Cross-cutting exposure fails because outgroup posts are predominantly derogatory
Evidence
There was a higher percentage of in-group positivity and a lower percentage of out-group negativity and racial slurs in this sample than in Study 1 (see Table 9.4). … However, when the targets were race-based, there was a significant difference between in-group positivity and out-group negativity, such that out-group negativity toward minorities occurred more often than positivity toward whites, χ2(1) = 12.47, p < .001. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1053 (
#corroborates, via linked claim)
Recent empirical work has considered the combined impact of the intergroup and interpersonal approaches. Specifically, Ensari and Miller (2002, study 1, involving traditional Islamic versus secularist students in Turkey) had a traditional Islamic confederate, whose attire and description of herself were either typical or atypical of her group, disclose either personal and unique information or impersonal and general information to a participant, prior to undertaking a cooperative task (see Miller, 2002). The combined perceptions of disclosure (interpersonal) and typicality (intergroup) reduced subsequent bias toward new outgroup members, who themselves had no connection to the confederate other than shared group membership. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1816 (
#qualifies, via linked claim)
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Out-group negativity toward minorities exceeds in-group positivity toward whites in online race discourse. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1053; Combining personal disclosure with outgroup typicality reduces bias toward the whole group — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 1816; Superficial intergroup contact reinforces rather than reduces stereotypes (+3 more)
Related
- Out-group negativity toward minorities exceeds in-group positivity toward whites in online race discourse. (similarity 0.89)
- Combining personal disclosure with outgroup typicality reduces bias toward the whole group (similarity 0.85)
- Cross-partisan exposure backfires because the outgroup posts encountered are mostly derogatory (similarity 0.85)
- Groups split favorably toward their own members and derogate outgroup attributes (similarity 0.84)
- In-group favoritism and out-group derogation are empirically unrelated phenomena (similarity 0.81)
- Racist discourse tends to favor the ingroup and derogate the outgroup (similarity 0.81)
- Learning facts about outgroups is not the main way contact reduces prejudice (similarity 0.81)
- In-group positivity and out-group negativity are only weakly linked, even in hate groups. (similarity 0.79)
- An ideological square of emphasis and de-emphasis structures group discourse (similarity 0.79)
- Most ingroup bias overvalues the ingroup rather than devaluing the outgroup (similarity 0.79)
- Group discussion amplifies shared biased perceptions into consensual stereotypes (similarity 0.79)
- Outgroups are seen as homogeneous while ingroups are seen as varied (similarity 0.78)
- In-group bias mostly reflects positive self-regard, not hostility toward outsiders (similarity 0.78)
Broader Connections
- Out-group negativity toward minorities exceeds in-group positivity toward whites in online race discourse.
#corroborates(0.80) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1053 - Superficial intergroup contact reinforces rather than reduces stereotypes
#corroborates(0.78) - Combining personal disclosure with outgroup typicality reduces bias toward the whole group
#qualifies(0.72) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1816 - Publication bias inflates the apparent effectiveness of prejudice-reduction programs
#qualifies(0.70) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2670