Macrae and Bodenhausen model
Wyer et al. (2000): motivation and the cognitive resources to do it!
Kawakami et al.
Correll et al. (2007) – police officers and community
1) Sherif’s Robbers Cave Experiment: 3 phases
1. Formation of group identity
Kept groups separate, promoted group cohesion
2. Intergroup behaviour
Antagonism happens soon after
Stereotypes and negative biases happens
Soon after the two groups does not even want to eat together anymore
3. Facilitating Inter-group Cohesion
Having fun contact, mere contact was not successful
Common goal: get both groups to contribute equal amounts of money to watch a
movie, purposely left out essential things from each group to force both groups to
pool together to complete their tasks.
Inter-group bias went down dramatically
Results: Increase in inter-group friendship after co-operation
2) Allport (1954) 4 key criteria:
1. Equal status members
2. Work towards a common goal
3. Inter-group co-operation
4. A legitimate authority’s support
Amir’s additions: favourable climate, intimate contact Pettigrew: friendship potential
Intergenerational Contact: Effects on Age Group Attitudes
3) Hewstone et al (2005):
How does a relationship characterized y frequent contact with an out-group member
affect attitudes to the out-group as a whole?
Personal relationships with frequent contact attitude change
1. Contact should only influence attitude when group salience is high
2. High group salience category means memberships are salient
3. Can include close out-group ID in self in high salience only! You see that person as
an out-group member and thus you would apply whatever properties to that out-
Measures: DV age group attitudes
1. Contact with grandparents
2. Frequency of contact (never to almost daily)
3. Quality of contact (How well they get along? Emotionally close)
4. Group salience (awareness of age difference)
Results: High frequency grandparent’s interaction ONLY!
1. When young adults have low salience of group memberships, it does not have any
effect on attitude s towards older adults no matter what the quality of contact.
2. When young adults have high quality and have high salience towards out-group
they have much more positive attitudes towards older adults.
Needs to be 1)frequent contact 2)groups memberships need to be salient 3) High quality
The better the contact quality, the better the perspective taking and the more positive the
group attitude towards older people
2 other mediators other than perspective taking are anxiety and accommodation
Models of Inter-group contact:
1) Personalization Model
Decategorization this person is not stereotypical of that group, thus the group must
not be like that! Opposite to the grandparents study, you want to view the person with low salience.
Limitations: Although individual interactions might improve, that does not prove
generalization towards the whole group. Re-fencing?
2) Mutual Inter-group differentiation model
Salient group memberships opposite to the personalization model
Limitations: High salience means that the person would always think that the in-group