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辩论具有政策意义;但最近对其在应用环境中的潜力提出了质疑，因为虽然接触可能是积极的（例如，具有外群朋友）它也可以是负面的（例如，被一个种族外群体成员欺负）。此外，不同的设置（例如，学校、社区）可能会产生实际上增加偏见的意外后果，因为它们可能使人们更频繁地接触积极和消极的接触（这可能会破坏接触的积极效果）。然而，人们对积极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后果知之甚少。使用各种不同的方法，并测试参与者在英国，格尔和NL（在每种情况下，大多数群体成员与一组不同的少数群体），我们测试的索赔，负接触比积极接触施加更强的影响，各种结果。在一系列涉及少数民族和少数民族参与者的研究中，并使用不同的方法论范式（日记，实验，纵向调查和社会网络研究），我们试图测试从相关文献的批判性阅读中出现的三个假设：缓冲（即，正接触削弱负接触的任何负效应），增强（即，负接触增强了正接触的影响，因为它将正接触与负接触形成对比），以及中毒（即，负接触减小正接触的影响）效应。最后，我们利用项目积累的知识来测试和寻求改善大规模的社会干预，这是在促进积极的接触，但忽略了任何可能的作用，消极的接触。本研究进一步探讨了积极和消极接触如何以及何时产生联合效应。它们可能会产生影响，例如，通过类别显著性（当接触是负面的时，类别更加显著）。而正、负接触对类别突显的影响可以通过各种心理和社会因素来加以限定。在关键的心理调节因素中，我们将探讨积极和消极接触的顺序（当最初的接触是消极的时，结果会更糟吗？），和强度和一致性（积极或消极;结果最坏时，一个实例的负面接触后，另一个？）。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.