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


Journal

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2023
Historique:
received: 26 09 2022
accepted: 28 09 2023
medline: 8 12 2023
pubmed: 8 12 2023
entrez: 8 12 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38064455
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292831
pii: PONE-D-22-26676
pmc: PMC10707701
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e0292831

Informations de copyright

Copyright: © 2023 Bond et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Références

J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007 Sep;93(3):369-88
pubmed: 17723054
Psychiatry. 1956 Aug;19(3):215-29
pubmed: 13359569
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2017 Jan;43(1):121-136
pubmed: 28903647
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006 May;90(5):751-83
pubmed: 16737372
Br J Soc Psychol. 2007 Sep;46(Pt 3):541-56
pubmed: 17877852
Cyberpsychol Behav. 2004 Jun;7(3):321-6
pubmed: 15257832
Am Psychol. 2005 Oct;60(7):697-711
pubmed: 16221003
Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2019 Feb;23(1):3-47
pubmed: 29473444
J Adolesc Health. 2008 Dec;43(6):565-9
pubmed: 19027644
J Behav Addict. 2016 Mar;5(1):90-99
pubmed: 28092192
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2012 Dec;38(12):1629-43
pubmed: 22941796
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1997 Jul;38(5):505-14
pubmed: 9255694
Psychol Bull. 1992 Jul;112(1):155-9
pubmed: 19565683

Auteurs

Julian Bond (J)

School of Psychology and Counselling, Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.

John Dixon (J)

School of Psychology and Counselling, Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.

Colin Tredoux (C)

Department of Psychology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.

Eleni Andreouli (E)

School of Psychology and Counselling, Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.

Classifications MeSH