Low interethnic contact sustains rejection of collective guilt

Evidence

Although inclusive categorization is recognized by both Allport and the Common Ingroup Identity Model, Allport may have underestimated the important mediating role of perceived common group membership. Allport was aware of the benefits of common group membership, but he seemed to regard it as a catalyst rather than as a consequence of favorable contact conditions. While team membership may indeed facilitate the beneficial effects of contact, our model also suggests that unifying perceptions may be a consequence of cooperative, self-revealing interactions. Indeed, we propose that the perception of common ingroup identity is psychologically instrumental to bringing outgroup members closer to the self, thereby increasing positive orientations toward them. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 583 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

A potential participant selection bias could limit the interpretation of many studies of intergroup contact (Pettigrew, 1998). Instead of optimal contact reducing prejudice, the opposite causal sequence could be at work. Prejudiced people may avoid, and tolerant people may seek, contact with outgroups. … Statistical methods borrowed from econometrics allow researchers to compare roughly the reciprocal paths (contact lowers prejudice vs. prejudice decreases contact) with cross-sectional data. As shown directly in other research (e.g., Herek & Capitanio, 1996), these methods reveal that prejudiced people do indeed avoid intergroup contact. But the path from contact to reduced prejudice is generally much stronger (Butler & Wilson, 1978; Pettigrew, 1997; Powers & Ellison, 1995; Van Dick et al., 2004). Longitudinal studies also have revealed that optimal contact reduces prejudice over time (e.g., Eller & Abrams, 2003, 2004; Levin, van Laar, & Sidanius, 2003), even when researchers have eliminated the possibility of participant selection (e.g., Sherif, 1966). Thus, various methods suggest that, although both sequences operate, the more important effect is that of intergroup contact reducing prejudice. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 37 (#contradicts, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Superficial intergroup contact reinforces rather than reduces stereotypes; Intergroup contact reduces prejudice more strongly than prejudice drives avoidance of contact — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 37; Common ingroup identity is a consequence of contact, not just a catalyst — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 583 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Superficial intergroup contact reinforces rather than reduces stereotypes #expands (0.85)
• Common ingroup identity is a consequence of contact, not just a catalyst #corroborates (0.80) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 583
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice more strongly than prejudice drives avoidance of contact #contradicts (0.75) — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 37
• Close intergroup contact can sustain inequality through paternalistic affection rather than reduce it #qualifies (0.75) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 671