Please wait a minute...
心理学报  2019, Vol. 51 Issue (11): 1256-1268    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.01256
  研究报告 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
越多接触就越愿意接触?取决于效价与效能
黄飞1(),王昌成1,石宽宽2,阿巴拜克热·哈力克3,李林鹏4
1. 华中师范大学心理学院, 武汉 430079
2. 喀什大学教育科学学院, 新疆 喀什 844006
3. 新疆实验中学, 乌鲁木齐 830049
4. 固原市彭阳县第三中学, 宁夏 彭阳 756500
Do more contacts bring stronger contact intention? It depends on valence and efficacy
HUANG Fei1(),WANG Changcheng1,SHI Kuankuan2,HALIKE Ababaikere3,LI Linpeng4
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
全文: PDF(796 KB)   HTML 评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要 

在我国族际背景中, 检验两种效价族际接触的效应及其机制。研究1从内地和新疆抽取有过族际互动经验的维吾尔族和汉族大学生(内地、新疆的汉族、维吾尔族样本量分别为448、791, 375、901), 研究2从宁夏抽取回族和汉族中学生(回族565, 汉族957)。两个研究共在6个样本上检验积极和消极族际接触对族际接触意愿的效应, 并检验族际自我效能的中介作用。结果表明, 积极族际接触明显多于消极族际接触; 积极族际接触越多族际接触意愿越高, 消极族际接触越多族际接触意愿越低, 积极族际接触的促进效应大于消极族际接触的阻碍效应; 族际自我效能部分中介积极族际接触对族际接触意愿的效应, 能更有效的中介消极族际接触的效应; 两种效价族际接触的效应在多数群体和少数群体间总体上没有预期的差异。研究结果对于了解我国族际接触的现状和效应、丰富群际接触研究证据有理论意义, 对于加强各民族交往交流交融具有实践意义。

服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
关键词 积极族际接触消极族际接触族际接触意愿族际自我效能    
Abstract

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.

Key wordspositive interethnic contact    negative interethnic contact    intention of interethnic contact    interethnic self-efficacy
收稿日期: 2018-03-12      出版日期: 2019-09-24
中图分类号:  B849:C91  
基金资助:* 2018年度国家民委民族研究后期资助项目:族际接触对族际关系的影响及机制研究(2018-GMH-002)
通讯作者: 黄飞     E-mail: huangfei@mail.ccnu.edu.cn
引用本文:   
黄飞,王昌成,石宽宽,阿巴拜克热·哈力克,李林鹏. (2019). 越多接触就越愿意接触?取决于效价与效能. 心理学报, 51(11): 1256-1268.
HUANG Fei,WANG Changcheng,SHI Kuankuan,HALIKE Ababaikere,LI Linpeng. (2019). Do more contacts bring stronger contact intention? It depends on valence and efficacy. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(11), 1256-1268.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.01256      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2019/V51/I11/1256
[1] 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.
[2] 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.
[3] Bandura, A.(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
[4] 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.
[5] Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D . (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370.
[6] Bekhuis, H., Ruiter, S., & Coenders, M . (2013). Xenophobia among youngsters: The effect of inter-ethnic contact. European Sociological Review, 29(2), 229-242.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] Crisp, R. J., & Husnu, S. (2011). Attributional processes underlying imagined contact effects. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 275-287.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] [ 高承海, 党宝宝, 万明钢 . (2013). 汉族与少数民族的民族刻板印象之比较. 西北师范大学学报(社会科学版), 50(4), 106-110.]
[14] 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.
[15] Gougeon, B. C . (2015). Parasocial and parasocial vicarious contact effects on Euro Canadians’ views of aboriginal peoples (Unpublished Master dissertation). Laurentian University, Ontario.
[16] 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.
[17] 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.
[18] 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.
[19] 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.
[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.
[21] [ 黄飞, 王昌成, 石宽宽, 阿巴拜克热·哈力克. (2018). 多维族际接触量表的建构与检验——以维汉族际为例. 心理技术与应用, 6(5), 291-309.]
[22] 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.
[23] Kanas, A., Scheepers, P., & Sterkens, C . (2015). Interreligious contact, perceived group threat, and perceived discrimination. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78(2), 102-126.
[24] 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.
[25] 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.
[26] 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.
[27] [ 李森森, 龙长权, 陈庆飞, 李红 . (2010). 群际接触理论——一种改善群际关系的理论. 心理科学进展, 18(5), 831-839.]
[28] 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.
[29] [ 刘阳, 孙秀玲, 李红, 龙长权 . (2014). 维族大学生面孔识别的本族效应:群际接触的影响. 心理科学, 37(3), 683-688.]
[30] 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.
[31] 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.
[32] 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.
[33] 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.
[34] 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.
[35] Pettigrew, T. F . (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 187-199.
[36] 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.
[37] 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.
[38] 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.
[39] 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.
[40] 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.
[41] 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.
[42] 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.
[43] 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.
[44] 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.
[45] 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.
[46] 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.
[47] 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.
[48] 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.
[49] Xin, Z. Q . (2018). Psychological issues inside social governance. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(1), 1-13.
[50] [ 辛自强 . (2018). 社会治理中的心理学问题. 心理科学进展, 26(1), 1-13.]
[51] Yao, L., Yu, H. T., Duan, H. J., & Qiao, Q. C . (2015). The effect of imagined intergroup contact on implicit attitudes and explicit attitudes. Journal of Psychological Science, 38(5), 1074-1080.
[52] [ 尧丽, 于海涛, 段海军, 乔亲才 . (2015). 想象接触对大学生内隐态度和外显态度的影响. 心理科学, 38(5), 1074-1080.
[53] Zhou, H., & Long, L. R . (2004). Statistical remedies for common method biases. Advances in Psychological Science, 12(6), 942-950.
[54] [ 周浩, 龙立荣 . (2004). 共同方法偏差的统计检验与控制方法. 心理科学进展, 12(6), 942-950.]
[1] 赵玉杰, 高扬, 周欣悦. 天气和空气污染对诚信行为的影响:一项校园丢钱包的现场实验[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(7): 909-920.
[2] 张环, 侯双, 王海曼, 廉宇煊, 杨海波. 他人在场条件下的社会分享型提取诱发遗忘[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(6): 716-729.
[3] 宫秀双,张红红. “别人家的孩子”vs.平庸的自己:社会比较对独特性寻求行为的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(5): 645-658.
[4] 高娟,王鹏,王晓田,孙倩,刘永芳. 得失情境下他人参照点及心理距离对自我-他人利益权衡的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(5): 633-644.
[5] 傅安国,张再生,郑剑虹,岳童,林肇宏,吴娜,黄希庭. 脱贫内生动力机制的质性探究[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(1): 66-80.
[6] 段锦云,施蓓,王啸天. 寻求者的注视方向对建议者建议提出的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(12): 1363-1374.
[7] 谢书书,张积家,朱君. 颜色范畴知觉效应发生在大脑两半球:来自纳西族和汉族的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(11): 1229-1243.
[8] 崔诣晨, 王沛, 崔亚娟. 知觉冲突印象形成的认知控制策略:以刻板化信息与反刻板化信息为例[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(10): 1157-1170.
[9] 张如倩,刘洁琼,李先春. 社会互动视角下人际公平形成的脑机制[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(9): 1007-1017.
[10] 王婷,植凤英,陆禹同,张积家. 侗歌经验对侗族中学生执行功能的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(9): 1040-1056.
[11] 孙倩,龙长权,王修欣,刘永芳. 公平或是利益?权力对分配公平感的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(8): 958-968.
[12] 李婷, 魏小平, 郑梓鑫, 易湘杰, 赵雪汝, 何先友. 不同权力关系对消极特质否定句使用偏向的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(6): 714-723.
[13] 杨群,张启睿,冯意然,张积家. 语言和文化影响颜色认知:直接语言效应抑或间接语言效应?[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(5): 543-556.
[14] 王斌, 付雅, 张积家. 语言和文化对自我参照条件下提取诱发遗忘的影响——来自汉族人和摩梭人的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(4): 450-461.
[15] 杨玲,王斌强,耿银凤,姚东伟,曹华,张建勋,许琼英. 虚拟和真实金钱奖赏幅度对海洛因戒断者风险决策的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(4): 507-516.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn