Imagined Intergroup Contact: Theory, Paradigm and Practice

In this article, we outline a new implementation of intergroup contact theory: imagined intergroup contact. The approach combines 50 years of research into the effects of contact with recent advances in social cognition. It represents both a versatile experimental paradigm for investigating the extended and indirect impacts of social contact, as well as a flexible and effective tool for practitioners and policy makers in their efforts to promote tolerance for multicultural diversity. We describe the theoretical basis for imagined contact effects, document emerging empirical support, and provide a practical guide for researchers wishing to adopt the paradigm. Finally, we discuss the potential application of imagined contact in educational contexts, and how it could be integrated with existing approaches to provide maximally effective strategies for improving intergroup relations.     

Accountability moderates member-to-group generalization: Testing a dual process model of stereotype change

According to contemporary models of accountability [Lerner, J.S., & Tetlock, P.E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255-275], when individuals are warned that they will be held accountable for their decisions, both information processing and judgment vigilance increase. We used an established generalization paradigm [Garcia-Marques, L., & Mackie, D.M. (1999). The impact of stereotype incongruent information on perceived group variability and stereotype change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 979-990] to extend the application of these principles to the process of member-to-group generalization in stereotype change. As predicted, across the three studies (Ns = 60, 78, and 101), accountability was found to amplify generalization under control conditions, both when the member information was stereotypical (Experiment 1) and counterstereotypical (Experiments 2 and 3). Accountability was found to attenuate generalization (Experiments 2 and 3) when a meta-judgmental cue discredited the validity of the member information for the group judgment. Ancillary evidence from Experiments 2 and 3 suggests a mediational role for the cognitive fencing-off of the member information from the group schema. The implications of the observed interplay between stereotyping and meta-cognitions for theory and policy are discussed.