Intergroup contact benefits high-power groups more than low-power groups

Evidence

Generally, a meta-analysis has shown that the effects of intergroup contact on reduced prejudice are stronger among high-power (majority) groups than low-power (minority) groups (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005); in other words, high-power groups benefit more from intergroup contact than do low-power groups. Groups with different degrees of power and advantage also favor discussing different issues in intergroup encounters: High-power groups want to talk about commonalities when they interact with members of lower status groups, whereas low-power groups want to talk about power differences (Saguy, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2008). Similarly, in negotiations, low-power groups prefer to discuss consequential issues first, whereas high-power groups prefer to postpone those issues to a later time point because they threaten their position (Kteily, Saguy, Sidanius, & Taylor, 2013). These different priorities can clash and result in problems if one side dominates in setting the agenda for such encounters, which is likely given that power determines the ability to control resources and create dependencies (Saguy & Kteily, 2014). — Johanna Ray Vollhardt and Michelle Sinayobye Twali, Emotion-Based Reconciliation Requires…, 48

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s concern about whether guilt/reconciliation mechanisms are structurally asymmetric: contact effects and agenda-setting priorities are shown here to differ systematically by group power. — connects to: Institutional authority endorsement makes intergroup contact more accepted and more effective — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Intergroup Contact Theory, 15; Structured equal-status intergroup contact reduces prejudice when institutionally supported — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 129; Multiple balanced group memberships reduce intergroup hostility potential — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 571

Broader Connections

• Structured equal-status intergroup contact reduces prejudice when institutionally supported #qualifies (0.75) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 129
• Institutional authority endorsement makes intergroup contact more accepted and more effective #qualifies (0.72) — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Intergroup Contact Theory, 15
• Multiple balanced group memberships reduce intergroup hostility potential #complicates (0.72) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 571