GRUPLAR ARASI TEMASIN ÖNYARGILAR, KOLEKTİF EYLEM NİYETİ VE BİLİŞSEL LİBERALLEŞME ÜZERİNE ETKİLERİ

Öz

Gruplar arasındaki önyargıları azaltmak adına geliştirilen en önemli yaklaşımlardan biri temas yaklaşımıdır. Doğrudan ve dolaylı temas deneyimleri bireylerin dış gruplara yönelik olumsuz tutumlarını zayıflatmada etkilidir. Öte yandan, son dönemde yürütülen araştırmalarda temas deneyimlerinin bireylerin yalnızca önyargılarını değil, kolektif eylem niyetini ve bilişsel liberalleşme düzeyini de etkilediği görülmektedir. Ulusal alanyazına bakıldığında ise temasın kolekif eylem niyeti ve bilişsel liberalleşme üzerindeki etkileri hakkında oldukça sınırlı sayıda çalışma olduğu görülmektedir. Mevcut derleme çalışmasının amacı, gruplar arası temasın bireylerin önyargı, kolektif eylem niyeti ve bilişsel liberalleşme düzeyini nasıl etkilediğini inceleyen çalışmaları derleyerek ilgili alanyazına Türkçe kaynak sağlamaktır. Bu amaçla hazırlanan mevcut çalışma temelde üç bölümden oluşmaktadır. İlk bölümde gruplar arası temas ve önyargı arasındaki ilişki incelenmiş ve temasın önyargılar üzerindeki etkisinde aracı ve düzenleyici rol oynayan faktörler incelenmiştir. İkinci bölüm gruplar arası temas ve kolektif eylem niyeti arasındaki ilişkiyi inceleyen araştırma bulgularını içermektedir. Son bölümde ise gruplar arası temasın bilişsel liberalleşme etkisi -temas deneyimlerinin bilişsel beceriler üzerindeki olumlu etkisi- üzerinde durulmuştur. Mevcut çalışmada temas deneyimlerinin hem grup süreçleri hem de grup süreçlerinin ötesindeki sonuçlarının birlikte incelenmesi, temasın etkilerinin bütüncül şekilde anlaşılmasına katkı sunacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gruplar Arası Temas
• Önyargılar
• Kolektif Eylem
• Bilişsel Liberalleşme

EFFECTS OF INTERGROUP CONTACT ON PREJUDICES, COLLECTIVE ACTION INTENTION AND COGNITIVE LIBERALIZATION

Öz

One of the most important approaches developed reducing intergroup prejudices is the contact approach. Direct and indirect contact experiences are effective in diminishing the negative outgroup attitudes. On the other hand, recent research shows that contact experiences affect not only individuals' prejudices, but also their collective action intention and cognitive liberalization level. There are very limited studies in the national literature on the effects of contact on collective action intention and cognitive liberalization. The aim of the current review study is to provide a source in Turkish to the relevant literature by reviewing studies examining how intergroup contact affects individuals' prejudice, collective action intention and cognitive liberalization. This study basically consists of three parts. In the first part, the relationship between intergroup contact and prejudice was examined and the factors that played mediator and moderator roles in the effect of contact on prejudices were examined. The second section includes research findings examining the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action intention. In the last section, the cognitive liberalization effect of intergroup contact - the positive effect of contact experiences on cognitive skills - is emphasized. In the current study, investigating the impacts of intergroup contact with both group processes and beyond group processes will contribute to a holistic understanding of the contact experiences.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Intergroup Contact
• Prejudices
• Collective Action
• Cognitive Liberalization

GRUPLAR ARASI TEMASIN ETKİLERİNE BÜTÜNCÜL BİR BAKIŞ

Öz

Kaynakça

1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
2. Al Ramiah, A., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., Cairns, E., & Hughes, J. (2013). It's never too late for ‘us’ to meet ‘them’: Prior intergroup friendships moderate the impact of later intergroup friendships in educational settings. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 57-75. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02054.x.
3. Barlow, F. K., Paolini, S., Pedersen, A., Hornsey, M. J., Radke, H. R., Harwood, J., Rubin, M. & Sibley, C. G. (2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1629-1643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212457953
4. Boin, J., Fuochi, G., & Voci, A. (2020). Deprovincialization as a key correlate of ideology, prejudice, and intergroup contact. Personality and Individual Differences, 157, 109799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109799 Boin, J., Rupar, M., Graf, S., Neji, S., Spiegler, O., & Swart, H. (2021). The generalization of intergroup contact effects: Emerging research, policy relevance, and future directions. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12419
5. Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation (pp. 281–302). Academic Press.
6. Cakal, H., Hewstone, M., Schwär, G., & Heath, A. (2011). An investigation of the social identity model of collective action and the 'sedative' effect of intergroup contact among Black and White students in South Africa. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(4), 606–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02075.x
7. Crisp, R. J., & Beck, S. R. (2005). Reducing Intergroup Bias: The Moderating Role of Ingroup Identification. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 173-185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430205051066
8. Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2011). Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social and cultural diversity. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021840

9. Crisp, R.J., & Turner, R.N. (2012). The imagined contact hypothesis. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 125-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00003-9
10. Davies K., Tropp L. R., Aron A., Pettigrew T. F. & Wright S. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 332–351. doi:10.1177/1088868311411103
11. Dhont, K., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Direct contact and authoritarianism as moderators between extended contact and reduced prejudice: Lower threat and greater trust as mediators. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 223-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210391121
12. Dhont, K., Van Hiel, A., & Hewstone, M. (2014). Changing the ideological roots of prejudice: Longitudinal effects of ethnic intergroup contact on social dominance orientation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213497064
13. Di Bernardo, G. A., Vezzali, L., Stathi, S., McKeown, S., Cocco, V. M., Saguy, T., & Dixon, J. (2021). Fostering social change among advantaged and disadvantaged group members: Integrating intergroup contact and social identity perspectives on collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(1), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219889134
14. Dixon, J., Tropp, L. R., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2010). “Let them eat harmony” prejudice-reduction strategies and attitudes of historically disadvantaged groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(2), 76-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410363366
15. Endicott, L., Bock, T., & Narvaez, D. (2003). Moral reasoning, intercultural development, and multicultural experiences: Relations and cognitive underpinnings. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 403-419. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00030-0
16. Graf, S., Paolini, S., & Rubin, M. (2014). Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6), 536-547. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2052 Graf, S., Paolini, S., & Rubin, M. (2020). Does intimacy counteract or amplify the detrimental effects of negative intergroup contact on attitudes?. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(2), 214-225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218767026
17. Hayward, L. E., Tropp, L. R., Hornsey, M. J., & Barlow, F. K. (2017). Toward a comprehensive understanding of intergroup contact: Descriptions and mediators of positive and negative contact among majority and minority groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216685291
18. Hässler, T., Uluğ, Ö. M., Kappmeier, M., & Travaglino, G. A. (2021). Intergroup contact and social change: An integrated contact‐collective action model. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 217-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12412
19. Hodson, G., Crisp, R. J., Meleady, R., & Earle, M. (2018). Intergroup contact as an agent of cognitive liberalization. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(5), 523-548. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617752324
20. Hodson, G., Dube, B., & Choma, B. L. (2015). Can (elaborated) imagined contact interventions reduce prejudice among those higher in intergroup disgust sensitivity (ITG-DS)? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(3), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12281
21. Hodson, G., Harry, H., & Mitchell, A. (2009). Independent benefits of contact and friendship on attitudes toward homosexuals among authoritarians and highly identified heterosexuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.558
22. Husnu, S., & Crisp, R. J. (2010). Elaboration enhances the imagined contact effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 943–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014 Kauff, M., Schmid, K., Lolliot, S., Al Ramiah, A., & Hewstone, M. (2016). Intergroup contact effects via ingroup distancing among majority and minority groups: Moderation by social dominance orientation. PloS One, 11(1), e0146895. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146895
23. Kende, J., Phalet, K., Van den Noortgate, W., Kara, A., & Fischer, R. (2018). Equality revisited: A cultural meta-analysis of intergroup contact and prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(8), 887-895. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617728993
24. Kenworthy, J. B., Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2005). Intergroup Contact: When Does it Work, and Why? In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years After Allport (pp. 278–292). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773963.ch17
25. Kim, N., & Wojcieszak, M. (2018). Intergroup contact through online comments: Effects of direct and extended contact on outgroup attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 63-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.013
26. Leung, A. K. Y., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C.Y. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63(3), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.169
27. Lolliot, S., Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., Al Ramiah, A., Tausch, N., & Swart, H. (2013). Generalized effects of intergroup contact: The secondary transfer effect. In G. Hodson & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Advances in Intergroup Contact (pp. 81–112). London, England: Psychology Press.
28. Mackinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychologist, 17(7), 484–495. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046541
29. Mähönen, T. A., & Jasinskaja-Lahti, I. (2016). Ramifications of positive and negative contact experiences among remigrants from Russia to Finland. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(2), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000059
30. Mazziotta, A., Mummendey, A., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Vicarious intergroup contact effects: Applying social-cognitive theory to intergroup contact research. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210390533
31. Mazziotta, A., Rohmann, A., Wright, S. C., De Tezanos‐Pinto, P., & Lutterbach, S. (2015). (How) does positive and negative extended cross‐group contact predict direct cross‐group contact and intergroup attitudes?. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(5), 653-667. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2110
32. Meleady, R., Crisp, R. J., Dhont, K., Hopthrow, T., & Turner, R. N. (2020). Intergroup contact, social dominance, and environmental concern: A test of the cognitive-liberalization hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(6), 1146–1164. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000196
33. Meleady, R., Crisp, R. J., Hodson, G., & Earle, M. (2019). On the generalization of intergroup contact: A taxonomy of transfer effects. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(5), 430-435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419848682
34. Miles, E., & Crisp, R. J. (2014). A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(1), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213510573
35. Miller, N. (2002). Personalization and the promise of contact theory. Journal of Social Issues, 58(2), 387-410. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00267
36. Paolini, S., Harwood, J., Rubin, M., Husnu, S., Joyce, N., & Hewstone, M. (2014). Positive and extensive intergroup contact in the past buffers against the disproportionate impact of negative contact in the present. European Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2029
37. Paolini, S., White, F. A., Tropp, L. R., Turner, R. N., Page‐Gould, E., Barlow, F. K., & Gómez, Á. (2021). Intergroup contact research in the 21st century: Lessons learned and forward progress if we remain open. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 11-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12427
38. Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(2), 173-185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297232006
39. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65-85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65
40. Pettigrew, T. F. (2009). Secondary transfer effect of contact: Do intergroup contact effects spread to noncontacted outgroups?. Social Psychology, 40(2), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335.40.2.55
41. Pettigrew, T. F. (2010). Commentary: South African contributions to the study of intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 66(2), 417-430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01653.x
42. Pettigrew, T.F. (2011). Deprovincialization. In D.J. Christie (Ed.) The Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology. Wiley.
43. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
44. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta‐analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922-934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504
45. Reicher, S. (2007). Rethinking the paradigm of prejudice. South African Journal of Psychology, 37(4), 820-834. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630703700410
46. Reimer, N. K., Becker, J. C., Benz, A., Christ, O., Dhont, K., Klocke, U., ... & Hewstone, M. (2017). Intergroup contact and social change: Implications of negative and positive contact for collective action in advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 121-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216676478
47. Reimer, N. K., & Sengupta, N. K. (2023). Meta-analysis of the “ironic” effects of intergroup contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(2), 362–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000404
48. Ritter, S. M., Damian, R. I., Simonton, D. K., van Baaren, R. B., Strick, M., Derks, J., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2012). Diversifying experiences enhance cognitive flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 961–964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.009
49. Saguy, T., & Chernyak-Hai, L. (2012). Intergroup contact can undermine disadvantaged group members' attributions to discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 714–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.01.003
50. Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20(1), 114-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02261.x
51. Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., & Tausch, N. (2014). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact via social identity complexity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(3), 443-462. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12045
52. Seger, C. R., Banerji, I., Park, S. H., Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2017). Specific emotions as mediators of the effect of intergroup contact on prejudice: Findings across multiple participant and target groups. Cognition and Emotion, 31(5), 923-936. Doi:10.1080/02699931.2016.1182893
53. Selvanathan, H. P., Techakesari, P., Tropp, L. R., & Barlow, F. K. (2018). Whites for racial justice: How contact with Black Americans predicts support for collective action among White Americans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(6), 893-912. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217690908
54. Shook, N. J., Hopkins, P. D., & Koech, J. M. (2016). The effect of intergroup contact on secondary group attitudes and social dominance orientation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(3), 328-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215572266
55. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination (pp. 23–45). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
56. Tausch N. & Hewstone M. (2010). Intergroup Contact. J.F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, V.M. Esses (Eds.). Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (ss. 544–560). Sage.
57. Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J. B., Psaltis, C., Schmid, K., Popan, J. R., Cairns, E., & Hughes, J. (2010). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: Alternative accounts and underlying processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 282–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018553
58. Tausch, N., Saguy, T., & Bryson, J. (2015). How does intergroup contact affect social change? Its impact on collective action and individual mobility intentions among members of a disadvantaged group. Journal of Social Issues, 71(3), 536-553. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12127
59. Tausch, N., Saguy, T., & Singh, P. (2009). Contact between Muslims and Hindus: Benefits and limitations. Unpublished Manuscript.
60. Tropp, L. R., & Barlow, F. K. (2018). Making advantaged racial groups care about inequality: Intergroup contact as a route to psychological investment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(3), 194-199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417743282
61. Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16(12), 951–957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01643.x
62. Turner, R. N., Crisp, R. J., & Lambert, E. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(4), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207081533
63. Turner, R. N., Dhont, K., Hewstone, M., Prestwich, A., & Vonofakou, C. (2014). The role of personality factors in the reduction of intergroup anxiety and amelioration of outgroup attitudes via intergroup contact. European Journal of Personality, 28(2), 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1927
64. Turner, R. N., Hodson, G., & Dhont, K. (2020). The role of individual differences in understanding and enhancing intergroup contact. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14(6), Article e12533. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12533 Turner, R. N., West, K., & Christie, Z. (2013). Out‐group trust, intergroup anxiety, and out‐group attitude as mediators of the effect of imagined intergroup contact on intergroup behavioral tendencies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, E196-E205. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12019
65. Ufkes, E. G., Dovidio, J. F., & Tel, G. (2015). Identity and collective action among European Kurds. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 176-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12084
66. Ünver, H., Cakal, H., Özkan, Z., Kızık, B., & Eraslan, E. G. (2022). A rewiew on the secondary transfer effect of intergroup contact. Ordu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(2), 1461-1500. https://doi.org/10.48146/odusobiad.1081427
67. Verkuyten, M., Thijs, J., & Bekhuis, H. (2010). Intergroup contact and ingroup reappraisal: Examining the deprovincialization thesis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(4), 398-416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272510389015
68. Vezzali, L., Di Bernardo, G. A., Cocco, V. M., Stathi, S., & Capozza, D. (2021). Reducing prejudice in the society at large: A review of the secondary transfer effect and directions for future research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(3), e12583. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12583
69. Vezzali, L., & Giovannini, D. (2012). Secondary transfer effect of intergroup contact: The role of intergroup attitudes, intergroup anxiety and perspective taking. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 22(2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1103
70. Vezzali, L., Hewstone, M., Capozza, D., Giovannini, D., & Wölfer, R. (2014). Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology, 25(1), 314–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.982948
71. Voci, A., Hadziosmanovic, E., Cakal, H., Veneziani, C. A., & Hewstone, M. (2017). Impact of pre-war and post-war intergroup contact on intergroup relations and mental health: Evidence from a Bosnian sample. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23(3), 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000222
72. Wang, C., Cocco, V. M., & Vezzali, L. (2022). Testing the association of positive and negative extended contact with intergroup contact intentions in China: The mediating role of intergroup anger, empathy, and happiness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52(5), 305-315. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12860