Vicarious intergroup contact effects

By A. Mazziotta, A. Mummendey, Stephen C. Wright. 2011

216 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f5fb0aab4297fa7ec97e91122375c892e36c39d4

How researchers see this paper

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

In Applied Psychology

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact (2014, background): “, 2004), behavioural intentions (Hutchison & Rosenthal, 2011, Study 2), and self-reported behaviour (Mereish & Poteat, in press), as well as the effects of vicarious contact on outgroup attitudes (Mazziotta et al., 2011), stereotyping (Cernat, 2011), and behavioural intentions (Mazziotta et al.”
Does negative contact undermine attempts to improve intergroup relations? Deepening the understanding of negative contact and its consequences for intergroup contact research and interventions (2021, background): “…Graf et al., 2014; Labianca et al., 1998; Paolini et al., 2010, 2014; Techakesari et al., 2015; for firstmeta-analytical evidence see Paolini & McIntyre, 2018), others found no substantial differences in the effects of positive and negative contact (Árnadóttir et al., 2018; Mazziotta et al., 2011).”
How do we get people into contact? Predictors of intergroup contact and drivers of contact seeking (2020, background): “In their research in Germany, Mazziotta et al. (2011) demonstrated that the observation of successful interactions between ingroup and outgroup members can increase contact self-efficacy expectancy, which, in turn, reduces situational uncertainty, which then leads to more positive outgroup…”
Seeking and avoiding intergroup contact: Future frontiers of research on building social integration (2018, background): “With less intergroup experiences, these individuals might have less overall intergroup self‐efficacy (i.e., the skillset needed to effectively navigate intergroup exchanges; Mazziotta et al., 2011), making their intergroup encounters objectively less fluid and pleasant.”