Page 190 - Ana Kozina and Nora Wiium, eds. ▪︎ Positive Youth Development in Contexts. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2021. Digital Library, Dissertationes (Scientific Monographs), 42.
P. 190
positive youth development in contexts
significant for an intervention’s effectiveness (Aboud et al., 2012; Beelmann
& Heinemann, 2014; Ülger et al., 2018).
Effectiveness of direct and indirect contact-based interventions
We excluded one condition of the study by Vezzali et al. (2015a) from the
analysis as subjects were simultaneously exposed to direct and indirect
contact. Most direct intergroup contact conditions reported large effects on
prejudice and related outcomes, while indirect intergroup contact condi-
tions generally had small effects (see Table 1). These results are in line with
the findings of Christ et al. (2010) that direct contact may have a bigger ef-
fect on prejudice reduction as it always leads to indirect contact through the
observation of contact between ingroup and outgroup members. Similarly,
a field study found that long-term direct contact had a positive effect on at-
titudes towards minority children, while extended intergroup contact had
no long-term effect (Feddes et al., 2009).
Vezzali et al. (2015a) explicitly compared intervention effectiveness
based on the directness of contact in which they compared the effective-
ness of direct and imagined contact conditions. Imagined intergroup con-
tact condition had a slightly bigger effect on cognitive and slightly smaller
effect on behavioural outcomes than the direct contact condition, although
the differences were not significant. The results show that imagined con-
tact has similar effects on prejudice and related outcomes as direct con-
tact while, when applied simultaneously, both types of contact have an ad-
ditive effect.
The findings of other studies show that indirect contact interventions
could have comparable effects, but might be more prone to ineffectiveness
if the quality of the administration is low and optimal conditions are not
provided, especially in the case of extended and vicarious contact (see par-
agraph 3.1.2 below). This difference in effect could also be due to not having
a representative sample for direct contact interventions since the two stud-
ies that investigated the effects of direct contact interventions were of very
high methodological and general administration quality, which could con-
tribute significantly to their effectiveness (Ülger et al., 2018). It might also
be possible that direct contact is instantly effective while indirect contact
effects are apparent only after some time has passed (Christ et al., 2010).
Since the follow-up was done after a relatively short time (for most studies
after 3 weeks), indirect contact interventions may seem to have less effect
than direct contact interventions.
190
significant for an intervention’s effectiveness (Aboud et al., 2012; Beelmann
& Heinemann, 2014; Ülger et al., 2018).
Effectiveness of direct and indirect contact-based interventions
We excluded one condition of the study by Vezzali et al. (2015a) from the
analysis as subjects were simultaneously exposed to direct and indirect
contact. Most direct intergroup contact conditions reported large effects on
prejudice and related outcomes, while indirect intergroup contact condi-
tions generally had small effects (see Table 1). These results are in line with
the findings of Christ et al. (2010) that direct contact may have a bigger ef-
fect on prejudice reduction as it always leads to indirect contact through the
observation of contact between ingroup and outgroup members. Similarly,
a field study found that long-term direct contact had a positive effect on at-
titudes towards minority children, while extended intergroup contact had
no long-term effect (Feddes et al., 2009).
Vezzali et al. (2015a) explicitly compared intervention effectiveness
based on the directness of contact in which they compared the effective-
ness of direct and imagined contact conditions. Imagined intergroup con-
tact condition had a slightly bigger effect on cognitive and slightly smaller
effect on behavioural outcomes than the direct contact condition, although
the differences were not significant. The results show that imagined con-
tact has similar effects on prejudice and related outcomes as direct con-
tact while, when applied simultaneously, both types of contact have an ad-
ditive effect.
The findings of other studies show that indirect contact interventions
could have comparable effects, but might be more prone to ineffectiveness
if the quality of the administration is low and optimal conditions are not
provided, especially in the case of extended and vicarious contact (see par-
agraph 3.1.2 below). This difference in effect could also be due to not having
a representative sample for direct contact interventions since the two stud-
ies that investigated the effects of direct contact interventions were of very
high methodological and general administration quality, which could con-
tribute significantly to their effectiveness (Ülger et al., 2018). It might also
be possible that direct contact is instantly effective while indirect contact
effects are apparent only after some time has passed (Christ et al., 2010).
Since the follow-up was done after a relatively short time (for most studies
after 3 weeks), indirect contact interventions may seem to have less effect
than direct contact interventions.
190
