1. School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China 2. School of Education, Kashi University, Kashi 844006, China 3. Xinjiang Experimental Middle School, Urumqi 830049, China 4. PengYang No.3 Middle School, PengYang 756500, China
Since they are critical components of today’s societies, interethnic relations can exert a great effect on the stability and harmony of a given social system. For multi-ethnic countries like China, achieving harmonious relations among different ethnic groups is an important but difficult task. Intergroup contact has been confirmed as one of the most effective prejudice reduction strategies across different target groups, situations, and cultural contexts, especially when the four optimal conditions, equal status, cooperation, common goals, and institutional support, are present. However, past contact research is biased because its predominant focus is on positive contact; insufficient attention has been paid to the examination of negative contact, especially in China. Moreover, much of the prior research has focused on intergroup contact from the perspective of majority groups. To address these limitations, this article tested the effects of positive and negative contact from the points of view of both majority and minority groups, and intergroup efficacy was examined as a mediator in positive and negative contact effects.
Two studies were conducted within two interethnic backgrounds on six samples in total. They were 448 Han (Mage = 20.3, SD = 1.66) and 375 Uyghur (Mage = 21.7, SD = 1.75) from several inland cities, and 791 Han (Mage = 20.1, SD = 1.23) and 901 Uyghur (Mage = 20.8, SD = 1.19) from Xinjiang Province of Study 1, 957 Han (Mage = 15.7, SD = 1.80) and 565 Hui (Mage = 15.9, SD = 1.91) from Ningxia Province of Study 2. All participants completed a battery of self-report questionnaires measuring their positive and negative interethnic contact experiences, interethnic self-efficacy, and intention of interethnic contact. All the measures in the present study showed good reliability and validity for each sample. Data were then analyzed using descriptive statistics, dependent t-test, correlation coefficients comparison, and path analysis to test the hypotheses related to the valence of contact and the role of efficacy.
he results indicated that: (1) the quantity of positive interethnic contact was significantly much more than negative interethnic contact in all six samples. The weighted average effect size measured by Cohen’s d was 1.75. (2) The correlations between positive interethnic contact and intention of interethnic contact in all six samples were positively significant with medium sizes; the correlations between negative interethnic contact and intention of interethnic contact in all six samples were negatively significant with small sizes, with weighted average rs 0.57 and -0.24 respectively. (3) Valence asymmetry effect showed positive interethnic contact’s effects on enhancing intention of interethnic contact were greater than negative interethnic contact’s effects on weakening intention of interethnic contact. The weighted average r difference was 0.38. (4) Positive and negative interethnic contact exerted significant indirect effects on intention of interethnic contact via interethnic self-efficacy with weighted average indirect effects of 0.13 and -0.08 respectively; positive and negative interethnic contact could also affect intention of interethnic contact directly. (5) Positive and negative interethnic contacts’ effects on intention of interethnic contact were stronger among Han compared with Uyghur in Xinjiang, and positive contact’s effect was significantly lower among Han than Hui in Ningxia. No significant differences were found between majority and minority samples in inland samples on both effects, and no significant difference was found in Ningxia samples on negative contact’s effect. In general, the moderation effect of the majority-minority status was not supported.
Research into the effects of positive and negative interethnic contact and the mediating role of interethnic self-efficacy demonstrates both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, conducting research taking into positive and negative interethnic contact simultaneously could not only serve as a response to the call for strengthening negative contact research, but more importantly, it enriches intergroup contact theory through acquiring evidence from Chinese ethnic background and contributes to a comprehensive understanding of intergroup contact. Practically, the findings presented above suggest that to achieve harmonious interethnic relations, effective measures can be taken to promote positive interethnic contacts and prevent negative interethnic contacts through increased interethnic self-efficacy or directly enhancing the contact intention.
Aberson, C. L . (2015). Positive intergroup contact, negative intergroup contact, and threat as predictors of cognitive and affective dimensions of prejudice. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 18(6), 743-760.
Ayers, J. W., Hofstetter, C. R., Schnakenberg, K., & Kolody, B . (2009). Is immigration a racial issue? Anglo attitudes on immigration policies in a border county. Social Science Quarterly, 90(3), 593-610.
Bandura, A.(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Barlow, F. K., Paolini, S., Pedersen, A., Hornsey, M. J., Radke, H. R., Harwood, J., .. Sibley, C. G . (2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1629-1643.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D . (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370.
Bekhuis, H., Ruiter, S., & Coenders, M . (2013). Xenophobia among youngsters: The effect of inter-ethnic contact. European Sociological Review, 29(2), 229-242.
Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., .. Leyens, J. P . (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(4), 843-856.
Cernat, V.(2010). Intergroup contact in Romania: When minority size is positively related to intergroup conflict. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 20(1), 15-29.
Crisp, R. J., & Husnu, S. (2011). Attributional processes underlying imagined contact effects. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 275-287.
Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C . (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(7), 697-711.
Feddes, A. R., Noack, P., & Rutland, A . (2009). Direct and extended friendship effects on minority and majority children’s interethnic attitudes: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 80(2), 377-390.
Gao, C. H., Dang, B. B., & Wan, M. G . (2013). A comparative study of stereotypes between Han and minority college students. Journal of Northwest Normal University (Social Sciences), 50(4), 106-110.
Gómez, A., Tropp, L. R., & Fernández, S . (2011). When extended contact opens the door to future contact: Testing the effects of extended contact on attitudes and intergroup expectancies in majority and minority groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 161-173.
Gougeon, B. C . (2015). Parasocial and parasocial vicarious contact effects on Euro Canadians’ views of aboriginal peoples (Unpublished Master dissertation). Laurentian University, Ontario.
Graf, S., Paolini, S. (2017). Investigating positive and negative intergroup contact: Rectifying a long-standing literature bias. In S. Vezzali & S. Stathi (Eds.), Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 92-113). New York, NY: Routledge.
Graf, S., Paolini, S., & Rubin, M . (2014). Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6), 536-547.
Hayward, L. E., Tropp, L. R., Hornsey, M. J., & Barlow, F. K . (2017). Toward a comprehensive understanding of intergroup contact: Descriptions and mediators of positive and negative contact among majority and minority groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 347-364.
Hayward, L. E., Tropp, L. R., Hornsey, M. J., & Barlow, F. K . (2018). How negative contact and positive contact with Whites predict collective action among racial and ethnic minorities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(1), 1-20.
Huang, F., Wang, C. C, Shi, K. K, & Halike, A. (2018). The construction and validation of multi-dimensional interethnic contact scale in Uyghur-Han interethnic context. Psychology, Techniques and Applications, 6(5), 291-309.
Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., M?h?nen, T. A., & Liebkind, K . (2012). Identity and attitudinal reactions to perceptions of inter- group interactions among ethnic migrants: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(2), 312-329.
Kanas, A., Scheepers, P., & Sterkens, C . (2015). Interreligious contact, perceived group threat, and perceived discrimination. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78(2), 102-126.
Kauff, M., Asbrock, F., Wagner, U., Pettigrew, T. F., Hewstone, M., .. Christ, O . (2017). (Bad) feelings about meeting them? Episodic and chronic intergroup emotions associated with positive and negative intergroup contact as predictors of intergroup behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1449.
Laurence, J., Bentley, L. (2018). Countervailing contact: Community ethnic diversity, anti-immigrant attitudes and mediating pathways of positive and negative inter-ethnic contact in European societies. Social Science Research, 69, 83-110.
Li, S. S., Long, C. Q., Chen, Q. F., & Li, H . (2010). Intergroup contact theory: Theory for refining intergroup relationship. Advances in Psychological Science, 18(5), 831-839.
Liu, Y., Sun, X. L., Li, H., & Long, C. Q . (2014). Own-race effect of Uygur college students in face recognition: The influence of inter-group contact experience. Journal of Psychological Science, 37(3), 683-688.
M?h?nen, 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.
Mazziotta, A., Mummendey, A., & Wright, S. C . (2011). Vicarious intergroup contact effects: Applying social- cognitive theory to intergroup contact research. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 255-274.
Mazziotta, A., Rohmann, A., Wright, S. C., Tezanos-Pinto, D., & Lutterbach, S . (2015). (How) does positive and negative extended cross-group contact predict direct cross-group contact and intergroup attitudes? European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(5), 653-667.
Paolini, S., Harwood, J., & Rubin, M . (2010). Negative intergroup contact makes group memberships salient: Explaining why intergroup conflict endures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1723-1738.
Paolini, S., & McIntyre, K. (2019). Bad is stronger than good for stigmatized, but not admired outgroups: Meta-analytical tests of intergroup valence asymmetry in individual-to- group generalization experiments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(1), 3-47.
Pettigrew, T. F . (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 187-199.
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.
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(6), 922-934.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact New York: Psychology Press The dynamics of intergroup contact. New York: Psychology Press.
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.
Ron, Y., Solomon, J., Halperin, E., & Saguy, T . (2017). Willingness to engage in intergroup contact: A multilevel approach. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23(3), 210-218.
Techakesari, P., Barlow, F. K., Hornsey, M. J., Sung, B., Thai, M., & Chak, J. L. Y. (2015). An investigation of positive and negative contact as predictors of intergroup attitudes in the United States, Hongkong, and Thailand. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(3), 454-468.
Ten Berge, J. B., Lancee, B., & Jaspers, E . (2017). Can interethnic friends buffer for the prejudice increasing effect of negative interethnic contact? A longitudinal study of adolescents in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 33(3), 423-435.
Thomsen, J. P. F., & Rafiqi, A. (2016). The contact-prejudice relationship among ethnic minorities: Examining personal discrimination as a boundary condition. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(10), 1886-1904.
Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F . (2005). Differential relationships between intergroup contact and affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(8), 1145-1158.
Vedder, P., Wenink, E., & van Geel, M . (2017). Intergroup contact and prejudice between Dutch majority and Muslim minority youth in the Netherlands. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23(4), 477-485.
Vezzali, L., Hewstone, M., Capozza, D., Giovannini, D., & W?lfer, R . (2014). Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology, 25(1), 314-389.
Visintin, E. P., Green, E. G. T., Pereira, A., & Miteva, P . (2017). How positive and negative contact relate to attitudes towards Roma: Comparing majority and high‐status minority perspectives. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 27(3), 240-252.
Wright, S. C., Aron, A., Mclaughlin, T., & Ropp, S. A . (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73-90.
Xin, Z. Q . (2018). Psychological issues inside social governance. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(1), 1-13.