SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ordu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 12 Sayı: 2

A Rewiew on the Secondary Transfer Effect of Intergroup Contact

GruplarArası Temasın İkincil Aktarım Etkisi Üzerine Bir Derleme

Halime Ünver(Keele University)0000-0002-2208-129X
Huseyin Cakal(Keele University)0000-0002-6227-9698
Zafer Özkan(ORDU UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-7831-2491
Büşra Kızık(Keele University)0000-0002-9961-0698
Ertuğrul Gazi Eraslan(Keele University)0000-0002-8026-6516
Pages
1461–1500
Publication Date
2022-08-02
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Finally, in line with the current issues with the theory, research and practice, we present suggestions for future research.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Research showed that intergroup contact could increase social cohesion with many positive changes such as improved positive attitudes and trust as well as a decreased threat towards the groups in contact.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Therefore, it is a promising and effective strategy for prejudice reduction, particularly in ethnically, racially, and religiously segregated societies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally, in line with the current issues with the theory, research and practice, we present suggestions for future research.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Gruplararası Temasın İkincil Aktarım Etkisi · Olumlu Temas · Olumsuz Temas

Abstract

Research showed that intergroup contact could increase social cohesion with many positive changes such as improved positive attitudes and trust as well as a decreased threat towards the groups in contact. However, faceto- face contact may be impossible in societies where intergroup conflicts are prevalent and groups are ethnically, racially, and religiously segregated. In such societies, the indirect and transferable effects of contact can be an opportunity to benefit from the positive effects of contact. One of the transferable effects of contact is the secondary transfer effect. The secondary transfer effect (STE) refers to the generalisation of the effects of intergroup contact from the encountered outgroup to outgroups that do not involve in the contact situation. Therefore, it is a promising and effective strategy for prejudice reduction, particularly in ethnically, racially, and religiously segregated societies. In this article, we aim to review the STE literature and extend previous reviews by focusing on the problems in the STE. We first review evidence on the STE of positive versus negative contact, and then we highlight the relevant underlying mechanism of the phenomenon, i.e., mediators and moderators of the STE. Third, we underline the problems that may limit the robustness of the phenomenon and the research gap in the STE literature. Finally, in line with the current issues with the theory, research and practice, we present suggestions for future research.

Özet

Araştırmalar, gruplar arası temasın, olumlu tutum ve güvenin artması gibi birçok olumlu değişiklikle beraber sosyal uyumu artırabileceğini ve aynı zamanda temas halinde olan gruplara yönelik tehdidin azalmasını sağlayabileceğini gösterdi. Ancak, gruplar arası çatışmaların hâkim olduğu ve grupların etnik, ırksal ve dinsel olarak ayrıştığı toplumlarda yüz yüze temas imkânsız olabilir. Bu tip toplumlarda temasın olumlu etkisinden faydalanmak için temasın dolaylı ve aktarılabilir etkileri bir fırsat olabilir. Temasın aktarılabilir etkilerinden birisi ikincil aktarım etkisidir. İkincil aktarım etkisi, gruplar arası temasın etkilerinin, temas kurulan dış gruptan temas kurulmayan diğer dış gruplara genellenmesi durumunu ifade etmektedir. Bundan dolayı ikincil aktarım etkisi, özellikle ayrışmış ve çatışmalı toplumlarda gruplar arası önyargının azaltılması bakımından umut verici ve etkili bir strateji olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Bu makalede, ikincil aktarım etkisi ile ilgili bir derleme sunmayı ve önceki derlemeleri ikincil aktarım etkisi özelindeki problemler üzerinde durarak genişletmeyi amaçlıyoruz. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, ilk olarak hem olumlu hem de olumsuz temasın ikincil aktarım etkisi üzerine ampirik kanıtları gözden geçirdikten sonra devamında bu genelleme etkisinin altında yatan aracı ve düzenleyici mekanizmaları inceliyoruz. Üçüncü ve en önemlisi, bu olgunun güvenirliğini ve sağlamlığını olumsuz anlamda etkileyebilecek, ikincil temas, sosyal istenirlik ile seçim yanlılığı ve nedensellik silsilesi gibi problemlerin ve alandaki araştırma boşluğunun altını çiziyoruz. Son olarak, teori, araştırma ve pratik ile ilgili mevcut problemler ve alan yazındaki boşluklar doğrultusunda gelecek araştırmalar ve araştırmacılar için önerilerimizi sunuyoruz.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ünver, H., Cakal, H., Özkan, Z., Kızık, B., Eraslan, E. G., *, H. Ü. (2022). A Rewiew on the Secondary Transfer Effect of Intergroup Contact. Ordu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 2, 1461–1500. https://doi.org/10.48146/odusobiad.1081427

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (65)

  1. Aberson, C. L. (2019). Indirect effects of threat on the contact-prejudice relationship. Social Psychology, 50(2), 105–126. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000364
  2. Andrews, N. P., Yogeeswaran, K., Walker, M. J., & Hewstone, M. (2018). Effect of valenced vicarious online contact on out-group prejudice and perceived out-group variability: A study of online poker. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(10), 571–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12548
  3. Boin, J., Rupar, M., Graf, S., Neji, S., Spiegler, O., & Swart, H. (2021). The generalization of intergroup contact effects: Emerging research, policy relevance, and future directions. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12419
  4. Bowman, N. A., & Griffin, T. M. (2012). Secondary transfer effects of interracial contact: The moderating role of social status. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026745
  5. Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37(37), 255–343. Retrieved from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0065260105370055
  6. Brylka, A., Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., & Mähönen, T. A. (2016). The majority influence on interminority attitudes: The secondary transfer effect of positive and negative contact. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 50, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.12.007
  7. Çakal, H., Halabi, S., Cazan, A. M., & Eller, A. (2021). Intergroup contact and endorsement of social change motivations: The mediating role of intergroup trust, perspective-taking, and intergroup anxiety among three advantaged groups in Northern Cyprus, Romania, and Israel. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 24(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219885163
  8. Daiber, C. (2017). Attitude and Intergroup Anxiety Generalisation as Mediators of the Secondary Transfer Effect of the Contact-Prejudice Relationship among White South African Stellenbosch University Students.
  9. Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 332–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411103
  10. De Beer, H. (2015). Attitude and empathy generalisation as mediators of the secondary transfer effect amongst white South African students at Stellenbosch University. Retrieved from https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/96892%5Cnhttp://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/96892%5Cnhttps://scholar.sun.ac.za/bitstream/10019.1/96892/2/debeer_attitude_2015.pdf
  11. De Coninck, D., Rodríguez-de-Dios, I., & d’Haenens, L. (2020). The contact hypothesis during the European refugee crisis: Relating quality and quantity of (in)direct intergroup contact to attitudes towards refugees. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220929394
  12. Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2007). Intergroup contact and attitudes toward the principle and practice of racial equality. Psychological Science, 18(10), 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01993.x
  13. Dixon, J., Levine, M., Reicher, S., & Durrheim, K. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002214
  14. Eller, A., & Abrams, D. (2004). Come together: Longitudinal comparisons of Pettigrew ’ s reformulated intergroup contact model and the Common Ingroup Identity Model in Anglo-French and Mexican-American context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 229–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.194
  15. Filippou, G. (2012). Secondary Transfer Effect of Contact: A Study among Greek Cypriot University Students. The Cyprus Research Facts, 3.
  16. Flores, A. R. (2015). Attitudes toward transgender rights: Perceived knowledge and secondary interpersonal contact. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 3(3), 398–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2015.1050414
  17. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., Rust, M. C., Gaertner, S. L., … Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000004
  18. Ganster, D. C., Hennessey, H. W., & Luthans, F. (1983). Social Desirability Response Effects: Three Alternative Models. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.5465/255979
  19. Green, E. G. T., Visintin, E. P., Sarrasin, O., & Hewstone, M. (2020). When integration policies shape the impact of intergroup contact on threat perceptions: a multilevel study across 20 European countries. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(3), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1550159
  20. Harwood, J., Paolini, S., Joyce, N., Rubin, M., & Arroyo, A. (2011). Secondary transfer effects from imagined contact: Group similarity affects the generalization gradient. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(1), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X524263
  21. Hässler, T., Uluğ, Ö. M., Kappmeier, M., & Travaglino, G. A. (2021). Intergroup contact and social change: An integrated Contact-Collective Action Model. Journal of Social Issues, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12412
  22. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the World? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1601785
  23. Hewstone, M. (2015). Consequences of diversity for social cohesion and prejudice: The missing dimension of intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 71(2), 417–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12120
  24. Hindriks, P., Verkuyten, M., & Coenders, M. (2014). Interminority attitudes: The roles of ethnic and national identification, contact, and multiculturalism. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77(1), 54–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272513511469
  25. Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived out- group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 700–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196005
  26. Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Vezzali, L., Ranta, M., Pacilli, M. G., Giacomantonio, M., & Pagliaro, S. (2020). Conditional secondary transfer effect: The moderating role of moral credentials and prejudice. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220940401
  27. Joyce, N., & Harwood, J. (2014). Improving Intergroup Attitudes through Televised Vicarious Intergroup Contact: Social Cognitive Processing of Ingroup and Outgroup Information. Communication Research, 41(5), 627–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212447944
  28. Kamans, E., Otten, S., & Gordijn, E. H. (2011). Power and threat in intergroup conflict: How emotional and behavioral responses depend on amount and content of threat. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(3), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210372525
  29. Lemmer, G., & Wagner, U. (2015). Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(2), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2079
  30. Lissitsa, S., & Kushnirovich, N. (2018). Secondary transfer effect of positive and negative online contact between groups involved in high-intensity conflict. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 67, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.10.001
  31. Lolliot, S., Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., Al Ramiah, A., Tausch, N., & Swart, H. (2013). Generalised effects of intergroup contact: The secondary transfer effect. In G. Hodson & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Advances in Intergroup Contact (pp. 81–112). East Sussex: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203095461
  32. Mähönen, T. A., & Jasinskaja-Lahti, I. (2016). Ramifications of positive and negative contact experiences among remigrants from Russia to Finland. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(2), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000059
  33. Marrow, H. B., Tropp, L. R., Van Der Linden, M., Okamoto, D. G., & Jones-Correa, M. (2019). How does interracial contact among the U.S.-born shape white and black receptivity toward immigrants? Du Bois Review, 16(2), 385–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X19000249
  34. McKeown, S., & Dixon, J. (2017). The “contact hypothesis”: Critical reflections and future directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12295
  35. Meleady, R., & Forder, L. (2019). When contact goes wrong: Negative intergroup contact promotes generalized outgroup avoidance. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 22(5), 688–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218761568
  36. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.
  37. Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(2), 173–185.
  38. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup Contact Theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65
  39. Pettigrew, T. F. (2009). Secondary transfer effect of contact: Do intergroup contact effects spread to noncontacted outgroups? Social Psychology, 40(2), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335.40.2.55
  40. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
  41. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology Eur., 38(2008), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp
  42. Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001
  43. Ployhart, R. E., & MacKenzie Jr., W. I. (2015). Two waves of measurement do not a longitudinal study make. In More statistical and methodological myths and urban legends. (pp. 85–99). New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
  44. Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social Identity Complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_01
  45. Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., Küpper, B., Zick, A., & Wagner, U. (2012). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: A cross-national comparison in Europe. Social Psychology Quarterly, 75(1), 28–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272511430235
  46. Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., & Tausch, N. (2014). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact via social identity complexity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(3), 443–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12045
  47. Schulz, M., & Taylor, L. K. (2018). The processes underlying the quality of contact with the primary out-group and in-group importance on support for the Syrian resettlement in a post-accord context. Peace and Conflict, 24(3), 306–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000321
  48. Shook, N. J., Hopkins, P. D., & Koech, J. M. (2016). The effect of intergroup contact on secondary group attitudes and social dominance orientation. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 19(3), 328–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215572266
  49. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  50. Stephan, W. G., Diaz-Loving, R., & Duran, A. (2000). Integrated threat theory and intercultural attitudes. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(2), 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031002006 Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination, 23–46.
  51. Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J. B., Psaltis, C., Schmid, K., Popan, J. R., … Hughes, J. (2010). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: Alternative accounts and underlying processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 282–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018553
  52. Tee, N., & Hegarty, P. (2006). Predicting opposition to the civil rights of trans persons in the United Kingdom. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 16(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.851
  53. Turner, R. N., & Feddes, A. R. (2011). How intergroup friendship works: A longitudinal study of friendship effects on outgroup attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(7), 914–923. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.843
  54. Ünver, H., Çakal, H., Güler, M., & Tropp, L. R. (2021). Support for rights of Syrian refugees in Turkey: The role of secondary transfer effects in intergroup contact. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2562
  55. Van Laar, C., Levin, S., Sinclair, S., & Sidanius, J. (2005). The effect of university roommate contact on ethnic attitudes and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(4), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.08.002
  56. Vezzali, L., Di Bernardo, G. A., Birtel, M. D., Stathi, S., & Brambilla, M. (2019). Outgroup morality perceptions mediate secondary transfer effects from direct and extended contact: Evidence from majority and minority group members. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219879223
  57. Vezzali, L., Di Bernardo, G. A., Cocco, V. M., Stathi, S., & Capozza, D. (2021). Reducing prejudice in the society at large: A review of the secondary transfer effect and directions for future research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(3), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12583
  58. Vezzali, L., Di Bernardo, G. A., Stathi, S., Cadamuro, A., Lášticová, B., & Andraščiková, S. (2018). Secondary transfer effect among children: The role of social dominance orientation and outgroup attitudes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12248
  59. Vezzali, L., & Giovannini, D. (2011). Cross-Group Friendships, Social Dominance Orientation and Secondary Transfer Effect. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 18(3), 181–194.
  60. Vezzali, L., & Giovannini, D. (2012). Secondary transfer effect of intergroup contact: The role of intergroup attitudes, intergroup anxiety and perspective taking. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 22(2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp
  61. Vezzali, L., Hewstone, M., Capozza, D., Giovannini, D., & Wölfer, R. (2014). Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology, 25(1), 314–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.982948
  62. Visintin, E. P., Birtel, M. D., & Crisp, R. J. (2017). The role of multicultural and colorblind ideologies and typicality in imagined contact interventions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 59, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.04.010
  63. Žeželj, I. L., Ioannou, M., Franc, R., Psaltis, C., & Martinovic, B. (2017). The role of inter-ethnic online friendships in prejudice reduction in post-conflict societies: Evidence from Serbia, Croatia and Cyprus. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 386–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.041
  64. Zezelj, I., Milošević-Đorđević, J., Van Niekerk, J., & Pavlović, Z. (2020). How to address the caveat of avoiding direct contact: Reducing prejudice towards gay and lesbian people in five Balkan countries. Journal of Social Psychology, 160(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1611531
  65. Zingora, T., & Graf, S. (2019). Marry who you love: Intergroup contact with gay people and another stigmatized minority is related to voting on the restriction of gay rights through threat. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(11), 684–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12627