Skip to main content
Original Article

Who Needs Imagined Contact?

Replication Attempts Examining Previous Contact as a Potential Moderator

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000258

Abstract. Imagined contact is a widely-used methodology for decreasing prejudice. Recently, however, the effectiveness and replicability of imagined contact have been debated. To the extent that imagined contact is theoretically a valuable intervention when actual contact is absent or less feasible, previous intergroup contact experiences presumably moderate the efficacy of imagined contact. The present investigation found that imagined contact effects were stronger among heterosexuals with infrequent (vs. frequent) previous contact with gays, improving their intergroup emotions and attitudes (Study 1, N = 261). In contrast, there were no such effects of imagined contact with Muslims among non-Muslims (Study 2, N = 320). These findings highlight the potential for moderators to impact the efficacy of experimental contact simulations. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

References

  • Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Asbrock, F., Gutenbrunner, L. & Wagner, U. (2013). Unwilling, but not unaffected – Imagined contact effects for authoritarians and social dominators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 404–412. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Batson, C. D., Fultz, J. & Schoenrade, P. A. (1987). Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. Journal of Personality, 55, 19–39. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brown, M. J. & Henriquez, E. (2011). Support for gay and lesbian civil rights: Development and examination of a new scale. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 462–475. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Crisp, R. J. & Birtel, M. D. (2014). Reducing prejudice through mental imagery: Notes on replication, interpretation, and generalization. Psychological Science, 25, 840–841. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Crisp, R. J., Miles, E. & Husnu, S. (2014). Support for the replicability of imagined contact effects. Social Psychology, 45, 303–304. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Crisp, R. J. & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions? Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. The American Psychologist, 64, 231–240. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Crisp, R. J. & Turner, R. N. (2012). The imagined contact hypothesis. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 126–182. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Crisp, R. J. & Turner, R. N. (2013). Imagined intergroup contact: Refinement, debates, and clarification. In G. HodsonM. HewstoneEds., Advances in intergroup contact. London, UK: Psychology Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Dhont, K. & Van Hiel, A. (2009). We must not be enemies: Interracial contact and the reduction of prejudice among authoritarians. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 172–177. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., Kerr, P. & Thomae, M. (2013). Special thematic section on “societal change”: ‘What’s so funny “bout peace, love and understanding?” Further reflections on the limits of prejudice reduction as a model of social change. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 1, 239–252. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Doyen, S., Klein, O., Pichon, C.-L. & Cleeremans, A. (2012). Behavioral priming: It’s all in the mind, but whose mind? PLoS One, 7, e29081. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451–477. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hodson, G. (2008). Interracial prison contact: The pros for (socially dominant) cons. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 325–351. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hodson, G. (2011). Do ideologically intolerant people benefit from intergroup contact? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 154–159. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hodson, G., Choma, B. L. & Costello, K. (2009). Experiencing alien-nation: Effects of a simulation intervention on attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 974–978. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hodson, G., Costello, K. & MacInnis, C. C. (2013). Is intergroup contact beneficial among intolerant people? Exploring individual differences in the benefits of contact on attitudes. In G. HodsonM. HewstoneEds., Advances in intergroup contact (pp. 49–80). London, UK: Psychology Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hodson, G., Dube, B. & Choma, B. L. (2015). Can (elaborated) imagined contact interventions reduce prejudice among those higher in intergroup disgust sensitivity (ITG-DS)? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45, 123–131. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hodson, G., Harry, H. & Mitchell, A. (2009). Independent benefits of contact and friendship on attitudes toward homosexuals among authoritarians and highly identified heterosexuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 509–525. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hodson G.Hewstone M. (Eds.). (2013). Advances in intergroup contact. London, UK: Psychology Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hoffarth, M. R., Drolet, C. E., Hodson, G. & Hafer, C. L. (2015). Development and validation of the attitudes toward asexuals (ATA) scale. Psychology & Sexuality. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/19419899.2015.1050446 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Husnu, S. & Crisp, R. J. (2010). Elaboration enhances the imagined contact effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 943–950. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2012). Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 645–654. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B., Bahnik, S., Berstein, M. J., … Nosek, B. A. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A “Many Labs” replication project. Social Psychology, 45, 142–152. First citation in articleLinkGoogle Scholar

  • Lee, S. A., Gibbons, J. A., Thompson, J. M. & Timani, H. S. (2009). The Islamophobia Scale: Instrument development and initial validation. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19, 92–105. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McDonald, M. M., Donnellan, M. B., Lang, R. & Nikolajuk, K. (2014). Treating prejudice with imagery: Easier said than done? Psychological Science, 25, 837–839. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Miles, E. & Crisp, R. J. (2014). A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 17, 3–26. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Paolacci, G. & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184–188. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stephan, W. G. & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–175. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Turner, R. N. & Crisp, R. J. (2010). Imagining intergroup contact reduces implicit prejudice. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 129–142. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Turner, R. N., Crisp, R. J. & Lambert, E. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 427–441. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M. & Voci, A. (2007). Reducing explicit and implicit outgroup prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes, 93, 369–388. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Turner, R. N., West, K. & Christie, Z. (2013). Out-group trust, intergroup anxiety, and out-group attitude as mediators of the effect of imagined intergroup contact on intergroup behavioral tendencies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, E196–E205. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • West, K., Husnu, S. & Lipps, G. (2015). Imagined contact works in high-prejudice contexts: Investigating imagined contact’s effects on anti-gay prejudice in Cyprus and Jamaica. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 12, 60–69. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar