Abstract
Research on intergroup contact has recently begun to examine how individual differences moderate the reduction of prejudice. We extend this work by examining the moderating role of diversity beliefs, i.e., the strength of individuals’ beliefs that society benefits from ethnic diversity. Results of a survey among 255 university students in the United States show that the relationship between contact and reduced prejudice is stronger for individuals holding less favorable diversity beliefs compared to those with more positive diversity beliefs. Likewise, the relationship between contact and perceived importance of contact is stronger for people with less favorable diversity beliefs. Together with previously reported moderator effects, these results suggest that contact especially benefits people who are the most predisposed to being prejudiced.
References
(1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Perseus Books.
(2002). Including others in the self. In , Individual self, relational self, collective self (pp. 89–108). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
(1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imaging how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 751–758.
(1977). Multiculturalism and ethnic attitudes in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Supply and Services.
(2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 843–856.
(2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255–343.
(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1999). The problem of units and the circumstance for POMP. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 315–436.
(2010). How ideological attitudes predict host society members? Attitudes toward immigrants: Exploring cross-national differences. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 673–694.
(2009, July). Opening closed minds: Need for closure as a moderator of the relationship between intergroup contact and prejudice. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
(2009). We must not be enemies: Interracial contact and the reduction of prejudice among authoritarians. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 172–177.
(2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In , Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
(2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22.
(2009). A general model for testing mediation and moderation effects. Prevention Science, 10, 87–99.
(2008). Interracial prison contact: The pros for (social dominant) cons. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 325–351.
(2009). Independent benefits of contact and friendship on attitudes toward homosexuals among authoritarians and highly identified heterosexuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 509–525.
(2009). Designing better graphs by including distributional information and integrating words, numbers, and images. Psychological Methods, 14, 239–257.
(1996). Validity of scores on the attitudes toward diversity scale (ATDS). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 293–303.
(1998–2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
(2005). Rethinking the link between categorization and prejudice within the social cognition perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 108–130.
(1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85.
(1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57–75.
(2005). Allport’s intergroup contact hypothesis – Its history and influence. In , On the nature of prejudice – Fifty years after Allport (pp. 262–277). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
(2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.
(2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934.
(1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.
(2002). Reliability of scales with general structure: Point and interval estimation using a structural equation modeling approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 195–212.
(1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 14, 157–176.
(2006). Valuing diversity and interest in intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 533–551.
(2008). Group diversity and group identification: The moderating role of diversity beliefs. Human Relations, 61, 1463–1492.
(2004). Role of perceived importance in intergroup contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 211–227.
(2004). The impact of Need for Closure on conservative beliefs and racism: Differential mediation by authoritarian submission and authoritarian dominance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 824–837.
(2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008–1022.
(2007). Unity through diversity: Value-in-diversity beliefs, work group diversity, and group identification. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 207–222.
(2008). Unprejudiced and self-focused: When intergroup contact is experienced as being about the ingroup rather than the outgroup. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 912–919.
(1997). Cognitive and social consequences of the need for cognitive closure. In , European review of social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 133–173). London: Wiley.
(2000). Framing interethnic ideology: Effects of multicultural and color-blind perspectives on judgments of groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 635–654.
