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp Intergroup anxiety effects on the control of racial stereotypes: A psychoneuroendocrine analysis q David M. Amodio Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003, USA article info abstract Article history: Anxiety associated with an intergroup interaction is often thought to interfere with the cognitive control Received 14 May 2008 of automatic racial stereotypes. However, this link remains elusive, as self-reported anxiety is not typi- Revised 6 August 2008 cally associated with assessments of control. The present research tested a neuroendocrine model for Available online 20 August 2008 how intergroup anxiety may affect controlled processing. White participants met with a Black or White interviewer to discuss their racial attitudes and to complete a measure of stereotype inhibition. Baseline Keywords: and post-interaction assessments of self-reported anxiety and salivary cortisol were obtained. Although Stereotyping self-reported anxiety was heightened for participants in the Black interviewer condition, it was not asso- Prejudice ciated with control on the stereotyping task. Rather, greater cortisol reactivity to the interracial interac- Self-regulation Control tion predicted reduced controlled processing. This pattern was not observed in the White interviewer Cortisol condition. Implications for theories of
    [Show full text]
  • Imagining Intergroup Contact Can Improve Intergroup Attitudes Rhiannon N
    Imagining Intergroup Contact Can Improve Intergroup Attitudes Rhiannon N. Turner, Richard J. Crisp, Emily Lambert To cite this version: Rhiannon N. Turner, Richard J. Crisp, Emily Lambert. Imagining Intergroup Contact Can Improve Intergroup Attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, SAGE Publications, 2007, 10 (4), pp.427-441. 10.1177/1368430207081533. hal-00571660 HAL Id: hal-00571660 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00571660 Submitted on 1 Mar 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2007 Vol 10(4) 427–441 Imagining Intergroup Contact Can Improve Intergroup Attitudes Rhiannon N. Turner University of Leeds Richard J. Crisp University of Kent Emily Lambert University of Birmingham We investigated whether simply imagining contact with outgroup members can improve intergroup attitudes. In Experiment 1, young participants who imagined talking to an elderly person subsequently showed lower levels of intergroup bias than participants who imagined an outdoor scene. In Experiment 2, young participants who imagined talking to an elderly person subsequently showed lower levels of intergroup bias than participants who simply thought about elderly people, ruling out a priming explanation for our fi ndings.
    [Show full text]