Personalized contact only reduces prejudice if group membership stays salient

Evidence

Voci and Hewstone (2003) examined group salience and intergroup anxiety, a moderator variable and a mediator variable respectively, while looking at the effect of contact on Italians’ attitudes towards immigrants in their country. Using Structural Equation Modeling procedures, they found that intergroup anxiety mediated the impact of combined quality and quantity of contact in reducing subtle prejudice and improving outgroup attitudes. They then tested the effect of group membership salience as a moderator for each path in the model. They found that between contact and anxiety, positive frequent contact reduced anxiety more when group membership was salient than when it was not. The direct path from contact to attitudes was also stronger when group salience was high compared to when it was low. Thus, a combination of positive contact and group salience during that contact resulted in the most positive evaluations of the outgroup. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1844 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Regarding when contact is most effective, we know that contact is typically more strongly associated with more positive out-group attitudes when category memberships remain salient during contact (see Brown & Hewstone, 2005). — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 556 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Allport himself foresaw this dilemma between eliminating categories via assimilation and retaining important group memberships, and proposed that “for those who wish to assimilate, there should be no artificial barriers placed in their way; for those who wish to maintain ethnic integrity, their efforts should be met with tolerance and appreciation” (1954/1979, p. 517). Moreover, even if avoiding group salience seems theoretically desirable, it may be perceptually impossible for certain groups, such as race, age, and gender, for which even a minimal cue to group membership is asymptotically and unambiguously high. The elimination of group membership is not only impractical and threatening (Brewer, 1991), but it also limits the impact of intergroup contact on generalization. Therefore, retaining group salience in a positive, intimate, cross-group interaction appears to be the best way to optimize intergroup contact. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1818 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Personal contact with an openly gay person reduces prejudice against the group; Contact changes outgroup attitudes but not stereotype content unless specific conditions hold; Intergroup contact only reduces prejudice when it promotes person-based processing over category-based processing. (+12 more)

Broader Connections

• Positive contact reduces prejudice most when group membership stays salient #corroborates (0.97) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1844
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice best when group categories stay salient. #corroborates (0.96) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 556
• Retaining group salience optimizes contact more than eliminating categories does #corroborates (0.95) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1818
• Salient group category awareness improves prejudice reduction during contact. #corroborates (0.94)
• Personalized intergroup contact reduces prejudice by making category boundaries less meaningful. #contradicts (0.93) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2494