Page 182 - Ana Kozina and Nora Wiium, eds. ▪︎ Positive Youth Development in Contexts. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2021. Digital Library, Dissertationes (Scientific Monographs), 42.
P. 182
positive youth development in contexts
Contact-based interventions aimed at reducing ethnic prejudice
The negative consequences of ethnic prejudice for the victims and conse-
quently for society have prompted scientists to research ways of reducing
negative attitudes to ethnic outgroups. Findings have led to empirically in-
formed interventions. The most widely effective of these are contact-based
interventions (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), which are based on the hypothe-
sis that contact between members of different ethnic groups can, in certain
conditions, reduce ethnic prejudice against the outgroup and lead to posi-
tive intergroup relations (Allport in Brown & Hewstone, 2005).
In general, school seems quite a perfect place to start tackling prej-
udice since the large majority of interventions in this context have been
effective, irrespective of their theoretical background (Ülger et al., 2018).
Contact-based interventions tend to be particularly effective in schools giv-
en that the conditions for effective prejudice-reducing intergroup contact
can easily be fulfilled. These conditions are: a) equal social status of both
groups; b) a uniform goal; c) interdependence among the groups; and d)
expressed support from authorities/the institution (ibid.). Students share
the status of a class member, while the interaction among them is often fa-
cilitated by the teacher or the institution. Tasks that demand cooperation
among different groups to achieve a common goal are a frequent way of
learning in primary and secondary schools, meaning they can easily be im-
plemented as interventions and have been very successful at reducing prej-
udice against outgroups (Paluck & Green, 2009).
Despite their effectiveness, direct contact-based interventions are not
commonly implemented in school settings (ibid.) as their implementa-
tion can cause significant logistical problems, especially in the case of eth-
nic segregation or an imbalance in the number of ethnic outgroup mem-
bers. Gathering enough ethnic minority students can be time-consuming
and impractical. Moreover, prejudice should be addressed before direct in-
tergroup contact occurs since even a brief exposure to stigmatisation can
bring significant negative outcomes for the victim (Brenick et al., 2019).
For this reason, research has started to focus more on interventions, us-
ing indirect intergroup contact (i.e. contact that does not require the phys-
ical presence of members from one of the groups), proposing that mere-
ly observing or knowing about intergroup contact is enough for prejudice
reduction (Wright et al., 1997). Three different approaches have developed
from the initial idea, presenting a viable alternative to direct contact: vi-
carious, extended and imagined intergroup contact. Vicarious intergroup
182
Contact-based interventions aimed at reducing ethnic prejudice
The negative consequences of ethnic prejudice for the victims and conse-
quently for society have prompted scientists to research ways of reducing
negative attitudes to ethnic outgroups. Findings have led to empirically in-
formed interventions. The most widely effective of these are contact-based
interventions (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), which are based on the hypothe-
sis that contact between members of different ethnic groups can, in certain
conditions, reduce ethnic prejudice against the outgroup and lead to posi-
tive intergroup relations (Allport in Brown & Hewstone, 2005).
In general, school seems quite a perfect place to start tackling prej-
udice since the large majority of interventions in this context have been
effective, irrespective of their theoretical background (Ülger et al., 2018).
Contact-based interventions tend to be particularly effective in schools giv-
en that the conditions for effective prejudice-reducing intergroup contact
can easily be fulfilled. These conditions are: a) equal social status of both
groups; b) a uniform goal; c) interdependence among the groups; and d)
expressed support from authorities/the institution (ibid.). Students share
the status of a class member, while the interaction among them is often fa-
cilitated by the teacher or the institution. Tasks that demand cooperation
among different groups to achieve a common goal are a frequent way of
learning in primary and secondary schools, meaning they can easily be im-
plemented as interventions and have been very successful at reducing prej-
udice against outgroups (Paluck & Green, 2009).
Despite their effectiveness, direct contact-based interventions are not
commonly implemented in school settings (ibid.) as their implementa-
tion can cause significant logistical problems, especially in the case of eth-
nic segregation or an imbalance in the number of ethnic outgroup mem-
bers. Gathering enough ethnic minority students can be time-consuming
and impractical. Moreover, prejudice should be addressed before direct in-
tergroup contact occurs since even a brief exposure to stigmatisation can
bring significant negative outcomes for the victim (Brenick et al., 2019).
For this reason, research has started to focus more on interventions, us-
ing indirect intergroup contact (i.e. contact that does not require the phys-
ical presence of members from one of the groups), proposing that mere-
ly observing or knowing about intergroup contact is enough for prejudice
reduction (Wright et al., 1997). Three different approaches have developed
from the initial idea, presenting a viable alternative to direct contact: vi-
carious, extended and imagined intergroup contact. Vicarious intergroup
182
