Do Profile Photos Enhance Vicarious Intergroup Contact? Testing Theoretical Perspectives from Social Identity,the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE),and Social Presence

Abstract

Profile photos are ubiquitous in online environments, yet little is known about how they shape observers’ impressions when mediated interactions involve members of different social groups. This experiment (N = 1,661) examined how profile photos influence impressions formed during observed intergroup exchanges in news comment sections. A 2 × 2 design (topic × photo) tested mechanisms derived from Social Identity Theory (SIT), the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE), and Social Presence Theory. Results showed that profile photos heightened awareness of the relevant group distinction and, through identification with the ingroup commenter, led to more positive outgroup responses—but only when the photos clearly conveyed the group difference central to the interaction. When both interpersonal and intergroup processes were modeled together, only the intergroup pathway remained supported. These findings clarify how profile photos shape mediated impressions and identify cue diagnosticity as key for enhancing vicarious intergroup contact.

Keywords

vicarious intergroup contact Social Identity Theory (SIT)The Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE)social presence profile photo impression formation of outgroup

Introduction

Digital platforms offer many potentials to both perpetuate and potentially ameliorate negative impressions of an outgroup (Harwood, 2020). Across health, political, and intergroup contexts, research suggests that observers who encounter a positive exchange between an ingroup member and an outgroup member may form more favorable impressions of the outgroup individual (Mazziotta et al., 2011; Vezzali, Hewstone, et al., 2014). These processes are often discussed within the framework of vicarious intergroup contact, which suggests that merely observing positive interactions between ingroup and outgroup members can improve observers’ evaluations of outgroup individuals and groups (Mazziotta et al., 2011; Vezzali, Hewstone, et al., 2014). Observers form impression of outgroup members in vicarious contact because they tend to identify with the ingroup interactant and interpret the outgroup member’s positive response to that interactant as informative of how the outgroup member would respond to themselves (Dai & Shi, 2022; Dai & Walther, 2018; Jia et al., 2026). From this perspective, identification with the ingroup interactant may help explain why observing intergroup interactions could foster more positive impressions of outgroup members (Dai & Shi, 2022; Dai & Walther, 2018; Jia et al., 2026; White et al., 2021).

Although research has highlighted the promise of vicarious intergroup contact in improving intergroup impressions and illuminated the role of identification in the process, less is known about how such a process is shaped by the technological affordances of online environments. One important affordance is the presence of profile photos associated with the interactants being observed in a vicarious intergroup contact. To this end, several theoretical puzzles remain unresolved. First, when individuals observe intergroup interactions online, does the presence of profile photos amplify or attenuate the effects of vicarious intergroup contact? Different theoretical perspectives offer divergent predictions: while the social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE; Postmes et al., 2002) predicts that the existence of identifying cues dampens group-level impression formation processes in online contexts—the very basis that enables vicarious intergroup contact, Social Identification Theory (SIT; Hogg & Reid, 2006; Tajfel, 1974) acknowledges that when the profile photos contain cues that are diagnostic of the relevant group category that forms the basis of observers’ identification with the observed interactant, it would enhance the vicarious contact process. The present study seeks to resolve this theoretical tension by empirically testing these two possibilities.

A second unresolved issue concerns the level at which impressions are formed when profile photos are present. When observers encounter an intergroup interaction accompanied by profile photos, do they primarily form impressions at the interpersonal level—that is, impressions of the specific interactants—or at the intergroup level, drawing conclusions about the broader social groups the interactants represent? Classic Social Identity Theory suggests that interpersonal and intergroup impression formation processes cannot occur simultaneously (Hogg & Reid, 2006; Tajfel, 1974), as attention to individuating cues typically suppresses group-based categorization. However, more recent scholarship points to the possibility that these processes may coexist (Walther & Carr, 2010). Clarifying whether interpersonal and intergroup impression formation can operate concurrently is theoretically important, as generalizing positive impressions from a specific outgroup member to the broader outgroup may require the activation of both processes (Wright et al., 1997). Profile photos are theoretically relevant to this question because they simultaneously provide individuating information about specific interactants and visual cues that may signal broader group memberships. As such, profile photos may shape whether observers process an interaction primarily at the interpersonal level, the intergroup level, or through a combination of both processes. Examining how profile photos shape vicarious intergroup contact, therefore, offers a theoretically fertile opportunity to integrate classic intergroup communication theories with emerging research on technologically mediated contact.

Against this backdrop, the present study examines how impressions toward an outgroup are shaped in observing intergroup conversations in news comment sections (White et al., 2021), with a particular focus on the presence versus absence of profile photos in the observed contact. Drawing on the SIDE model (Postmes et al., 2002), SIT (Tajfel, 1974), and Social Presence Theory (K. M. Lee, 2004), we test competing and alternative theoretical predictions regarding how profile photos shape the outcomes of mediated vicarious intergroup contact, while empirically accounting for impression formation processes at both the intergroup and interpersonal levels.

The study makes several contributions. First, it integrates three theoretical frameworks to account for how visual anonymity shapes outgroup impressions in mediated vicarious contact. Second, it reconciles tensions between SIT and SIDE by introducing a unifying principle—cue diagnosticity—defined as the extent to which visual cues meaningfully signal the salient group category underlying identification in a given context. By specifying when visual cues are informative of group membership versus when they primarily individuate interactants, the study clarifies when visual cues are likely to promote or inhibit group-based identification, and, subsequently, facilitate positive outcomes of vicarious impression formation. More broadly, the findings clarify whether intergroup and interpersonal impression formation can co-occur by modelling mediating pathways reflecting both processes simultaneously.

In the following sections, we first introduce vicarious intergroup contact as a form of indirect contact and outline its potential to shape intergroup impressions. We focus on observers’ identification with the ingroup member in the observed interaction as a key mechanism underlying vicarious contact effects, and we argue that this identification process is shaped by the presence of profile photos. To this end, we draw on SIDE, which argues the presence of individuating cues (e.g., profile photos) dampens group identification; SIT, which posits that group-relevant cues can enhance identification; and social presence theory, which suggests that profile photos provide richer interpersonal cues that enhance the perceived presence of the observed interactants, thereby shaping impressions at the level of the individual rather than through group-based identification processes, whose potential co-occurrence constitutes a central theoretical question examined in the present study.

Vicarious Intergroup Contact and Intergroup Impressions

Indirect intergroup contact has been recognized to be especially potent in promoting positive intergroup relations (White et al., 2021). The theoretical foundation for indirect intergroup contact can be traced to the contact hypothesis, which posits that positive interactions between members of different groups reduce prejudice by improving knowledge, reducing anxiety, and fostering empathy (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Subsequent research has shown that these core psychological processes need not rely exclusively on direct, face-to-face encounters; rather, they can also be activated through indirect and mediated forms of contact that convey positive intergroup relations (White et al., 2021).

In indirect contact, an ingroup member engages with an outgroup member either in a non-face-to-face manner, in an asynchronous media setting, or indirectly through passive interaction facilitated by another ingroup member (White et al., 2021). Ample research evidence has documented the effectiveness of indirect intergroup contact by imagining a contact with an outgroup member (e.g., Vezzali et al., 2014), writing an essay about an intergroup friendship (e.g., Vezzali et al., 2015), or observing interactions between an ingroup and an outgroup member (Wright et al., 1997).

Among different forms of indirect intergroup contact, vicarious intergroup contact has received relatively less research attention. Vicarious intergroup contact refers to the observation of interactions between both ingroup and outgroup members. It is conceptually distinct from parasocial contact, which involves one-sided exposure to outgroup individuals through media (White et al., 2021). Vicarious contact can model future positive intergroup encounters by explicitly depicting how ingroup and outgroup members behave toward one another in intergroup settings, which may in turn shape both ingroup and outgroup norms (White et al., 2021).

In today’s media environment, user-generated comments that accompany news articles provide an opportunity for news consumers to indirectly engage in intergroup interactions with individuals from diverse social backgrounds. In a recent study, Jia et al. (2026) show that observing positive intergroup exchanges in news comments can increase readers’ intentions to interact with the outgroup, especially among those with relatively limited prior positive direct contact, who may benefit most from indirectly learning that respectful, constructive ingroup–outgroup encounters are possible.

The potential of observing positive intergroup exchanges in online comment spaces to improve intergroup impressions is particularly relevant in contemporary contexts marked by heightened racial tensions. In the past few years, the United States has witnessed an alarming surge in racial tensions, driven by deepening ideological divides (Kleinfeld, 2023). One particularly distressing manifestation of the troubling resurgence of race-based hatred on a global scale is the sharp escalation in anti-Asian sentiment and hate crimes. Asian Americans, like many minority communities, have become targets of discrimination, harassment, and violence (Ruiz et al., 2023). This was further intensified during the global COVID-19 pandemic (Gover et al., 2020; Han et al., 2022). These developments highlight the importance of understanding how mediated encounters between members of different racial groups may shape observers’ intergroup perceptions and reactions.

In the current study, outcomes of the vicarious intergroup contact are measured with four variables: trust, empathy, and attitude toward the outgroup, as well as intention to make future contacts. These dependent variables were selected to capture distinct dimensions of intergroup relations—how people perceive, feel about, and behave toward members of other groups (Hogg, 2006). Additionally, the inclusion of multiple dependent variables allows us to detect potential patterns of inconsistency across different components of intergroup response, as previous research shows that cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to outgroups often diverge (Mackie & Smith, 1998).

Identification and Vicarious Intergroup Contact

Recent theorizing has explicitly highlighted identification with an ingroup member as a key mechanism underlying vicarious intergroup contact effects (Wong et al., 2022). For a vicarious interaction to take effect, an observer needs to relate to an identified ingroup member on the ground of shared social categories (e.g., gender, nationality, social status, and so on) and thereby experience an interaction vicariously with the observed outgroup member (Dai & Walther, 2018). Experimental studies of vicarious interaction show that sharing a salient social category with an observed ingroup member increases observers’ identification with that individual, which in turn enhances observers’ evaluations of the outgroup member involved in the interaction (Dai & Walther, 2018) as well as the extent to which observers are persuaded by the outgroup member’s message (Dai & Shi, 2022).

Yet, research has not fully understood how identification with the ingroup member in a vicarious contact is shaped by the technological affordances involved in the process, such as the presence of visual cues representing the ingroup and the outgroup members. Among these affordances, profile photos may play a particularly important role because they provide visual information that may simultaneously signal individual identity and group membership, thereby shaping how observers interpret the interaction.

The Effect of Profile Photo from Interpersonal and Intergroup Perspectives

In the social identification tradition, it is often assumed that impression formation cannot fully co-occur at both intergroup and interpersonal levels, because activating group identity suppresses attention to individuating information (Tajfel, 1974). Yet more recent work on intergroup dynamics in computer-mediated communication suggests that a blending of intergroup and interpersonal factors may be particularly important for fostering cross-group understanding (Walther & Carr, 2010). Parallel to this, intergroup contact research suggests that indirect contact is most effective when it elicits interpersonal positivity toward an outgroup member while also keeping group membership salient enough for those positive impressions to generalize to the outgroup as a whole (Hewstone & Brown, 1986). Put differently, intergroup identification without personal liking may do little to enhance positive outgroup impressions whereas personal liking without awareness of group membership may remain idiosyncratic and fail to generalize (Hewstone & Brown, 1986). It is, therefore, theoretically important to examine how visual anonymity (i.e., the absence of profile photo) in vicarious contact structures the balance between these two pathways by clarifying whether impressions are shaped primarily through group-based identification or interpersonal connection, and whether the two can operate coherently.

Vicarious Intergroup Contact through Group-Level Mechanisms

Social Identity Theory: Profile Photos Enhance Vicarious Intergroup Contact

Social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel, 1974) suggests that individuals can perceive themselves either as unique individuals or as members of specific social groups in a given context. When a particular group identity becomes salient, individuals categorize others as either ingroup or outgroup members and identify with them based on shared membership in these social groups (Turner et al., 1987). Once identification occurs, it leads to more positive emotional responses toward ingroup members, behaviors that favor them, and a sense of cognitive similarity with them (Turner et al., 1987).

According to SIT, which social category becomes the basis for self-categorization depends on its salience in the situation. Category salience refers to the extent to which membership in a particular social group becomes psychologically relevant in shaping perception and behavior (Oakes, 1987). Research on self-categorization theory suggests that category salience emerges from two key conditions: accessibility and fit (Stets & Burke, 2000). Accessibility refers to how readily a category is activated in a given context, depending on the individual’s goals, expectations, and situational cues. Fit refers to how well a category explains the perceived structure of the social situation. Fit includes both normative fit, meaning that the observed behavior aligns with culturally expected attributes of the category, and comparative fit, meaning that differences between groups appear larger than differences within groups (Stets & Burke, 2000).

The principle of comparative fit, often referred to as the meta-contrast principle, suggests that people are more likely to perceive a set of individuals as belonging to distinct groups when differences between groups are perceived as larger than differences within groups (Hogg & Reid, 2006; Turner et al., 1987). In the context of observing an interaction about anti-Asian hostility in the United States, for example, racial categories are likely to become salient because the topic itself makes race accessible. A White observer may therefore categorize the White interactant as an ingroup member and the Asian interactant as an outgroup member, because the perceived similarity between the observer and the White interactant is greater than the similarity between the observer and the Asian interactant.

We argue that when individuals observe an intergroup interaction, profile photos of the interactants can enhance the salience of the group category activated by the communication context. When profile photos provide visual information that enables observers to infer the group membership of the interactants, they facilitate observers’ judgments about the interactants’ group identities. This effect should be particularly pronounced when observers lack prior contact with the interactants and therefore rely more heavily on group-category cues available in the communication context to form impressions of them (Walther & Carr, 2010), such as when reading comments posted by strangers online, a context the present study focuses on.

Prior research provides evidence that profile photos containing visual cues relevant to the communication context can enhance observers’ awareness of the social category that becomes salient in that context. Lick and Johnson (2014) proposed that when categorizing others into social groups, perceivers rely on visual cues in the environment to diagnose others’ group membership. Consistent with this view, their study showed that participants were more confident in categorizing others’ gender and race based on facial stimuli, but were much less confident in categorizing sexual orientation from photos (Lick & Johnson, 2014). Similarly, other research has demonstrated relatively high accuracy in categorizing race and gender based on facial cues (Martin & Macrae, 2007). Together, these findings suggest that visual cues in a communication context can facilitate social category–based impression formation when they provide diagnostic information about interactants’ group membership. In the context of vicarious intergroup contact, such cues may therefore strengthen observers’ engagement with group-based categorization processes, which can ultimately enhance positive outcomes of intergroup contact, including greater empathy, trust, positive attitudes toward the outgroup, and intentions for future intergroup contact (Pettigrew et al., 2011).

H1a-f: When observing a friendly online interaction between a White and an Asian, the presence of commenters’ profile photos increases White observers’ (a) awareness of race as a social category for identification, which further increases (b) the observers’ identification with the White in the interaction and, consequently, enhances the positive outcomes of intergroup contact, including (c) trust, (d) empathy, (e) positive attitude toward the outgroup, and (f) intention for future contact with the outgroup.

H1g: The effect of the presence of interactants’ profile photos on the awareness of the activated social category (i.e., the effect proposed in H1a) is stronger when the observed conversation concerns race, rather than an issue for which the relevant social category is not visually diagnosable from profile photos.

SIDE: Profile Photos Dampen Vicarious Intergroup Contact

In contrast to the SIT perspective, which emphasizes that visible group traits facilitate identification, the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) proposes that the absence of individuating visual cues may strengthen identification with a salient social group (Postmes et al., 2002; Reicher et al., 1995). Specifically, when cues that signal personal identity are limited, individuals’ attention is less focused on individual differences and more likely to remain on shared group membership (E.-J. Lee, 2006). The SIDE model builds on earlier work in deindividuation theory. Deindividuation traditionally refers to a reduced sense of self or diminished self-awareness in group contexts (Spears et al., 2011). Early research suggested that visual anonymity could produce such states, lowering inhibitions and increasing the likelihood of antisocial behaviors (Diener, 1979). SIDE reinterprets these effects in computer-mediated environments by arguing that anonymity does not simply reduce self-awareness; rather, it can shift attention from personal identity to social identity. In doing so, visual anonymity may increase the salience of group membership and strengthen conformity to group norms (Spears & Postmes, 2015).

Prior empirical tests of SIDE have manipulated the presence versus absence of visual representations to examine their effects on depersonalization and group-based processing (E.-J. Lee, 2004, 2006). The present study adopts this established approach by focusing specifically on visual anonymity—a narrower form of anonymity introduced by the absence of visual self-representation. Thus, we do not attempt to manipulate anonymity in a comprehensive sense; rather, we examine whether the availability of visual representation shapes observers’ mental representation of the interactants at the personal versus group level. At a theoretical level, this focus on visual anonymity allows us to adjudicate competing predictions derived from SIT, SIDE, and social presence theory regarding the role of visual cues in intergroup impression formation and how that shapes outcomes of vicarious intergroup contact in mediated settings.

Although SIDE was originally developed to explain how anonymity influences individuals’ own behavior in computer-mediated communication, the framework has also been applied to how observers interpret others’ behavior in mediated environments (e.g., Dai & Walther, 2018). When individuating cues are reduced, observers are more likely to rely on social category information to interpret the behavior of others, whereas the presence of individuating cues encourages person-level processing and individuation. In online contexts, such individuating cues are frequently reflected through variations in visual representation (e.g., profile photos, avatars, or distinct personal images). In this sense, SIDE can inform not only how individuals behave under conditions of anonymity, but also how audiences interpret interactions among others in mediated settings.

Several studies have shown that a lack of individuating representations (e.g., profile photos showing an individual’s face) enhances depersonalization and group identification in online environments. In Sassenberg and Postmes’ (2002) research, participants were tasked with making choices and providing justifications for a choice dilemma questionnaire item within what they believed was a four-person group setting. Subsequently, they received feedback from the other three group members, who, unbeknownst to the participants, were simulated via computer programs. The study found that when the feedback was presented alongside the photos of the other group members, it reduced participants’ perceptions of similarity among these group members, indicating reduced depersonalization and group identification. Similarly, Lee (2004) found that when group identity was made salient by informing participants that they were interacting with students from another university, using the same avatar as others (a lack of individuating representation) increased depersonalization, group identification, and conformity in a group decision task, compared with situations where participants had different avatars from others. In the domain of vicarious interaction, Dai and Shi (2022) found that when observing a supportive interaction in an online health community about seeking professional help for mental stress, female participants were vicariously persuaded by the support provider’s message when the support seeker shared the same gender with them and when the observed interactants had no profile photos.

Given that vicarious intergroup contact relies on the observer’s identification with the observed individual who shares a common group category, the inclusion of profile photos of commenters should dampen identification between the observer and the ingroup member being observed, and thereby diminish the positive effects of the contact. As such, we predict the following hypotheses to reflect an alternative possibility regarding the effect of profile photos on observers’ awareness of relevant group categories in vicarious intergroup contact that runs counter to the effects predicted in H1a–f:

H2: When observing a friendly online interaction between a White and an Asian, the presence of the interactants’ profile photos decreases White observers’ awareness of the relevant social category, thereby weakening the group-based processing that facilitates vicarious intergroup contact described in H1b-f.

Vicarious Intergroup Contact through Interpersonal Mechanisms

Profile Photos, Social Presence, and Effectiveness of Intergroup Contact

While the SIT and SIDE perspectives explain how profile photos may shape vicarious intergroup contact through group-based categorization processes, profile photos may also influence observers’ responses through a more interpersonal mechanism. Specifically, profile photos can increase the perceived social presence of the interactants, which may shape how observers form impressions of them at the individual level (Kim et al., 2020; Kim & Chung, 2022).

Social presence refers to an individual’s perception of the salience of others in the interaction through a medium (K. M. Lee, 2004). In online environments, users’ profile photos constitute important visual cues that affect the perception of social presence (Kear et al., 2014). The presence of users’ profile photos in computer-mediated communication enriches individuals’ social presence by providing social cues, such as human faces or personal contexts (Teubner et al., 2022), and thereby allows individuals to think of themselves as being in real interactions with others (Edwards et al., 2015a).

Empirical research supports the role of profile photos in enhancing perceived social presence in online environments. For example, Feng et al. (2016) found that support seekers with profile photos elicited greater perceived social presence from observers than those without photos. Similarly, Xu (2014) showed that profile photos of online reviewers increased readers’ perceived presence of the reviewer and strengthened emotional connections between them. In an intergroup context, Schumann et al. (2017) demonstrated that the absence of profile photos reduced perceived social presence during online interactions between members of different universities. These findings highlight the role of profile photos in enhancing social presence in online environments.

Greater perceived social presence can, in turn, foster interpersonal attraction and positive affect toward others. Communication theories suggest that richer social cues allow individuals to form warmer impressions and experience greater relational connection with interaction partners (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Walther et al., 2001). Consistent with this view, Kim and Chung (2022) found that greater perceived presence of an outgroup member in narrative contact reduced anxiety about engaging with members of that outgroup.

Although prior research linking social presence to intergroup outcomes has primarily focused on parasocial contact, similar processes may operate in vicarious intergroup contact. When observers perceive an outgroup member in an observed interaction as more socially present, they may feel as if they are engaging with that person more directly (Biocca et al., 2003) and may better understand the outgroup member’s thoughts and emotions (Kim et al., 2020). This enhanced interpersonal connection can foster social attraction toward the individual outgroup member. When observers develop interpersonal attraction toward the outgroup member in an observed interaction, they could generalize their social attraction toward the individual outgroup member to the outgroup as a whole (Pettigrew, 1998) and establish a greater acceptance of the whole outgroup (Pettigrew et al., 2011). As such, we predict that,

H3a-f: When observing a friendly online interaction between a White and an Asian, the presence of the interactants’ profile photos increases White observers’ (a) perceived social presence of the observed interactants, and subsequently, (b) the perceived social attraction to the Asian interactant (an outgroup member), which ultimately increases the positive outcomes of the vicarious intergroup contact, including (c) trust, (d) empathy, (e) positive attitude toward the outgroup, and (f) intention for future contact with the outgroup.

Method

Pilot Study

Because the main study involves presenting participants with some comments under a news article, we conducted a pilot study to select appropriate news articles to contextualize the comments, so as to provide a more rigorous test of the effectiveness of vicarious contact in mitigating the negative impressions that individuals might otherwise develop when exposed to negative news about the outgroup. A total of 98 participants in the United States participated in the pilot study via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) in exchange for US$1.2 per participant. Detailed information about the pilot study can be found in the Supplementary Materials.

Main Study

Design

The main study featured a 2 (Topic: Anti-Asian hate crime vs. HIV stigma) × 2 (Commenters’ photo: present vs. absent) between-subject design. In all conditions, participants observed an interaction between a White commenter and an Asian commenter, such that the intergroup nature of the interaction was held constant rather than manipulated as an additional factor. Given that prior research suggests individuals’ impressions of others online can be influenced by demographic cues such as gender and age (Toma & Hancock, 2010), we matched the commenters’ gender (male vs. female) and age range (young, middle-aged, or older) to those of the participants to reduce potential confounds related to demographic similarity. Because these demographic cues were visible only when profile photos were present, multiple parallel versions of the stimuli were created for the photo-present conditions that varied the commenters’ gender and age. These variations were used solely for stimulus matching and were not treated as experimental factors. Accordingly, the study remains a 2 × 2 between-subjects design, with age and gender controlled through stimulus matching in the photo-present conditions.

Participants read a news article about an outgroup (Asian Americans or HIV-positive individuals) followed by a conversation in the comment section between a White and an Asian commenter. Prior to showing the stimuli, a description emphasized the commenters’ differences—race in the Anti-Asian hate condition or health status in the HIV condition. Profile photos were included or excluded depending on the condition. It should be noted that the inclusion of two issues—anti-Asian hate and HIV stigma—was intended to manipulate the extent to which profile information is diagnostic of the social category on which participants are expected to base social identification rather than as a substantive comparison between two forms of prejudice, as photos are assumed to be more diagnostic of race than health status. Accordingly, differences across topics should be interpreted as reflecting variation in cue diagnosticity rather than differences in the nature or severity of the two stigmatized groups.

Stimuli

The experimental stimuli featured a news article on a news website (Figures 1–2 in Supplementary Materials) and a conversation between an Asian and a White commenter under the news article (Figures 3–5 in Supplementary Materials). We chose a relatively less known news website as the interface to minimize potential confounds caused by the perceived credibility of the news outlet. In the anti-Asian hate conditions, an Asian commenter spoke about his or her negative experience of being discriminated against as an Asian American. In the HIV conditions, an Asian commenter spoke about his or her experience of being discriminated against as an HIV-positive individual. In all conditions, a White commenter replied to this comment by expressing empathy. The races of the commenter and the replier were indicated by their last names (“Yang” for the Asian commenter and “Roberts” for the White commenter).

In conditions where the commenters had profile photos, we created the photos with a synthetic photo software by manipulating the age and the gender of the same face. We started with a baseline Asian or White face, created male and female counterparts of it, and manipulated the age to create young, middle-aged, and old versions of it. This approach ensured that we could, to some extent, control the attractiveness of the commenters in the parallel versions of the stimuli.

It is worth noting that, in our design, group membership was made salient for participants to identify with the commenters across photo-present and photo-absent conditions with the commenters’ last names and the self-disclosure of the commenters (e.g., describing experiences “as an Asian American” or “as an HIV-positive individual”). Thus, profile photos did not determine whether participants could recognize ingroup and outgroup membership; rather, they varied the availability of additional visual cues that could enhance the salience of an already identifiable social category, which addressed our key research question.

Participants

A total of 1,873 participants in the United States participated in our study in exchange for 1.5 US dollars through Amazon Mechanical Turk. After excluding 212 participants for failing to pass three induction check questions, the final sample was 1,661 participants¹. Details of the exclusion process are presented in the Supplementary Materials. Additionally, we conducted supplementary analyses on the complete dataset to ensure that the results were not biased by the exclusions. Among these participants, 50.7% (n = 773) were males. The ethnic groups in the sample included White (87.0%, n = 1,327), African American (5.4%, n = 82), Hispanic (2.5%, n = 38), Asian (3.9%, n = 60), Native American (0.3%, n = 4), Pacific Islander (0.1%, n = 1) and others (0.9%, n = 14). Participants’ age ranged from 19 to 84 (M = 44.73, SD = 17.71). It should be noted that only White participants were recruited for the conditions of Anti-Asian hate crime, so that they could identify with the White commenter in the stimuli based on the salient group category—race. The conditions featuring the other topic, HIV-positive individuals, did include participants of other races.

Procedure

Upon consenting to participate in the study, participants first answered questions about their age range (18 to 34, 35 to 54, 55 or above) and gender. Based on their answers, they were randomly assigned to view an intergroup interaction between a White and an Asian interactant of the same gender and age range. Afterward, participants answered questions regarding their trust, empathy, and attitude toward the outgroup, intention to have contact with the outgroup, perceived awareness of the relevant social category, identification with the ingroup commenter, perceived presence of the commenters, social attraction to the outgroup commenter, and the induction check questions.

Measures

Participants reported their trust toward the outgroup using six items adapted from Noor et al. (2008) (M = 5.22, SD = 1.06, α = .80), empathy toward the outgroup using three items adapted from Swart et al. (2011) (M = 4.96, SD = 1.39, α = .89), attitudes toward the outgroup using six semantic differential items adapted from Weisel and Böhm (2015) (M = 5.20, SD = 1.31, α = .96), and intentions for future contact with the outgroup using items adapted from Gaunt (2011) (M = 5.86, SD = 1.46, α = .97). Awareness of the relevant social category was measured with six items adapted from Harwood et al. (2017) (M = 5.12, SD = 1.34, α = .81), identification with the ingroup commenter was measured using four items from Cameron (2004) (M = 4.35, SD = 1.38, α = .83), perceived presence of the commenters was measured using four items adapted from Kim et al. (2020) (M = 4.02, SD = 1.43, α = .88), and social attraction toward the outgroup commenter was measured using ten items adapted from McCroskey and McCain (1974) (M = 4.80, SD = 1.14, α = .89). All measures used seven-point scales, with higher scores indicating higher levels of the corresponding construct. Full item wordings, response options, and scale details are reported in the Supplementary Materials.

Results

Manipulation Checks

Manipulation Checks Participants correctly recalled the manipulated elements of the stimuli. Chi-square tests confirmed that participants’ recollection of the news topic, commenters’ social identities, and the presence of profile photos were significantly associated with their assigned experimental conditions (all ps < .001). Participants who failed the manipulation checks were excluded from the final analysis, resulting in the removal of 212 cases. Detailed results of the manipulation checks are reported in the Supplementary Materials.

Hypothesis Testing

H1–H2 predicted competing mediation models derived from different theoretical perspectives. To test these models, we conducted structural equation modeling (SEM), which allowed us to estimate the effects of the experimental manipulations on four outcome variables (i.e., trust, empathy, attitudes toward the outgroup, and intention for future contact) that have moderate to high correlations within a single model (Table 1). The model specified the presence of profile photos as the predictor, followed by awareness of the salient social category and identification with the ingroup commenter as serial mediators. The path between photo and awareness was moderated by topic. Parameters were estimated using maximum likelihood with 5,000 bootstrapped samples. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 2.

Table 1.

Bivariate Correlation Among All Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Topic	1
2. Photo	−.049	1
3. Awareness	−.046	.062^*	1
4. Identification	−.117^***	.037	.103^***	1
5. Social presence	−.115^***	.070^*	.231^***	.561^***	1
6. Attraction	−.164^***	.082^**	.016	.581^***	.345^***	1
7. Empathy	−.083^**	.006	.089^**	.419^***	.281^***	.513^***	1
8. Trust	−.086^**	−.010	−.054	.348^***	.071^*	.492^***	.487^***	1
9. Attitude	−.340^***	.016	.013	.443^***	.304^***	.591^***	.489^***	.530^**	1
10. Intention	−.289^***	−.009	−.036	.376^***	.150^***	.598^***	.440^***	.559^***	.702^***	1

p < .05. **p < .05. ***p < .001.

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations of Dependent Variables.

	Race				Health status
	No photo		Photo		No photo		Photo
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Awareness	4.92	1.30	5.27	1.17	5.03	1.42	5.08	1.46
Identification	4.50	1.33	4.53	1.41	4.09	1.37	4.24	1.35
Presence	4.11	1.44	4.21	1.34	3.64	1.45	3.94	1.48
Social Attraction	4.73	1.17	4.82	1.11	4.76	1.18	4.81	1.15
Empathy	4.97	1.36	5.03	1.37	4.97	1.36	5.03	1.37
Trust	5.22	1.11	5.33	1.04	5.22	1.09	5.06	1.07
Attitude	5.58	1.10	5.68	1.11	4.81	1.34	4.72	1.36
Intention	6.28	1.06	6.28	1.08	5.58	1.66	5.45	1.65

Note. Means and standard deviations reflect values after excluding participants who failed the induction check.

The model showed acceptable overall fit (χ² = 125.612, p < .001; RMSEA = .066; CFI = .963; TLI = .876; SRMR = .033). Consistent with H1, the presence of profile photos increased observers’ awareness of the relevant social category (p = .01), which enhanced identification with the ingroup commenter (p = .004) and subsequently predicted higher trust, empathy, positive attitudes toward the outgroup, and intentions for future contact (all ps < .001). Topic moderated the effect of profile photos on category awareness (p = .050): photos increased awareness of race in the anti-Asian hate condition (p = .004) but did not affect awareness of health status in the HIV condition (p = .76). Correspondingly, the serial mediation effects on all four outcomes were significant only in the anti-Asian hate condition (Figure 6 in Supplementary Materials). This pattern is consistent with H1 (SIT) but inconsistent with H2 (SIDE). However, because the moderation effect was observed at the conventional threshold for statistical significance, this finding should be interpreted with appropriate caution. Full path coefficients are reported in the Supplementary Materials.

We also tested the social presence mediation model (H3). The model demonstrated mixed but acceptable fit (χ² = 117.252, p < .001; RMSEA = .096; CFI = .965; TLI = .850; SRMR = .026). The presence of profile photos increased perceived social presence (p = .02), which enhanced social attraction toward the outgroup commenter (p < .001). In turn, social attraction predicted greater trust, empathy, positive attitudes toward the outgroup, and intentions for future contact (all ps < .001). Bootstrapped tests confirmed significant indirect effects through social presence and social attraction, whereas direct effects of photo were not significant (Figure 7 in Supplementary Materials). These results provide partial support for H3. Detailed parameter estimates are provided in the Supplementary Materials.

Integrated Model of Intergroup and Interpersonal Pathways

To examine whether the interpersonal and intergroup mechanisms could operate simultaneously, we estimated an integrated path model that included both (a) the SIT/SIDE pathway, linking the presence of commenters’ profile photos to outcomes through awareness of the activated social category and identification with the ingroup commenter, and (b) the social presence pathway, linking the presence of commenters’ profile photos to outcomes through perceived presence of the commenters and social attraction toward the outgroup commenter. Topic and the photo-by-topic interaction term were included as predictors of awareness, and the four outcomes (empathy, trust, positive attitudes toward the outgroup, and intention to make future contact) were specified as parallel dependent variables.

The integrated model showed poor overall fit, χ²(27) = 933.722, p < .001; RMSEA = .161; CFI = .806; TLI = .626. Inspection of the structural paths suggested that the misfit was largely driven by the lack of support for the social presence mechanism within the integrated model (Figure 8 in Supplementary Materials). Consistent with the SIT-based account, the presence of profile photos increased awareness of the activated social category, which in turn predicted identification with the ingroup commenter and more positive intergroup outcomes. Simple slope tests further indicated that the effect of profile photos on category awareness was significant when the topic concerned anti-Asian hate, but not when the topic concerned HIV, consistent with the cue-diagnosticity argument. In contrast, although profile photos increased perceived presence of the commenters, perceived presence did not significantly predict social attraction toward the outgroup commenter in the integrated model, resulting in non-significant indirect effects through the interpersonal pathway. Detailed estimates of the path coefficients, indirect effects, and moderated mediation tests for the integrated model are reported in the Supplementary Materials.

Discussion

The present study set out to adjudicate between competing theoretical perspectives regarding how visual cues in online interactions shape the outcomes of vicarious intergroup contact. Drawing on SIT, we proposed that profile photos could strengthen vicarious intergroup contact by heightening awareness of the relevant social category and facilitating identification with the ingroup interactant. In contrast, SIDE predicts that individuating cues such as profile photos may dampen group-based processing by shifting attention toward the personal identities of the interactants. In addition to these competing intergroup-based accounts, we also examined whether an interpersonal mechanism, informed by social presence theory, could explain positive responses toward the outgroup member. The findings shed light on impression formation processes in mediated environments that occur at interpersonal and intergroup levels.

SIT vs. SIDE

Our findings provide stronger support for the SIT-based account than for the SIDE-based account regarding the role of visual cues in vicarious intergroup contact. Whereas SIDE predicts that individuating cues such as profile photos should dampen group-based processing, our results showed that profile photos instead heightened awareness of the relevant social category and strengthened identification with the ingroup interactant, but only when the visual cues were diagnostic of the category that structured the interaction.

Guided by SIT, we proposed that visual cues can enhance awareness of an activated group category when they are diagnostic of membership in that category. This prediction was tested by varying the topic of interaction, based on the assumption that facial features are more diagnostic of race than of health status. Consistent with this reasoning, when the conversation addressed anti-Asian hate, the presence of profile photos increased participants’ awareness of race as a salient social category, which in turn fostered identification with the White commenter and produced more positive outcomes toward the Asian commenter. In contrast, when the topic concerned HIV-positive individuals, profile photos neither heightened awareness of health status nor influenced the outcomes of the interaction. These findings corroborate prior research demonstrating that the effects of visual cues on social identification depend on their diagnosticity for the relevant social category (Lick & Johnson, 2014; Martin & Macrae, 2007) and extend this insight to the context of vicarious interactions.

This pattern of results is also consistent with the SIT perspective that category salience is not driven merely by the attention-grabbing properties of social stimuli but also by the social requirements of the situation and the personal and/or social groups perceivers try to achieve in a situation (Oakes, 1987). Observers in our study relied on visual information to infer a salient social category only when doing so was meaningful for interpreting the interaction they observed. When the visual cue was unrelated to the category implicated in the interaction (e.g., facial cues in the HIV condition), it did not shape observers’ perceptions or responses.

Importantly, these findings run counter to propositions derived from the SIDE model, which has often treated facial information as an individuating cue that shifts attention away from group identity and dampens social identification (Dai & Shi, 2022; E.-J. Lee, 2004; Sassenberg & Postmes, 2002). Rather than reducing group-based processing, the presence of profile photos in our study heightened awareness of the relevant social category and facilitated social identification, provided that the visual cues were relevant to the category organizing the interaction. To assess the robustness of this finding, future research should directly measure the perceived relevance of visual stimuli to the salient social category, along with deindividuation, social identification, and group category awareness, in order to more clearly delineate the relationships among these processes.

Interpersonal vs. Intergroup Impressions in Mediated Vicarious Intergroup Contact

In addition to SIT- and SIDE-based intergroup explanations, the study examined an interpersonal account grounded in social presence theory, whereby profile photos enhance perceived presence, fostering interpersonal attraction and, consequently, more positive outgroup evaluations. Scholars of computer-mediated communication have debated whether group identification and interpersonal perceptions can meaningfully coexist in intergroup contact (Lee, 2004; Sassenberg & Postmes, 2002; Walther & Carr, 2010). This study provided evidence for a group identification-based mechanism in fostering positive impressions of an outgroup during vicarious intergroup contact.

Additional analysis of the integrated model suggests that the interpersonal pathway did not co-occur with the intergroup pathway. Although the separate social presence model indicated that profile photos increased perceived social presence and, through social attraction, were associated with more positive responses toward the outgroup, this pathway did not remain supported when examined simultaneously with the intergroup pathway. This pattern suggests that, in the present context, group-based identification processes provided the more robust account of how profile photos shaped observers’ responses to the interaction.

The failure of the interpersonal pathway to remain significant in the integrated model is theoretically noteworthy because it suggests that, in the present context, intergroup identification processes dominated impression formation more strongly than interpersonal processes. This pattern is broadly consistent with classic SIT arguments that salient group categorizations can suppress attention to individuating information (Tajfel, 1974). At the same time, the present findings should not be interpreted as definitive evidence that interpersonal and intergroup processes cannot co-occur in mediated intergroup contact. Notably, the communication context constructed in the present study may have privileged group-level processing over interpersonal impression formation through the topic of interaction, explicit identity disclosures, and surnames clearly reflecting racial identities. In this regard, the findings may better be interpreted as evidence that when category membership is made highly salient and visually diagnostic, intergroup mechanisms can become the dominant pathway through which profile photos shape vicarious contact outcomes. Future research should examine the conditions under which interpersonal and intergroup processes may more robustly coexist in mediated intergroup contact. For instance, co-occurrence may be more likely in communication settings where group boundaries are present but less prominent, such as online communities in which interactants discuss everyday experiences rather than intergroup conflict itself. Interpersonal and intergroup processes may also operate more simultaneously when interactants disclose richer personal information beyond minimal profile cues, such as self-descriptions and narratives about personal experiences. Repeated interactions over time might also allow observers to form more individuated impressions while remaining aware of group membership.

It should be noted that our findings regarding the effect of profile photos on social presence differ from Kim and Lim (2022), who did not observe an effect of photographs on social presence in narrative-based parasocial contact. One explanation could be the specific contexts within which the effect of profile photos was examined in the two studies. In Kim and Lim’s study, readers were granted explicit access to a protagonist’s inner thoughts and emotions through extended narratives written in either the first-person or third-person perspective. Under such conditions, a photograph may add little incremental information once a vivid mental representation of the character has already been formed. In contrast, the present study examined vicarious contact through observed interaction, where participants could only infer the observed interactants’ subjectivity from their observable communication. In our context, profile photos may play a more consequential role by helping anchor the interactants as real social actors.

Implications for Intergroup Contact

In addition to clarifying and integrating theoretical inconsistencies across impression formation theories, this study offers meaningful contributions to the literature on intergroup contact. First, the study adds to existing research on indirect intergroup contact by focusing on vicarious contact in masspersonal communication contexts (O’Sullivan & Carr, 2018), which has received less empirical attention compared to imagined or parasocial contact. In particular, the study provides evidence that observing real-time intergroup exchanges in public digital spaces can foster more positive outgroup responses through an intergroup mechanism grounded in category awareness and ingroup identification. Second, the study identifies cue diagnosticity as a key condition under which visual cues facilitate vicarious intergroup contact. Specifically, profile photos enhanced positive outcomes only when they clearly conveyed the group distinction central to the interaction.

According to the Contact Hypothesis, individuals first develop interpersonal attraction toward an outgroup member and then generalize this positive impression to the entire outgroup (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998). However, achieving this generalization step is challenging (White et al., 2021). For it to occur, individuals must recognize that the outgroup member they are drawn to belongs to the outgroup (Hewstone & Brown, 1986; Walther & Carr, 2010). Our findings suggest that visual cues are most likely to support this generalization process when they make the relevant group distinction more perceptually meaningful. Specifically, in the present study, profile photos facilitated more positive outgroup responses not simply by increasing the vividness of the interaction, but by heightening awareness of the category that structured the interaction and strengthening identification with the ingroup commenter.

Moreover, these findings extend the literature on indirect intergroup contact (Harwood, 2010) by clarifying how the two dimensions of the Contact Space—richness and self-involvement—relate to one another in mediated environments. Increasing visual richness of the observed actors in vicarious intergroup contact (e.g., presenting the profile photos of them) appears to enhance observers’ self-involvement only when the added cues clearly signal the group difference that forms the basis of group identification in the given context. That is, observers see the ingroup interactant as someone similar to themselves only when the added cues clearly signal the group difference that forms the basis of group identification in the given context. In the anti-Asian context, profile photos made the racial difference between the two interactants more immediately recognizable, which helped participants register race as central to the interaction and, in turn, strengthened their sense of connection with the White commenter. In contrast, when the discussion concerned HIV stigma, the profile photos conveyed racial information but did not provide any visible indication of HIV status. As a result, adding photos did not meaningfully increase participants’ awareness of the group distinction relevant to the conversation or enhance identification on that basis. These findings indicate that visual richness alone does not guarantee stronger vicarious intergroup contact effects. When visual cues do not correspond to the group difference that defines the interaction, they may make the exchange more vivid without reinforcing the psychological link needed for positive impressions to extend beyond the individual case. Future research should examine how narrative disclosure or explicit identity markers operate alongside visual cues to strengthen this process, particularly in contexts where profile photos do not themselves communicate the relevant group difference.

Practical Implications

The findings offer insights for communication practices aimed at shaping impressions toward outgroups. Our findings suggest that vicarious intergroup contact can be leveraged in communication campaigns by depicting positive exchanges between groups, particularly when visual cues clearly signal group membership. Including profile photos or other category-relevant visual elements may enhance the effectiveness of such interventions by strengthening group-based identification processes. In this regard, future research may also examine how technological affordances influence or interact with established psychological mechanisms of prejudice reduction, such as intergroup anxiety, empathy, and perceived self-efficacy.

Limitations

Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the findings are most directly applicable to individuals who attend to and recognize social identity cues in online interactions. In more naturalistic online environments, where users often engage with content more superficially, the effects of such cues may be weaker. Second, although the study assumed that facial features are more diagnostic of race than health status, it did not directly measure cue diagnosticity, category accessibility, or deindividuation. Future research should assess these processes more directly and examine other visual cues that may signal less visible social identities. Relatedly, the study did not manipulate visual cues that could increase the diagnosticity of HIV status. Future work may examine whether other visual signals associated with HIV-related identities produce similar effects. Third, the study relied on a U.S. sample and matched participants and interactants on demographic characteristics for experimental control. Future research should examine more diverse populations and more complex forms of social identification involving multiple, overlapping social categories (Crisp & Hewstone, 2001). Fourth, measuring awareness of the relevant social category may itself have heightened participants’ attention to group differences. Future work should employ less obtrusive measures of category awareness. Fifth, the name “Dawn,” which was used for the White male commenter, may have been perceived by some participants as a female name, potentially introducing additional error variance into the data. Finally, the current research is situated in an online news-comment environment, inviting future research to test the generalizability of the findings across other intergroup issues, communication settings, and more nuanced measures of intergroup attitudes.

Conclusion

This study clarifies how profile photos shape vicarious intergroup contact by adjudicating among alternative theoretical explanations of their effects. The results showed that profile photos facilitated positive outgroup responses by enhancing category awareness and ingroup identification when they were diagnostic of the relevant social category. The findings highlight the importance of cue diagnosticity in determining when visual richness enhances intergroup contact effects and underscore the potential of mediated environments to support prejudice reduction.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-crx-10.1177_00936502261466759 – Supplemental material for Do Profile Photos Enhance Vicarious Intergroup Contact? Testing Theoretical Perspectives from Social Identity, the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE), and Social Presence

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-crx-10.1177_00936502261466759 for Do Profile Photos Enhance Vicarious Intergroup Contact? Testing Theoretical Perspectives from Social Identity, the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE), and Social Presence by Yue (Nancy) Dai, Lunrui Fu and Wufan Jia in Communication Research

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Yue (Nancy) Dai

Lunrui Fu

Wufan Jia

Ethical Considerations

The Ethics Review Committee at City University of Hong Kong approved our study (approval: H002901) on March 31, 2022.

Informed Consent

Respondents gave written consent for review and signature before starting the study.

Consent to Participate

Participants were provided with a written consent form that explained the content of the research, the voluntary nature of their participation, their compensation in exchange for their participation, the potential risks associated with their participation, as well as the contact information of the corresponding author if they want to raise questions or provide comments on the research. All participants included in the research consented to their participation.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by CityU Strategic Interdisciplinary Research Grant (SIRG; Project No. 7020034).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Yue (Nancy) Dai (PhD, Michigan State University) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Media and Communication at City University of Hong Kong. Her research examines impression formation and social influence in technology-mediated communication, with a particular focus on how communication technologies shape information processing, judgments of both human and AI communicators, intergroup relations, and the ways people seek, evaluate, verify, and form attitudes toward information. Her current research explores AI for companionship and social support, intergroup dynamics in information processing and prejudice reduction, and the opportunities and risks of human–AI communication.

Lunrui Fu (PhD, City University of Hong Kong, 2024) is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the School of Journalism and Communication at Tsinghua University. His research interests focus on enhancing public understanding and reducing health and environmental risks in mediated environments, with a particular emphasis on health communication, environmental communication, and human-AI interaction. His prior works have been published in International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Internet Research, Journal of Risk Research, Health Communication, and Environment Communication.

Wufan Jia (PhD, City University of Hong Kong) is a Research Fellow at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University. Her research focuses on the intersection of health and communication technology, investigating how communication mediated by emerging technologies shapes health behaviors and mental well-being.

References

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Biocca

Harms

Burgoon

J. K.

(2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 456–480. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761270

Cameron

J. E.

(2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3(3), 239–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000047

Crisp

R. J.

Hewstone

(2001). Multiple categorization and implicit intergroup bias: Differential category dominance and the positive–negative asymmetry effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.31

Daft

R. L.

Lengel

R. H.

(1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554

Dai

Shi

(2022). Vicarious interactions in online support communities: The roles of visual anonymity and social identification. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 27(3), zmac006. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac006

Dai

Walther

J. B.

(2018). Vicariously experiencing parasocial intimacy with public figures through observations of interactions on social media. Human Communication Research, 44(3), 322–342. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqy003

Diener

(1979). Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(7), 1160–1171. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.7.1160

Edwards

Stoll

Faculak

Karman

(2015). Social presence on LinkedIn: Perceived credibility and interpersonal attractiveness based on user profile picture. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 5(4), 102–115. https://doi.org/10.29333/ojcmt/2528

10.

Feng

(2016). Is a profile worth a thousand words? How online support-seeker’s profile features may influence the quality of received support messages. Communication Research, 43(2), 253–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213510942

11.

Gaunt

(2011). Effects of intergroup conflict and social contact on prejudice: The mediating role of stereotypes and evaluations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(6), 1340–1355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00762.x

12.

Gover

A. R.

Harper

S. B.

Langton

(2020). Anti-Asian hate crime during the COVID-19 pandemic: Exploring the reproduction of inequality. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 647–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09545-1

13.

Han

Riddell

J. R.

Piquero

A. R.

(2022). Anti-Asian American hate crimes spike during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(3–4), 3513–3533. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221107056

14.

Harwood

(2010). The contact space: A novel framework for intergroup contact research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09359520

15.

Harwood

(2020). Social identity theory. In The international encyclopedia of media psychology (pp. 1–7). American Cancer Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0153

16.

Harwood

Joyce

Chen

C.-Y.

Paolini

Xiang

Rubin

(2017). Effects of past and present intergroup communication on perceived fit of an outgroup member and desire for future intergroup contact. Communication Research, 44(4), 530–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214565926

17.

Hewstone

Brown

(1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the ‘contact hypothesis’. In Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1–44). Basil Blackwell.

18.

Hogg

M. A.

(2006). Social identity theory. In Burke

P. J.

(Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 111–136). Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804768047-008

19.

Hogg

M. A.

Reid

S. A.

(2006). Social identity, Self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x

20.

Jia

Dai

Zuo

(2026). How user comments affect news readers’ outgroup prejudice: Vicarious intergroup contact and the moderating role of direct intergroup contact. Journalism, 27(4), 1166–1184. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241312596

21.

Kear

Chetwynd

Jefferis

(2014). Social presence in online learning communities: The role of personal profiles. Research in Learning Technology, 22. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.19710

22.

Kim

Chung

(2022). The role of contact richness in mediated intergroup contact: A test of the contact space framework. Mass Communication and Society, 25(3), 311–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2021.1961158

23.

Kim

H. K.

Wojcieszak

Igartua

J.-J.

Lim

C. M.

(2020). The presence of the protagonist: Explaining narrative perspective effects through social presence. Media Psychology, 23(6), 891–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2019.1665548

24.

Kim

Lim

(2022). Meeting of minds: Narratives as a tool to reduce prejudice toward stigmatized group members. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(6), 1478–1495. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211012783

25.

Kleinfeld

(2023). Polarization, democracy, and political violence in the United States: What the research says. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/09/05/polarization-democracy-and-political-violence-in-united-states-what-research-says-pub-90457

26.

Lee

E.-J.

(2004). Effects of visual representation on social influence in computer-mediated communication experimental tests of the social identity model of deindividuation effects. Human Communication Research, 30(2), 234–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00732.x

27.

Lee

E.-J.

(2006). When and how does depersonalization increase conformity to group norms in computer-mediated communication? Communication Research, 33(6), 423–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650206293248

28.

Lee

K. M.

(2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00302.x

29.

Lick

D. J.

Johnson

K. L.

(2014). “You can’t tell just by looking!”: Beliefs in the diagnosticity of visual cues explain response biases in social categorization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(11), 1494–1506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214549323

30.

Mackie

D. M.

Smith

E. R.

(1998). Intergroup relations: Insights from a theoretically integrative approach. Psychological Review, 105(3), 499–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.3.499

31.

Martin

Macrae

C. N.

(2007). A face with a cue: Exploring the inevitability of person categorization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(5), 806–816. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.445

32.

Mazziotta

Mummendey

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

33.

McCroskey

J. C.

McCain

T. A.

(1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41(3), 261–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637757409375845

34.

Noor

James Brown

Prentice

(2008). Precursors and mediators of intergroup reconciliation in Northern Ireland: A new model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(3), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X238751

35.

Oakes

P. J.

(1987). The salience of social categories. In Turner

J. C.

(Ed.), Rediscovering the social group (pp. 117–141). Basil Blackwell.

36.

O’Sullivan

P. B.

Carr

C. T.

(2018). Masspersonal communication: A model bridging the mass-interpersonal divide. New Media & Society, 20(3), 1161–1180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686104

37.

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

38.

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

39.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

Wagner

Christ

(2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001

40.

Postmes

Spears

Lea

(2002). Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.6.1.3

41.

Reicher

S. D.

Spears

Postmes

(1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6(1), 161–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779443000049

42.

Sassenberg

Postmes

(2002). Cognitive and strategic processes in small groups: Effects of anonymity of the self and anonymity of the group on social influence. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(Pt 3), 463–480. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466602760344313

43.

Schumann

Klein

Douglas

Hewstone

(2017). When is computer-mediated intergroup contact most promising? Examining the effect of out-group members’ anonymity on prejudice. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.006

44.

Spears

Lea

Postmes

Wolbert

(2011). A SIDE look at computer-mediated interaction: Power and the gender divide. In Strategic uses of social technology: An interactive perspective of social psychology (pp. 16–39). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139042802.002

45.

Spears

Postmes

(2015). Group identity, social influence, and collective action online: Extensions and applications of the SIDE model. In Sundar

S. S.

(Ed.), The handbook of the psychology of communication technology (1st ed., pp. 23–46). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118426456.ch2

46.

Stets

J. E.

Burke

P. J.

(2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695870

47.

Swart

Hewstone

Christ

Voci

(2011). Affective mediators of intergroup contact: A three-wave longitudinal study in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1221–1238. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024450

48.

Tajfel

(1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204

49.

Teubner

Adam

Camacho

Hassanein

(2022). What you see is what you g(u)e(s)t: How profile photos and profile information drive providers’ expectations of social reward in co-usage sharing. Information Systems Management, 39(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2020.1871533

50.

Ruiz

N. G.

Tian

(2023, November 30). Asian Americans and discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2023/11/30/asian-americans-and-discrimination-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

51.

Toma

C. L.

Hancock

J. T.

(2010). Looks and lies: The role of physical attractiveness in online dating self-presentation and deception. Communication Research, 37(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209356437

52.

Turner

J. C.

Hogg

M. A.

Oakes

P. J.

Reicher

S. D.

Wetherell

M. S.

(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (Vol. X). Basil Blackwell.

53.

Vezzali

Crisp

R. J.

Stathi

Giovannini

(2014). Imagined intergroup contact facilitates intercultural communication for college students on academic exchange programs. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214527853

54.

Vezzali

Hewstone

Capozza

Giovannini

Wölfer

(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

55.

Vezzali

Stathi

Crisp

R. J.

Capozza

(2015). Comparing direct and imagined intergroup contact among children: Effects on outgroup stereotypes and helping intentions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 49, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.06.009

56.

Walther

J. B.

Slovacek

C. L.

Tidwell

L. C.

(2001). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Photographic images in long-term and short-term computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 28(1), 105–134. https://doi-org.ezproxy.cityu.edu.hk/10.1177/009365001028001004

57.

Walther

Carr

(2010). Internet interaction and intergroup dynamics: Problems and solutions in computer-mediated communication. In The dynamics of intergroup communication (pp. 209–220). Peter Lang.

58.

Weisel

Böhm

(2015). “Ingroup love” and “outgroup hate” in intergroup conflict between natural groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.04.008

59.

White

F. A.

Borinca

Vezzali

Reynolds

K. J.

Lyshol

J. K. B.

Verrelli

Falomir-Pichastor

J. M.

(2021). Beyond direct contact: The theoretical and societal relevance of indirect contact for improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12400

60.

Wong

N. C. H.

Massey

Z. B.

Barbarti

J. L.

Bessarabova

Banas

J. A.

(2022). Theorizing prejudice reduction via mediated intergroup contact: Extending the intergroup contact theory to media contexts. Journal of Media Psychology, 34(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000338

61.

Wright

S. C.

Aron

McLaughlin-Volpe

Ropp

S. A.

(1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73

62.

(2014). Should I trust him? The effects of reviewer profile characteristics on eWOM credibility. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.027

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

2.20 MB