Positive and negative asymmetry of intergroup contact: A dynamic approach

虽然积极的群体间接触已被证明可以减少偏见，但消极的接触有可能恶化群体间的关系。因此，群体间接触的有效性对关于多样性、多元文化主义和社会冲突的更广泛的辩论具有政策含义；但最近人们对其在应用环境中的潜力产生了怀疑，因为尽管接触可以是积极的(例如，有外族朋友)，但也可能是负面的(例如，被外族成员欺负)。此外，不同的环境(如学校、社区)可能会产生实际增加偏见的意想不到的后果，因为它们可能使人们接触到更频繁的积极和消极接触(这可能会破坏接触的积极效果)。然而，人们对积极接触和消极接触的综合影响以及对日益多样化的国家和社区的影响知之甚少。使用各种不同的方法，并测试英国、GER和NL的参与者(在每种情况下，多数群体成员与一组不同的少数群体互动)，我们检验了消极接触比积极接触对各种结果产生更大影响的说法。在一系列涉及多数族裔和少数族裔参与者的研究中，我们使用不同的方法范式(日记、实验、纵向调查和社会网络研究)，试图检验在批判性阅读相关文献后出现的三个假说：缓冲(即积极接触削弱了消极接触的负面影响)、增强(即消极接触增强了积极接触的影响，因为它对比了积极接触和消极接触)和中毒(即消极接触降低了积极接触的影响)。最后，我们使用项目累积的知识来检验和寻求改善大规模的社会干预，这是以促进积极接触为前提的，但这忽略了消极接触可能起到的任何作用。这项研究进一步考察了积极接触和消极接触如何以及何时产生联合影响。它们可能会产生影响，例如，通过类别显著(当接触是负面的时，类别更加显著)。积极接触与消极接触对类别显著的影响可能受到各种“心理”和“社会”因素的影响。在关键的心理调节因素中，我们将探索经历积极接触和消极接触的顺序(最初的接触是负面的，结果会更差吗？)，以及接触的强度和一致性(积极的还是消极的；当一个负面接触的情况接踵而至时，结果会更糟吗？)。在更多的“社会”因素中，我们将探讨社会规范的影响。

Although positive intergroup contact has been shown to reduce prejudice, negative contact has the potential to worsen intergroup relations. The efficacy of intergroup contact hence has policy implications for wider debates about diversity, multiculturalism, and social conflict; but doubt has recently been cast on its potential in applied settings because whilst contact can be positive (e.g., having outgroup friends) it can also be negative (e.g., being bullied by an ethnic outgroup member). Moreover, diverse settings (e.g., schools, neighbourhoods) could potentially have unintended consequences of actually increasing prejudice because they may expose people to greater frequency of both positive and negative contact (which may undermine positive effects of contact). Yet little is known about the combined effects of positive and negative contact, and the consequences for increasingly diverse nations and communities. Using a variety of different methodological approaches, and testing participants in UK, GER and NL (where in each case majority group members interact with a different set of minority groups) we test the claim that negative contact exerts stronger effects on various outcomes than positive contact. In a series of studies involving both ethnic majority and minority participants, and using different methodological paradigms (diary, experimental, longitudinal survey, and social network studies), we seek to test three hypotheses that emerge from a critical reading of the relevant literature: buffering (i.e., positive contact weakens any negative effect of negative contact), augmentation (i.e., negative contact augments the impact of positive contact, because it contrasts the positive with the negative contact), and poisoning (i.e., negative contact reduces the impact of positive contact) effects. Finally, we use the cumulative knowledge of the project to test and seek to improve a large-scale social intervention, which is premised on promoting positive contact, but that has ignored any possible role for negative contact. This research further examines how and when positive and negative contact have their joint effects. They may have their impact, for example, via category salience (when contact is negative, categories are more salient). And the effect of positive vs negative contact on category salience may be qualified by various 'psychological' and 'social' factors. Among key psychological moderators, we will explore the order in which positive and negative contact are experienced (are outcomes worse when initial contact is negative?), and the intensity and consistency of the (positive or negative; are outcomes worst when one instance of negative contact follows another?). Among more 'social' factors, we will explore the impact of social norms.