Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- phd:book-journals:contact-hypothesis [2020/04/03 09:07]
avnerus
+++ phd:book-journals:contact-hypothesis [2020/04/09 18:45] (current)
avnerus
@@ Line 165: / Line 165: @@
   - Practicality: meetings are complicated to arrange, language barriers, status difference, physical barriers/distance.
   - Anxiety: anticipation of negative reactions leads to increased usage of stereotyping. During state of anxiety positive 'subtyping' is ignored.
-  - Generalization (categorization): Tricky to achieve. It is still unclear how much group saliency is needed, and how to measure this.
+  - Generalization (categorization): Tricky to achieve. It is still unclear how much group saliency is needed, and how to measure this.** Group saliency levels can be explicitly determined in a robot telepresence scenario, using the design of the robot and of the deployment site **.
-** Group saliency levels can be explicitly determined in a robot telepresence scenario, using the design of the robot and of the site context **.
+==== The Net Advantage ====
+=== Equal status ===
+Equal status can be divided to: external equal status (in real life) and internal equal status (within the contact).
+"//As Hogg (1993) has shown, within group interactions people tend to be highly sensitive in discerning subtle cues that may be indicative of status. Online interactions have the advantage here because many, although not all, of the cues individuals typically rely on to gauge the internal and external status of others are not typically in evidence..such is not the case in electronic interactions. One aspect of electronic communications that has long been decried (e.g., Sproull & Kiesler, 1991) is the tendency,within organizational settings, for there to be a reduction in the usual inhibitions that typically operate when interacting with one’s superiors. In other words, existing internal status does not carry as much weight and does not affect the behavior of the group members to such an extent. Underlings are more likely to speak up, to speak ‘‘out of turn,’’ and to speak their mind. Thus electronic interaction makes power less of an issue during discussion which leads group members, regardless of status, to
+contribute more to the discussion (Spears, Postmes, Lea, & Wolbert, 2002). While this can prove to be problematic within a corporate setting, it is advantageous in the present context, as the medium serves to reduce the constraining effects of status both within and between the two groups..//"
+**However this could also lead to lack of empathy and agency and some negativity in conversation. In robotic telepresence the experience is different because you are still embodied and communicating physically, but it depends on elements such as feedback and reciprocity. For the robot controller they are able to assume another body which affects the perception of their status.**
+=== Connecting from Afar and with the Comforts of Home ===
+//"having participants engage in the contact from the privacy of their respective homes has distinct advantages. Participants are likely to feel more com fortable and less anxious in their familiar surroundings. Further, research has shown that public, as opposed to private, settings can exacerbate the activation and use of stereotypes, especially when it comes to those tied to racial prejudice (e.g., Lambert,
+Payne, et al., 2003). As Zajonc (1965) has shown, an individual’s habitual or dominant response is more likely to emerge in public settings, whereas the individual is likely to be more open and receptive to altering the habitual response when in a private sphere. Even when participants interact in quite ‘‘public’’ electronic venues but do so from the privacy of their homes, they tend to feel that it is a private affair
+(e.g., McKenna & Bargh, 2000; McKenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002). Thus, interacting electronically from home should serve to inhibit the activation of stereotypes as compared to a more public and face-to-face setting in a new environment."//
+** But this might also reduce generalization? Also when placing a robot in the public space you are able ot reach an audience that still wouldn't take the initiative to join an organized encounter**
+=== Cooperation Toward Superordinate Goals ===
+//"the benefits of including virtual teams have become more evident (Cascio, 2000). For instance, employers find that telecommuting increases worker productivity and improves attendance (Abreu,2000)...Galegher and Kraut (1994) also found that for virtual work groups the final product was similar in overall quality to that produced by face-to-face group members."//
+** There are a lot disadvantages with lack of body language and synchrony in without face-to-face contact. Also gathering virtual teams to work on a task is very difficult in situations of conflict and barriers **
+=== Institutional Support and Willingness to Participate ===
+//"If the organization has compelled its members to take part in the meeting, they are unlikely to change their stereotypes as a negative reaction to the feelings of loss of control over their freedom of association (Stephan & Stephan,1996). Participating in an Internet contact may be seen as taking on less of a risk than a face-to-face contact (Bargh & McKenna, 2004; McKenna & Bargh, 1998) and this may make it easier for group members to volunteer to participate and for leaders to support such a meeting."//
+** This might also mean that the participants are more alienated and less liable to assimilate new meanings **
+=== Bridging the Language Barrier ===
+** This is now of course possible, but the danger and embarrassment enclosed in misunderstandings is also disruptive **
+==== Ameliorating Anxiety Through Online Interaction ====
+"//many of the situational factors that can foster feelings of anxiety in social situations (e.g., having to respond on the spot, feeling under visual scrutiny) are absent in online interactions. Because participants have more control over how they present themselves and their views online (e.g., being able to edit one’s comments before presenting them), they should tend to feel more comfortable and in control of the situation. They should be better able to and to more often express themselves, to be liked more by their online interactions partners than if they inter-
+acted in person, and to develop closer, more intimate relationships through online interaction//"
+//"Those experiencing anxiety in social situations have also been found to take more active leadership roles in online groups than in their face-to-face counterparts. In a study by McKenna, Seidman, Buffardi, and Green (2005)"//
+==== Supersize It: Generalizing from the Contact to the Group ====
+"//One of the advantages of online communication is that one can quite easily manipulate the degree of individual versus group saliency in a given contact situation in order to achieve a desired outcome. Spears et al. (2002) have argued that anonymous communication within groups leads to a sense of depersonalization by the group members. That is, members feel an absence of personal accountability and personal identity and thus the group-level identity becomes more important. When the group-level identity is thus heightened, Spears et al. (2002) have shown that
+group norms can have an even stronger effect than occurs in face-to-face interactions. The degree to which the group identity is salient, however, plays an important role in determining what the effects of anonymity will be on the development of group norms.//"
+"//One of the most interesting sets of studies examining the interaction between anonymity and identity-salience tested the effects of primed behavior in electronic groups. Postmes, Spears, Sakhel, and De Groot (2001) primed participants with
+either task-oriented or socioemotional behavior and then had them interact in electronic groups under either anonymous or identifying conditions. Members in the anonymous groups displayed behavior consistent with the respective prime they received considerably more so than did their counterparts who interacted under identifiable conditions within their groups.//"
+** Some 'priming' perhaps could be achieved by co-designing the robot with certain features **
+//"one can provide all members with anonymous screen names that are evocative of the group they are representing (e.g., Pakistan 1, India 1, Pakistan 2) or, following Leah Thompson’s procedure (see Thompson & Nadler, 2002) one can have each member briefly introduce him- or herself at the beginning of the interaction and ask each to include a statement stressing his or her typicality as a member, and so forth. As the inter-
+action in the online environment progresses, group norms will begin to quicklyemerge (Spears et al., 2002). These norms will be distinct from those that operate when members of group A are alone together and distinct from those unique to group B. Rather, these norms will emerge from the combined membership of groups A and B in the online setting, leading to heightened feelings of attachment and camaraderie among the participants. Thus, one can effectively invoke the necessary balance of a sense of both ‘‘us and them’’ among the participants that will allow for acceptance and generalization."//
+==== Getting More than just Skin Deep ====
+//"One of the major advantages of Internet interactions over face-to-face interactions is the general tendency for individuals to engage in greater self-disclosure and more intimate exchanges there. Interactions online tend to become ‘‘more than skin
+deep’’ and to do so quite quickly (e.g., McKenna et al., 2002; Walther, 1996). Spears and Lea (1994) suggest that it is the protection of anonymity often provided by the Internet that helps people openly to express the way they really thinkand feel. In line with this, McKenna and Bargh (1998, 1999) suggest that this sense of anonymity allows people to take risks in making disclosures to their Internet friends that would be unthinkable to them in a face-to-face interaction...even without the cloak of anonymity, people more readily make intimate disclosures through their
+Internet interactions than through their face-to-face interactions, even when it comes to their nearest and dearest."//
+Intimacy facilitators:
+  - a greater sense of anonymity or non-identifiability that leads to a reduced feeling of vulnerability and risk.
+  - the absence of traditional gating features to the establishment of any close relationship—that is,easily discernable features such as physical appearance (beauty is in the eye of thebeholder), mannerisms, apparent social stigmas such as stuttering, or visible shyness or anxiety;\
+  - a greater ease of finding others who share our specialized interests and values—and particularly so when there are a lack of ‘‘real world’’ counterparts (e.g.,because of the marginalized or highly specialized nature of the interest, such similarothers may not be present in one’s physical community or, if they are, they are not readily identifiable)
+  - more control over one’s side of the interaction and how one presents oneself.
+=== Beyond the Cookie-Cutter Contact: Tailoring the Net Contact to fit Specific Needs ===
+//"The anonymity and identifiability of participants can be manipulated depending on the particular needs of the situation and can be altered over time. The salience of the originating group and that of the ‘‘new group’’ can be heightened or lowered as needed"//
+**In a robot interface as well controllers can choose for example to record their own voice, or in cases where there is a display, show their face or other details. Also when designing the robot they can choose the level of salience**
+===== An integrative theory of intergroup contact =====
+Four major components to intergroup contact:
+==== Dimensions of Contact ====
+Measurement of contact
+  * Quantity and quality of contact.
+  * Cross group friendships are a good measurement.
+  * Extended contact should be assessed.
+  * Examine social networks and not just dyadic contact.
+==== Moderating variable - group contact ====
+//We have subsequently proposed, simply, that group membership must be suffciently salient to ensure generalization but not so salient that it leads to intergroup anxiety or otherwise exacerbates tensions (Hewstone, 1996, p. 333). As our moderated mediation approach emphasizes, participants who are relatively more aware of group memberships. during contact are, in fact, those most likely to benefit from the cumulative, anxiety-reducing eVect of repeated exposure to the out-group (e.g.,Harwood et al., in press, Study 2; Voci & Hewstone, 2003b, Study 1). Intuitively, our sense is that the optimal measure of moderation refers to awareness of group aYliations or perceived typicality of out-group partner(s). Where
+tensions are high, however, an item such as ‘during contact we discuss intergroup differences’ may trigger negative intergroup differentiation.We note three future priorities for research on moderation. **First, we need systematic studies of which measures of salience are best moderators of
+contact effects and which, if any, actually have negative effects...Second, when should salience be introduced into the contact setting? Third, there is a need for further research on generalization.**//
+==== Mediating variables ====
+//In its first version, our model emphasized various cognitive processes that we believed would lead to positive (or negative) outcomes of contact (social categorization, stereotyping, expectancies, and attribution processes). This led to our work on the cognitive processes implicated in stereotype changereviewed in Section IV. However, **the subsequent decade (prom*pted by Pettigrew, 1986) saw a gradual shift in emphasis to more affective mediators, starting with intergroup anxiety, which has proved to be a potent variable in several contexts.**//
+//**five possible mediators: intergroup anxiety, perspective-taking (empathy?), individuation, self-disclosure, and accommodation.**//
+==== Outcome measures ====
+//We have found that measures of **intergroup affect (liking), trust, and forgiveness** are all predicted by various kinds of contact, either directly or indirectly.//
+===== Why Can't We Live Together? - Miles Hewstone =====
+?
+//Quantity// of contact: frequency of the meetings. //Quality of contact// : The nature of the contact, how positive/negative,
+Indirect contact ("I have a friend who knows..") lowers anxiety toward the outgroup.
+In a school study, even though the attitude toward miniority and the norms were generally positive, at lunch time cafeteria the students still choose to sit in homogenous groups, when they are given the choice. Should we use 'social engineering' to create contact? **Should the robot 'pop-up' to force contact?**
+===== From the original 'nature of prejudice' =====
+In studies regarding the employment of African-Americans and "FEPC" (p.274), two conclusions seem to emerge:
+  - It helps if the new employees are incorporated in different levels of proficiency, not just the bottom of the scale.
+  - It is best to not raise the topic to discussion, because then it will spur much resistance. It is best to just force it and let the small flurry of resistance quiet down. The impending contact elicits more protest than the actual contact. **Does this give advantage to a 'pop-up' robot/unstructured encounter rather than an organized session?***
+//"People may come to take for granted the particular situation in which contact occurs, but fail to completley generalize their experience. They may, for example, encounter Negro sales personnel in a store, deal with them as equals, and yet still harbor their over-all anti-Negro prejudice. In short, equal-status contact may lead to dissacoiated, or highly specific, attitude, and may not affect the individual's customary perception and habits. The nub of the matter seems to be that contact must reach below the surface in order to be effective in altering prejudice. Only the type of contact that leads people to _do_ things together is likely to result in changed attitudes. The principle is cleraly illustrated in the multi-ethnic athletic team."//
+**Hypothesis - not just a common goal but also //learning by doing//, adding a physical dimension to the interaction**

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools