effects of intergroup conflict and social contact on prejudice: the mediating role of stereotypes...

Effects of Intergroup Conflict and Social Contact onPrejudice: The Mediating Role of

Stereotypes and Evaluations

Ruth Gaunt1

Department of Sociology and AnthropologyBar-Ilan UniversityRamat-Gan, Israel

This study explored the mediating role of stereotypes and evaluations in the rela-tionships between intergroup conflict, social contact, and behavioral intentions toengage in intergroup contact. The hypotheses, derived from realistic group conflicttheory and intergroup contact theory, were tested on samples of Arab and Jewishhigh school students in the context of an ethno-racial intergroup conflict. As hypoth-esized, the less participants perceived a conflict between the groups, and the greatertheir past contact with out-group members, the more they were willing to engage inintergroup contact. Moreover, stereotypes and evaluations mediated these effects inthe Jewish sample. The implications of these findings for the study of the mecha-nisms underlying prejudice are discussed.jasp_762 1340..1355

Among natural groups in long-term conflict, members of the groups arelikely to exhibit mutual hostility and prejudiced reactions. Psychologists havelong been interested in the nature and antecedents of such reactions, whichbeset many societies in the world today (Dovidio, Glick, & Rudman, 2005).Several theories have been proposed to account for the occurrence of preju-dice and its reduction. However, studies testing the predictions derived fromthese theories have often yielded inconsistent or even conflicting results (e.g.,Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Moreover, most studies have focused on onegroup’s perceptions of the out-group, making it impossible to tease aparttarget and judge effects (Yzerbyt, Provost, & Corneille, 2005). The presentstudy seeks to fill in this gap by exploring the mechanisms underlying preju-dice using a full-crossed research design, in the context of an ethno-racialintergroup conflict. The distinct feature of this design is that the members ofboth groups provide judgments about their own group members (i.e., endo-stereotypes) as well as judgments about the members of the out-group (i.e.,exo-stereotypes; Yzerbyt et al., 2005).

1Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ruth Gaunt, Department ofSociology and Anthropology, Bar-Ilan University, 52900 Ramat-Gan, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]

1340

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2011, 41, 6, pp. 1340–1355.© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Drawing on Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis and realistic groupconflict theory (Campbell, 1965; Sherif, 1966), this study suggests thatwillingness to engage in intergroup contact is determined, in part, bythe degree of perceived intergroup conflict and by the individual’sprevious social contact with out-group members. It is further suggestedthat the effects of perceived conflict and social contact are mediatedby the individual’s stereotypes and evaluations of the in-group andout-group. This study thus highlights the mediating role of the affectiveand cognitive components of prejudice in the relationships betweenintergroup conflict, social contact, and the behavioral component ofprejudice.

Prejudice is defined in the literature as a social orientation either towardwhole groups of people or toward individuals because of their membershipin a particular group (e.g., Brown, 1995). It is conceptualized as consistingof a cognitive, an affective, and a behavioral component (e.g., Brown, 1995;Esses & Dovidio, 2002; Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002). The cognitivecomponent refers to the attribution of stereotypical traits to the in-groupand out-group. The affective component involves emotions and evaluationsof the in-group and out-group. The behavioral component reflects behav-ioral intentions or responses toward group members.

Perceived Intergroup Conflict

In its basic form, realistic group conflict theory suggests that intergrouphostility results from competition for access to limited resources, such asterritory, wealth, or natural resources (Campbell, 1965; Sherif, 1966).According to this approach, intergroup attitudes and behavior reflect groupinterests. When the groups’ interests are incompatible, so that what onegroup gains is considered to be at the expense of another, then prejudice andhostility occur (Jackson, 1993).

Several theories have evolved from this early model, attempting toincorporate multiple antecedents of prejudice into comprehensive explana-tory models. Integrated threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 1996, 2000), forexample, identifies three other antecedents in addition to realistic threat:intergroup anxiety, negative stereotyping, and symbolic threats. The instru-mental model of group conflict (Esses, Jackson, & Armstrong, 1998) sug-gests that out-group derogation and discrimination reflect strategicattempts to remove the source of competition. Moreover, this model sug-gests that people who perceive more strongly that their group’s access toscarce resources is legitimately privileged will experience greater resourcestress and, consequently, will exhibit more prejudice and discrimination

CONFLICT, CONTACT, AND PREJUDICE 1341

(Esses, Dovidio, Jackson, & Armstrong, 2001; also see social dominancetheory, Pratto, 1999).

The core common element in these theories is the individual’s perceptionof intergroup conflict. That is, these theoretical models share the basicpremise that the stronger the conflict perceived by individuals, the more theywill exhibit the three components of prejudice: cognitive stereotypes, affectiveevaluations, and behavioral discrimination.

Intergroup Contact

Intergroup contact has long been considered one of the most effectivestrategies for reducing prejudice (Allport, 1954; Amir, 1969; Cook, 1985;Pettigrew, 1998). Allport’s influential formulation of the contact hypothesismaintained that contact between groups under optimal conditions shouldeffectively reduce intergroup bias. Allport further suggested four prerequisitefeatures for contact to be successful at reducing bias and improving inter-group relationships: equal status within the contact situation; intergroupcooperation; common goals; and support of authorities, law, or custom.

Intergroup contact theory has received support from extensive researchacross a variety of situations, groups, and societies (for a review, see Brown &Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew, 1998). The results from a meta-analysis indicatethat greater intergroup contact is generally associated with lower levels ofprejudice in both experimental and field settings (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).Field studies have ranged from interethnic groups in school and housingsituations (e.g., Amir, Sharan, Rivner, Ben-Ari, & Bizman, 1979; Wagner,Christ, Pettigrew, Stellmacher, & Wolf, 2006) to the mentally ill (Desforgeset al., 1991), homosexuals (Herek & Capitanio, 1996), and disabled children(Harper & Wacker, 1985).

Moreover, many studies have documented the positive effects of inter-group contact, even in the absence of the key conditions (Pettigrew, 1998).On the basis of their meta-analytic test of the theory, Pettigrew and Tropp(2006) concluded that Allport’s (1954) key conditions may facilitate andenhance prejudice reduction, but should not be regarded as necessary for theoccurrence of positive contact outcomes. Intergroup contact, therefore, isexpected to decrease stereotypes, improve evaluations, and enhance behav-ioral intentions to engage in contact.

Mediating Role of Stereotypes and Evaluations

Research has suggested that the effect of perceived conflict and socialcontact on the behavioral component of prejudice is mediated by cognitive

1342 RUTH GAUNT

and affective mechanisms. In particular, perceived conflict may operate bygenerating negative views of the out-group. In Struch and Schwartz’s (1989)study, for example, the effect of perceived conflict on behavioral intentions toharm out-group members was mediated by cognitive perceptions; that is, bythe attribution of traits and values to the out-group.

Similarly, several scholars have proposed that intergroup contactreduces prejudice through learning new information about the out-group(Pettigrew, 1998; Stephan & Stephan, 1984). Indeed, studies have shownthat learning about an out-group improves intergroup attitudes and stereo-types, which, in turn, reduces prejudice (Stephan & Stephan, 1984; Trian-dis, 1994).

Finally, on the basis of their meta-analytic findings, Pettigrew andTropp (2006) concluded that affective factors play a critical role inmediating the effect of contact for reducing bias. They posited that theprocess underlying the way contact can reduce prejudice involves thetendency for familiarity to breed liking. Mere exposure may explain whyAllport’s (1954) conditions are not essential for the occurrence of positivecontact outcomes. Thus, intergroup contact may operate by reducingnegative affective reactions toward out-group members or by increasingpositive affective ties.

Stereotypes of Warmth and Competence

The stereotype content model (SCM; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002)suggests that stereotypes typically categorize groups along two dimensions:competence and warmth. It further proposes that stereotype content reflectssocial structure. Specifically, perceived competence is primarily determinedby perceived societal status and power, whereas perceived warmth is deter-mined by perceived intergroup competition (Cuddy et al., 2009). Thus,people attribute competence to those who are perceived as holding presti-gious jobs and being economically successful; and they attribute warmth tothose who are not competitive with the in-group for jobs, power, andresources.

The stereotype content model has received support from extensiveresearch in a variety of intergroup contexts (Cuddy et al., 2009; Fiske et al.,2002). Importantly, in terms of the present study, this model implies thatperceived intergroup conflict is likely to be negatively related to perceivedout-group warmth, but should be unrelated to perceived out-group compe-tence. Conversely, perceived out-group status is likely to be positively relatedto perceived out-group competence, but should be unrelated to perceivedout-group warmth.


Overview and Hypotheses

In line with realistic group conflict theory, it is hypothesized that the morepeople perceive a conflict between an in-group and an out-group, the morethey will exhibit stereotypes and negative evaluations of the out-group, andthe less they will be willing to engage in intergroup contact. In addition,following intergroup contact theory, it is hypothesized that the greater peo-ple’s past social contact with out-group members, the less they will exhibitstereotypes and negative evaluations of the out-group, and the more they willbe willing to engage in intergroup contact.

This research also explores the role of stereotypes and evaluations inmediating the effects of perceived conflict and intergroup contact. Specifi-cally, it is hypothesized that the influence of perceived conflict and pastcontact on people’s behavioral intentions to engage in intergroup contact willbe mediated by the cognitive and affective components of prejudice.

These hypotheses were tested within the context of relations betweenJewish and Arab Israeli youth. Although the two ethnic groups live together inthe State of Israel, they have a long history of conflict (Bar-Tal & Teichman,2005; Rouhana & Bar-Tal, 1998). The Arab minority consists of about onefifth of the Israeli society, and has a considerably lower status than does theJewish majority. Moreover, because of the ongoing conflict between Israel andthe Arab world, most Jews perceive the Arab citizens of Israel to be a hostileminority, as well as a group that has national, religious, and cultural relationswith the enemy (Halperin, Pedahzur, & Canetti-Nisim, 2007; Smooha, 1992).

The two ethnic groups are highly segregated, live in separate communi-ties, and attend different schools. There is an asymmetry in the two groups’freedom to seek or avoid contact with the out-group; namely, most of theJewish majority members live in Jewish urban areas and are not familiar withmembers of the Arab minority (Bar-Tal & Teichman, 2005), but many of theArab minority members live in mixed Arab–Jewish cities and experiencevaried degrees of interethnic encounters.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Study participants were 84 Israeli Jewish high school students (60 females,24 males; age = 15–16 years) and 120 Israeli Arab high school students(57 females, 63 males; age = 15–16 years) who were recruited by researchassistants. Participants were drawn from eight different high schools. Thesewere mostly homogeneous urban schools, which were located both in thecenter and in the periphery of Israel.

1344 RUTH GAUNT

The questionnaire was administered in group sessions during class time(20–25 students in each session). Participants completed a questionnaireanonymously measuring perceived conflict, social contact, stereotypes andevaluations, behavioral intentions, and demographics (i.e., age, sex). Partici-pants were then debriefed and thanked for their participation.

Measures

Perceived conflict. Perceived conflict was measured using an item adaptedfrom Struch and Schwartz (1989): “To what extent is there a conflict betweenJews and Arabs in Israel?” Responses were rated on a 5-point scale rangingfrom 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

Social contact. As in many previous studies (e.g., van Dick et al., 2004),social contact was measured through participants’ reports on their encoun-ters with out-group members in various contexts. Because the samples hereconsisted of high school students, participants’ social contacts with out-group members were measured using two relevant items. The first askedrespondents whether they were personally familiar with members of theout-group (Arabs/Jews). Responses were rated on a 4-point scale rangingfrom 1 (almost not at all) to 4 (many). The second item asked respondentswhether they had out-group (Arab/Jewish) teachers. Responses were rated ona 3-point scale ranging from 1 (no) to 2 (one or two) to 3 (three or more).Scores from the two items were averaged to obtain the respondent’s socialcontact score. Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .67.

Group evaluations. Participants’ affective evaluations of in-group andout-group members were assessed using a 10-item measure focusing on thevalence of traits attributed to the groups (e.g., Struch & Schwartz, 1989).Participants were first asked to rate the extent to which they thought thatout-group members are characterized by each of 5 positive traits and 5negative traits. They were then asked to rate the extent to which they thoughtthat in-group members are characterized by these 10 traits. Responses wererated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Responseswere recoded so that a high score reflects more positive trait attribution.

The average scores for the 5 positive items and the 5 negative items werecomputed for the in-group and the out-group. The difference between thein-group and out-group scores was then computed separately for positive andnegative items to obtain the respondent’s scores on the affective componentof prejudice. Unlike measures that concentrate solely on ratings of the out-group, this measure focuses on the gap between in-group and out-groupratings, and thus better reflects the degree of intergroup bias (see Struch &Schwartz, 1989).


Group stereotypes. In line with the stereotype content model (Fiske et al.,2002), the operationalization of stereotypes focused on the two basic dimen-sions of stereotype content: competence and warmth. Thus, the content ofparticipants’ stereotypes of the in-group and the out-group was measuredusing a 10-item measure, consisting of 4 competence-related traits and 6warmth-related traits (Fiske et al., 2002).

Participants first rated the extent to which they thought that out-groupmembers are characterized by each of the 10 traits, and then rated the extentto which they thought that in-group members are characterized by each ofthe same 10 traits. Responses were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1(not at all) to 7 (very much). Responses were recoded so that a high scorereflects a more positive trait attribution.

The average scores for the 4 competence-related traits and the 6 warmth-related traits were computed for the in-group and the out-group. The differ-ence between the in-group and out-group scores was then computedseparately for the warmth and competence items to obtain the respondent’sscores on stereotypes of warmth and competence. Because these measuresinclude the in-group ratings as a standard for comparison, they better reflectthe degree of out-group stereotyping (see Struch & Schwartz, 1989).

Behavioral intentions. Participants’ behavioral intentions to engage infuture contact with out-group members was measured with a six-item ques-tionnaire. This was an adapted and updated version of Bogardus’ (1925)social distance scale (also see Esses & Dovidio, 2002). Participants were askedto indicate their willingness to engage in each of the following contacts withIsraeli Arabs/Jews: “living in the same neighborhood,” “invited as a guest toyour home,” “having as a close friend,” “having as a next-door neighbor,”“having as a classmate,” and “having as a family member through marriage.”Participants responded on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all willing) to5 (definitely willing). Scores for the six items were averaged to obtain therespondent’s behavioral intentions score.

Results

The hypotheses were evaluated in three steps. First, the correlationsbetween perceived conflict, social contact, evaluations, stereotypes, andbehavioral intentions were examined separately for the Arab and the Jewishsamples. Second, the contribution of perceived conflict and social contact towillingness to engage in intergroup contact was assessed using multipleregression analyses for the Arab and Jewish samples separately. Third, thehypothesis concerning the mediating role of stereotypes and evaluations wastested in stepwise regression analyses. In these analyses, the stereotypes and

1346 RUTH GAUNT

evaluations were entered into the equation first, followed by perceivedconflict and social contact.

Preliminary Analyses

Table 1 presents Pearson correlations between perceived conflict, socialintergroup contact, stereotypes, evaluations, and behavioral intentions. Con-sistent with the hypotheses, perceived conflict and social contact were relatedto behavioral intentions in both samples. The less participants perceived aconflict between the in-group and the out-group, and the greater their pastsocial contact with out-group members, the more they were willing to engagein an intergroup contact.

Also consistent with the hypotheses, perceived conflict and social contactwere related to stereotypes and evaluations in the Jewish sample. The morethe participants perceived a conflict between the groups, and the less they hadcontact with out-group members, the stronger were their stereotypes andnegative evaluations. The results from the Arab sample did not support theprediction for a relationship between previous social contact and partici-pants’ stereotypes and evaluations. Nonetheless, differential associationswere found between perceived conflict and the two stereotype dimensions.Whereas perceived conflict was related to attributing less warmth to theout-group, it was unrelated to the attribution of competence. This pattern ofresults is consistent with the hypotheses derived from the stereotype contentmodel (Fiske et al., 2002).

Finally, and as predicted, evaluations and stereotypes significantly corre-lated with behavioral intentions. That is, the stronger the stereotypes andnegative evaluations, the less the participants were willing to engage inintergroup contact. These correlations were particularly high in the Jewishsample.

Regression Analyses

To determine the contribution of perceived conflict and social contactmore specifically, multiple regression analyses were conducted for eachsample separately (Model 1). In each analysis, the participants’ behavioralintentions measure was regressed on the conflict and contact variables.

Arab sample. Table 2 indicates that the regression equation of behavioralintentions on the perceived conflict and contact (Model 1) was significantoverall, and accounted for 22% of the variance in participants’ willingness toengage in contact with Jews. Both independent variables were significant


Tab

le1

Mea

nsan

dP

ears

onC

orre

lati

ons

ofS

tudy

Var

iabl

es

Var

iabl

eM

SD

12

34

56

Ara

bsa

mpl

e(N

=12

0)1.

Per

ceiv

edco

nflic

ta4.

390.

82—

2.So

cial

cont

actb

1.52

0.49

-.32

***

—3.

Eva

luat

ions

:pos

itiv

ec1.

662.

19.2

3**

.02

—4.

Eva

luat

ions

:neg

ativ

ec1.

102.

20-.

15.0

3-.

57**

*—

5.St

ereo

type

s:w

arm

thc

3.33

1.25

.26*

*-.

04.7

9***

-.78

***

—6.

Ster

eoty

pes:

com

pete

ncec

4.26

1.68

.07

.12

.70*

**-.

72**

*.4

9***

—7.

Beh

avio

rali

nten

tion

sa2.

491.

23-.

36**

*.4

0***

-.32

***

.33*

**-.

26**

-.36

***

Jew

ish

sam

ple

(N=

84)

1.P

erce

ived

confl

icta

3.91

0.68

—2.

Soci

alco

ntac

tb1.

320.

37-.

44**

*—

3.E

valu

atio

ns:p

osit

ivec

1.17

1.97

.46*

**-.

43**

*—

4.E

valu

atio

ns:n

egat

ivec

-0.3

22.

12-.

36**

*.4

9***

-.75

***

—5.

Ster

eoty

pes:

war

mth

c3.

791.

60.3

6***

-.47

***

.86*

**-.

93**

*—

6.St

ereo

type

s:co

mpe

tenc

ec4.

541.

33.4

9***

-.43

***

.82*

**-.

71**

*.6

7***

—7.

Beh

avio

rali

nten

tion

sa3.

271.

17-.

43**

*.4

8***

-.72

***

.69*

**-.

73**

*-.

62**

*

Not

e.T

ests

ofsi

gnifi

canc

ew

ere

two-

taile

d.a Sc

ale

rang

e=

1–5.

b Scal

era

nge

=1–

3.33

.c O

vera

llsc

ores

onth

ism

easu

rew

ere

com

pute

das

the

diff

eren

cebe

twee

nin

-gro

upan

dou

t-gr

oup

scor

es.T

hus,

high

ersc

ores

refle

ctle

ssfa

vora

ble

out-

grou

pev

alua

tion

san

dst

ereo

type

s.Sc

ale

rang

e=

-6to

+6.

*p<

.05.

**p

<.0

1.**

*p<

.001

.

1348 RUTH GAUNT

predictors in the regression analysis: The weaker the conflict was perceived byparticipants and the greater their past contact with Jews, the more they werewilling to engage in social contact with Jews in the future.

Jewish sample. Table 2 indicates that the regression equation of behav-ioral intentions on perceived conflict and contact (Model 1) was significant

Table 2

Stepwise Regression Analyses Predicting Behavioral Intentions From Per-ceived Conflict, Social Contact, Out-Group Evaluations, and Stereotypes

Behavioral intentions

Model 1 Model 2

Arab sampleEvaluations: positivea — -.39***Evaluations: negativea — .41***Stereotypes: warmtha — -.35***Stereotypes: competencea — .05Perceived conflict -.25** -.17*Social contact .31*** .38***R2 .22 .37F(6, 106) 15.90*** 10.42***

Jewish sampleEvaluations: positivea — -.25**Evaluations: negativea — .08Stereotypes: warmtha — -.35***Stereotypes: competencea — -.12Perceived conflict -.27** -.05Social contact .35*** .16R2 .29 .60F(6, 69) 16.32*** 17.31***

Note. Standardized beta coefficients are reported. Model 1: Perceived conflict andsocial contact only. Model 2: Evaluations and stereotypes entered first, followed byperceived conflict and contact.aOverall scores on this measure were computed as the difference between in-group andout-group scores; therefore, higher scores reflect less favorable out-group evaluationsand stereotypes.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


overall, and accounted for 29% of the variance in Jewish participants’ will-ingness to engage in contact with Arabs. Both independent variables weresignificant predictors in the regression analysis: The weaker the conflict wasperceived by participants and the greater their past contact with Arabs, themore they were willing to engage in social contact with Arabs in the future.

Mediation Analyses

The hypothesis that affective and cognitive variables mediate the relation-ship between perceived conflict, contact, and behavioral intentions wasthen evaluated. To support the hypothesized mediating role of affectiveand cognitive variables, it is necessary to show that the contribution ofconflict and contact is reduced when stereotypes and evaluations are enteredinto the equation (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Therefore, stepwise regressionanalyses were conducted, in which the affective and cognitive variables wereentered first, followed by the conflict and contact variables (Model 2).

Arab sample. Table 2 indicates that the regression equation of behavioralintentions on the conflict and contact independent variables and the stereo-types and evaluations mediating variables (Model 2) was significant overall,and accounted for 37% of the variance in participants’ willingness to engagein contact with Jews. Contrary to the hypothesis, the contribution of conflictand contact was not mediated by the stereotypes and evaluations variables.That is, entering the affective and cognitive variables into the analysis did notalter the relationship between the perceived conflict and past contact andparticipants’ willingness to engage in contact with Jews.

Jewish sample. Table 2 indicates that the regression equation of behav-ioral intentions on the conflict and contact independent variables and thestereotypes and evaluations mediating variables (Model 2) was significantoverall, and accounted for 60% of the variance in participants’ willingness toengage in contact with Arabs. As hypothesized, Table 2 shows that thestereotypes and evaluations variables mediated the effects of perceivedconflict and contact. In particular, after including the stereotypes and evalu-ations variables in Model 2, the effects of perceived conflict and contact onparticipants’ behavioral intentions were no longer significant.

Discussion

Applying realistic group conflict theory (for a review, see Jackson, 1993)and intergroup contact theory (for a review, see Pettigrew, 1998), it washypothesized that people’s willingness to engage in intergroup contact would

1350 RUTH GAUNT

be determined by the degree to which they perceive intergroup conflict and bytheir previous social contact with out-group members. These hypotheseswere tested in a full-crossed research design consisting of Arab and Jewishsamples in the context of an ethno-racial intergroup conflict. On the basis offindings from Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2006) meta-analysis, support for thecontact hypothesis was expected, even in the absence of Allport’s (1954)requirements for successful intergroup contact.

The results from both samples presented here support the hypotheses.Specifically, it was found that the less people perceive a conflict between thein-group and the out-group, and the greater their past contact with out-groupmembers, the more they were willing to engage in intergroup contact. Thefindings provide direct evidence for the effect of perceived conflict and socialcontact on the behavioral component of prejudice. These findings replicateacross different structural contexts (e.g., high-status majority vs. low-statusminority groups) and across different languages and cultures.

The regression analyses indicate that, in both samples, past social contactwas a relatively stronger predictor of the behavioral component of prejudicethan perceived conflict. These results are in line with the findings from arecent study of German majority members’ prejudice toward ethnic minori-ties (Wagner et al., 2006). Consistent with intergroup contact theory, andinconsistent with threat theory, this study revealed a negative correlationbetween the percentage of an ethnic minority population and the majoritymembers’ prejudice.

The mediating role of stereotypes and evaluations was also explored in thepresent study. Evidence for this mediation effect varied between the twosamples. Whereas stereotypes and evaluations had no effect in the Arabsample, they had a mediating role in the Jewish sample. Thus, the effects ofperceived conflict and social contact on behavioral intentions were mediatedby people’s stereotypes and evaluations of the in-group and out-group.Moreover, past contact with out-group members was correlated with stereo-types and evaluations in the Jewish sample, but not in the Arab sample.

In interpreting these results, the particular intergroup context of the studyshould be considered (Bar-Tal & Teichman, 2005). Specifically, the twoethnic groups are highly segregated, living in separate communities andattending different schools. However, while most of the Jewish majoritymembers live in Jewish urban areas and are not familiar with members of theArab minority (Bar-Tal & Teichman, 2005), many of the Arab minoritymembers live in mixed Arab–Jewish cities and experience varied degrees ofinterethnic encounters. Therefore, the findings may reflect asymmetricalselection bias (Pettigrew, 1998), in which the situation of the minority Arabgroup members limits their choice to engage in intergroup contact, whereasthe Jewish group members are more free to seek or avoid contact with the


out-group. The relatively strong relationships found in the Jewish samplebetween contact and people’s stereotypes and evaluations may thus reflect aselection bias (Pettigrew, 1998). That is, prejudiced people avoid and tolerantpeople seek contact with the out-group.

Consistent with the stereotype content model (Fiske et al., 2002), per-ceived conflict was related in the Arab sample to warmth stereotypes, andwas unrelated to competence stereotypes. This pattern confirms the predic-tion that warmth stereotypes reflect the interdependence dimension of thesocial structure. Interestingly, warmth stereotypes were relatively strong pre-dictors of behavioral intentions across the two samples, whereas competencestereotypes did not predict intentions to engage in intergroup contact. Thisfinding is in line with Fiske, Cuddy, and Glick’s (2006) conclusion regardingthe primacy of warmth judgment. Compared to competence, warmth isjudged more rapidly and is more predictive of active behavior.

The limitations of the present study should be noted. Because of thecorrelational nature of the research design, it is difficult to determine thedirection of causal relations between variables. It is likely that there arebidirectional dynamic relationships, in which stereotypes and evaluationsaffect people’s tendencies to engage in intergroup contact, which, in turn,affects their stereotypes, evaluations, and behavioral intentions. An experi-mental design that manipulates intergroup contact and perceived conflict isneeded to demonstrate more clearly the direction of effect from contact andconflict to prejudice.

Another limitation of this study is the use of explicit measures, which couldbe subject to social desirability concerns and reduced reliability. Indeed, manystudies have found relatively weak relationships between explicit and implicitmeasures of prejudice (Hewstone et al., 2002). Nevertheless, explicit measuresseem appropriate in the current study because of its unique context. The majordeterminant of the correspondence between implicit and explicit measures ofprejudice is the normative context (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Beach, 2001).Implicit measures are designed for use in contexts in which explicit measuresare unlikely to tap prejudice. However, in the current context of severeintergroup conflict, with samples of relatively young participants, the norma-tive context allowed participants to exhibit high levels of prejudice.

Finally, some characteristics of the instruments may also limit the con-clusions that can be derived from the current findings. In particular, thenumber of competence-related items and warmth-related items was unbal-anced, which could have led to biasing effects. However, because an averagescore was used in all analyses, such a biasing effect is unlikely. Finally, theorder of in-group/out-group ratings was not counterbalanced; that is, par-ticipants always rated the out-group before they rated the in-group. Thiscould have resulted in order effects that biased the findings.

1352 RUTH GAUNT

The implications of the current findings for intergroup relations arestraightforward. The findings deepen our understanding of the processesinvolved in the three components of prejudice and suggest possible ways toreduce it. In particular, the mediating role of cognitive and affective mecha-nisms has implications for conflict-management workshops and rapproche-ment programs. Such interventions may benefit from including discussionsdesigned to increase participants’ knowledge of the out-group, enhance theirpositive views, and reduce anxiety and aversion.

In conclusion, the findings from this study reveal the important role ofintergroup contact, even in a naturalistic context of a severe intergroup conflictand in the absence of the optimal conditions outlined by Allport (1954). Thefindings shed light on the role of cognitive perceptions and affective evalua-tions in mediating the effects of perceived conflict and intergroup contact.Further investigation of the mechanisms underlying prejudice would provideimportant theoretical insights regarding the conditions for its occurrence, aswell as practical knowledge about strategies of reducing intergroup bias.

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA; Addison-Wesley.

Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulle-tin, 71, 319–342.

Amir, Y., Sharan, S., Rivner, M., Ben-Ari, R., & Bizman, A. (1979). Groupstatus and attitude change in desegregated classrooms. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 137–152.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variabledistinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, andstatistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, 1173–1182.

Bar-Tal, D., & Teichman, Y. (2005). Stereotypes and prejudice in conflict:Representations of Arabs in Israeli Jewish society. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Bogardus, E. S. (1925). Measuring social distances. Journal of AppliedSociology, 9, 299–308.

Brown, R. (1995). Prejudice. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup

contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255–343.Campbell, D. T. (1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. In D.

Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 13, pp. 283–311).Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.


Cook, S. W. (1985). Experimenting on social issues: The case of schooldesegregation. American Psychologist, 40, 452–460.

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S. Y., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., &Leyens, J.-P. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towardsuniversal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psy-chology, 48, 1–33.

Desforges, D. M., Lord, C. G., Ramsey, S. L., Mason, J. A., Van Leeuwen,M. D., West, S. C., et al. (1991). Effects of structured cooperative contacton changing negative attitudes toward stigmatized social groups. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 531–544.

Dovidio, J. F., Glick, P., & Rudman, L. (2005). On the nature of prejudice:Fifty years after Allport. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Beach, K. R. (2001). Implicit and explicitattitudes: Examination of the relationship between measures of inter-group bias. In R. Brown & S Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook ofsocial psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 175–197). Malden, MA:Blackwell.

Esses, V. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). The role of emotions in determiningwillingness to engage in intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psy-chology Bulletin, 28, 1202–1214.

Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (2001).The immigration dilemma: The role of perceived group competition,ethnic prejudice, and national identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57,389–412.

Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup com-petition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An instru-mental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 699–724.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2006). Universal dimensions ofsocial cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,11, 77–83.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (oftenmixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively followfrom perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 82, 878–902.

Halperin, E., Pedahzur, A., & Canetti-Nisim, D. (2007). Psychoeconomicapproaches to the study of hostile attitudes toward minority groups: Astudy among Israeli Jews. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 177–198.

Harper, D. C., & Wacker, D. P. (1985). Children’s attitudes toward disabledpeers and the effects of mainstreaming. Academic Psychology Bulletin, 7,87–98.

Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). “Some of my best friends”: Inter-group contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward

1354 RUTH GAUNT

gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22,412–424.

Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. AnnualReview of Psychology, 53, 575–604.

Jackson, J. W. (1993). Realistic group conflict theory: A review and evalua-tion of the theoretical and empirical literature. Psychological Record, 43,395–414.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psy-chology, 49, 65–85.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroupcontact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.

Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing togetherpsychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. InM. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31,pp. 191–263). New York: Academic Press.

Rouhana, N. N., & Bar-Tal, D. (1998). Psychological dynamics of intrac-table ethnonational conflicts: The Israeli–Palestinian case. American Psy-chologist, 53, 761–783.

Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Smooha, S. (1992). Arabs and Jews in Israel: Conflicting and shared attitudes

in a divided society (Vol. 1). Boulder, CO: Westview.Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1984). The role of ignorance in intergroup

relations. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: Thepsychology of desegregation (pp. 229–257). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1996). Intergroup relations. Madison, WI:Brown & Benchmark.

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory ofprejudice. In S. Oskam (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp.23–46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Struch, N., & Schwartz, S. H. (1989). Intergroup aggression: Its predictorsand distinctness from ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 56, 364–373.

Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., Wolf, C., Petzel, T.,

et al. (2004). Role of perceived importance in intergroup contact. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 211–227.

Wagner, U., Christ, O., Pettigrew, T. F., Stellmacher, J., & Wolf, C. (2006).Prejudice and minority proportion: Contact instead of threat effects.Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 380–391.

Yzerbyt, V., Provost, V., & Corneille, O. (2005). Not so competent butwarm . . . Really? Compensatory stereotypes in the French-speakingworld. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8, 291–308.


effects of intergroup conflict and social contact on prejudice: the mediating role of stereotypes...

Documents