The Contact Space: A Novel Framework for Intergroup Contact Research

By James T Harwood. 2010

161 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e78a7373096a8007cfb2defbd103641e64a81a22

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Language and Linguistics

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The Imagined Contact Hypothesis (2012, background): “In subsequent studies, we have shown that imagined contact can improve explicit attitudinal evaluations of a range of outgroups, including Mexicans’ attitudes towards Mestizos in Mexico (Stathi & Crisp, 2008), non-Muslims attitudes towards Muslims (Husnu & Crisp, 2010a, Experiment 2; Turner & Crisp,”
Media's influence on immigration attitudes: An intergroup threat theory approach (2016, background): “Rather than improving intergroup dynamics, such anxiety-ridden encounters have the potential to antagonize intergroup bias (Harwood, 2010).”
Seeking and avoiding intergroup contact: Future frontiers of research on building social integration (2018, background): “Intergroup contact has progressively become a generative umbrella term for the investigation of a broad “contact continuum” (Crisp & Turner, 2012) and “contact space” (Harwood, 2010), where direct and indirect contact experiences (e.”
Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact (2014, methodology): “CONCLUSIONS: DIRECT VERSUS INDIRECT CONTACT As noted by Wright and colleagues (1997; see also Dovidio et al., 2011; Harwood, 2010; Turner, Hewstone, Voci, et al., 2007), indirect contact has some advantages over direct contact.”
Positive and extensive intergroup contact in the past buffers against the disproportionate impact of negative contact in the present (2014, background): “This effect extends to areas of real intergroup conflict—in sectarian Northern Ireland, Arizona’s troubled Southern border area, and divided Cyprus—and holds across types of contact with the outgroup that vary noticeably in terms of intimacy, involvement of the self, and richness of the outgroup exp”