Differences

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

--- phd:book-journals:contact-hypothesis [2020/04/05 09:50]
avnerus
+++ phd:book-journals:contact-hypothesis [2020/04/09 18:45] (current)
avnerus
@@ Line 236: / Line 236: @@
 **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?**
@@ Line 241: / Line 282: @@
 In studies regarding the employment of African-Americans and "FEPC" (p.274), two conclusions seem to emerge:
-  - It helps if the new emplyeees are incorporated in different levels of profficiency, not just the bottom of the scale.
+  - 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.
+  - 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