Mobilizing or Sedative Effects? A Narrative Review of the Association Between Intergroup Contact and Collective Action Among Advantaged and Disadvantaged Groups

ACADEMIC ABSTRACT

In this narrative review, we examined 134 studies of the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action benefiting disadvantaged groups. We aimed to identify whether, when, and why contact has mobilizing effects (promoting collective action) or sedative effects (inhibiting collective action). For both moderators and mediators, factors associated with the intergroup situation (compared with those associated with the out-group or the in-group) emerged as the most important. Group status had important effects. For members of socially advantaged groups (examined in 98 studies, 100 samples), contact had a general mobilizing effect, which was stronger when contact increased awareness of experiences of injustice among members of disadvantaged groups. For members of disadvantaged groups (examined in 49 studies, 58 samples), contact had mixed effects. Contact that increased awareness of injustice mobilized collection action; contact that made the legitimacy of group hierarchy or threat of retaliation more salient produced sedative effects.

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

We present a review of existing studies that have investigated the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action aimed at promoting equity for disadvantaged groups. We further consider the influence of contact that is positive or negative and face-to-face or indirect (e.g., through mass or social media), and we distinguish between collective action that involves socially acceptable behaviors or is destructive and violent. We identified 134 studies, considering both advantaged (100 samples) and disadvantaged groups (58 samples). We found that intergroup contact impacts collective action differently depending on group status. Contact generally leads advantaged groups to mobilize in favor of disadvantaged groups. However, contact has variable effects on members of disadvantaged groups: It sometimes promotes their collective action in support of their own group; in other cases, it leads them to be less likely to engage in such action. We examine when and why contact can have these different effects.

Effects of intergroup contact on explicit and implicit outgroup attitudes: A longitudinal field study with majority and minority group members

A longitudinal field study tested the long-term effects (three years) of intergroup contact on both explicit and implicit outgroup attitudes. Participants were majority (Italian) and minority (immigrant) high-school students, who were tested at four waves from the beginning of their first year in high-school to the end of the third school year. Results revealed, first, a longitudinal association of quantity (but not quality) of contact with lower intergroup anxiety and more positive explicit attitudes, as well as bidirectional effects over time between explicit attitudes and intergroup anxiety, on the one hand, and quantity and quality of contact, on the other. Second, reduced intergroup anxiety mediated the association between quantity of contact and improved explicit attitudes over time. Third, the product of quantity and quality of contact longitudinally predicted more positive implicit outgroup attitudes over school years. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of findings.