Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T08:01:17.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding the psychological processes involved in the demobilizing effects of positive cross-group contact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2012

Nicole Tausch  and
Julia C. Becker
Nicole Tausch
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of St Andrews, St Mary's Quad, South Street, St Andrews, KY16 9JP, Scotland. nt20@st-andrews.ac.ukhttp://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/profile/nt20
Julia C. Becker
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Philipps-University Marburg, Social Psychology,Gutenbergstraße 18, 35032 Marburg, Germany. beckerj2@staff.uni-marburg.dehttp://www.uni-marburg.de/fb04/team-wagner/Team-en/staff/juliabecker_en?language_sync=1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A theoretical framework is required that explains why and how cross-group contact reduces collective action and how the demobilizing effects can be counteracted. We propose that at least two mechanisms are involved: an affective process whereby the positive affect created offsets negative emotions and action tendencies, and a more strategic process whereby individual advancement comes to seem like a possibility.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , December 2012 , pp. 447 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Becker, J. C. & Wright, S. C. (2011) Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101:62–77.Google Scholar
Becker, J. C., Wright, S. C., Lubensky, M. E. & Zhou, S. (under review) Friend or ally: Whether cross-group contact undermines collective action depends what advantaged group members say (or don't say).Google Scholar
Derks, B., Van Laar, C., Ellemers, N. & De Groot, K. (2011) Gender bias primes elicit queen bee responses among senior police women. Psychological Science 22:1243–49.Google Scholar
Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., Tredoux, C., Tropp, L. R., Clack, B. & Eaton, E. (2010a) A paradox of integration? Interracial contact, prejudice reduction and black South Africans' perceptions of racial discrimination. Journal of Social Issues 66:401–16.Google Scholar
Ellemers, N., Van Den Heuvel, H., De Gilder, D., Maass, A. & Bonvini, A. (2004) The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology 43:315–38.Google ScholarPubMed
Glick, P. & Fiske, S. T. (1996) The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70:491–512.Google Scholar
Jackman, M. R. (1994) The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nagda, B. & Gurin, P. (2006) “Just a friend? Or a just friend?” Paper presented at the 6th Biennial Convention of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. Social Justice: Research, Action and Policy, Long Beach, California, June 2006.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T. F. (2010) Commentary: South African contributions to the study of intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues 66:417–30.Google Scholar
Reicher, S. D. (2007) Rethinking the paradigm of prejudice. South African Journal of Psychology 37:820–34.Google Scholar
Reicher, S. D. & Haslam, S. A. (2006) Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC Prison Study. British Journal of Social Psychology 45:1–40.Google Scholar
Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F. & Pratto, F. (2009) The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science 20:114–21.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: The social psychology of intergroup relations, ed. Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S., pp. 33–47. Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Tausch, N., Saguy, T., Singh, P., Bryson, J. & Siddiqui, R. N. (2012) The implications of intergroup contact for collective action and individual mobility orientations. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
Wright, S. C. & Lubensky, M. (2009) The struggle for social equality: Collective action vs. prejudice reduction. In: Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities, ed. Demoulin, S., Leyens, J. P. & Dovidio, J. F., pp. 291–310. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Wright, S. C., Taylor, D. M. & Moghaddam, F. M. (1990) Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58:994–1003.Google Scholar