The “hidden side” of intergroup contact: The role of perceived social structure in motivating support for social change among the disadvantaged and the advantaged

Abstract

Intergroup contact is a powerful prejudice-reduction strategy, but research has also revealed its undesirable effects among the disadvantaged. To unravel these counterintuitive effects, we examine the explanatory role of sociostructural factors (permeability of group boundaries as well as stability and legitimacy of inequality) in the link between intergroup contact and both perceived group discrimination against the disadvantaged and support for collective action. We relied on quasirepresentative or nationwide samples of immigrants (N = 1,539) and host nationals (N = 838), who participated in two survey-based studies. Among the disadvantaged, contact was associated with less awareness of group discrimination and collective action intentions via more perceptions of permeability and/or stability. Among the advantaged, intergroup contact was associated with greater awareness of group discrimination and collective action intentions (primarily) via perceived illegitimacy of existing status disparities. Our findings elucidate the importance of structural factors in understanding the implications of intergroup contact in addressing inequality and inequity, as well as designing contact-based interventions.

Keywords

collective action immigration intergroup contact legitimacy of inequality perceived group discrimination permeability of group boundaries social change motivations stability structural factors

The role of intergroup contact for fostering positive intergroup relations has been well demonstrated (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), but predominantly among historically advantaged groups (Dovidio et al., 2017). Among the disadvantaged, contact has also been linked to lower prejudice (e.g., Hayward et al., 2017; Vezzali et al., 2010, 2017), in addition to bringing positive health-related outcomes (Bagci & Turnuklu, 2019; Bagci et al., 2018). Its broader structural benefits have, however, been called into question because of its undesirable “sedative” effects among members of socially disadvantaged groups (Dixon et al., 2010, 2012, 2017; MacInnis & Hodson, 2019; Tausch & Becker, 2012; Wright & Lubensky, 2009). More specifically, across 69 countries around the world, positive contact was predictive of greater social change motivation among the advantaged, but the opposite was true for the disadvantaged (Hässler et al., 2020), in line with earlier research from South Africa (Dixon et al., 2007). It has been also shown that harmonious contact is linked with lower awareness of inequality (Dixon et al., 2010; Saguy & Chernyak-Hai, 2012; Saguy et al., 2009; Tausch et al., 2009).

The question that remains open is why contact is associated with lower motivation for social change or lower awareness of group inequality among the disadvantaged, whereas, in contrast, the reverse is the case among the advantaged. Beliefs about the existing social structure—the permeability of group boundaries, and the stability and legitimacy of group status differences— are known factors that drive motivations for social change (Ellemers, 1993; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Disadvantaged group members are willing to collectively mobilize when they perceive the existing social structure as impermeable (i.e., there are barriers to achieving higher social status) and illegitimate (i.e., the existing distribution of resources and power is unfair), but also unstable (i.e., possible to challenge and transform). Yet, the experience of intergroup contact between members of socially disadvantaged groups and members of advantaged groups might have a differential relationship with the perception of the social structure in which intergroup relations are embedded. Specifically, for the advantaged, exposure to the challenging social reality experienced by the disadvantaged can help them acknowledge the unjust nature of existing group barriers. They might also feel empowered to address the status quo. Conversely, for the disadvantaged, opportunities for high-quality relationships with those in a more privileged social position might create a belief in individual opportunities to improve one’s social status. In parallel, this may lead disadvantaged individuals to justify group inequality by accepting the notion that “this is the way things are” (i.e., existing differences are unchangeable).

To the best of our knowledge, previous research addressing the role of perceived social structure in the link between contact and perceptions of group inequality or support for collective action against it has mostly focused on a single explanatory mechanism (e.g., beliefs in meritocracy; Sengupta & Sibley, 2013). Only one study—which utilized a small sample of immigrant high school students—has simultaneously considered the three classic dimensions representing the way people perceive existing intergroup relations—permeability, legitimacy, and stability (Di Bernardo et al., 2021). The authors found that intergroup contact was associated with greater support for social change via lower perceptions of legitimacy among both the advantaged and the disadvantaged, but they did not detect the effects of contact on collective action intentions through permeability or stability. In this research, we further extend this work by examining the explanatory role of perceived social structure (i.e., perceived permeability, stability, and legitimacy) in the relationship between intergroup contact and support for social change, including perceived group discrimination and collective action intentions. We use diverse samples of disadvantaged (immigrants) and advantaged. We use diverse samples of disadvantaged (immigrants) and advantaged (host nationals) people from the Basque Country region (Study 1) and Spain (Study 2). We draw upon substantial in-person interview data collected in 2010, during a peak period of immigration trends in Spain (Study 1), as well as data from an online community sample collected in 2021, within the context of a global pandemic (Study 2).

The Psychology of Social Change: The Disadvantaged Group’s Perspective

In this work, we propose that perceptions of social structure play a pivotal role in understanding the underlying mechanisms linking intergroup contact and support for social change. According to social identity theory (SIT), there are three key and inseparable structural elements that determine motivations for seeking social change among disadvantaged group members (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; for a review, see Ellemers, 1993): the permeability of group boundaries, and the legitimacy and stability of status differences. Disadvantaged individuals will perceive group boundaries as permeable when there is a possibility of moving from one group to another. They will view status differences as legitimate when there is a shared perception that the inequalities between the disadvantaged ingroup and the advantaged outgroup are fair, and as stable when they perceive their ingroup’s situation as impossible to change.

Further, SIT posits that members of disadvantaged groups who perceive group boundaries as permeable may choose to reject social change as an efficient strategy to address their underprivileged status. This is because open group boundaries offer them an opportunity to distance themselves from their disadvantaged ingroup and instead focus on improving their social position through individual efforts (Blair & Jost, 2003; Ellemers, 1993; Ellemers et al., 1988, 1993; Mummendey et al., 1999; Scheifele et al., 2021; Stott & Drury, 2004; Verkuyten & Reijerse, 2008; Wright & Taylor, 1998). Second, detachment from one’s own stigmatized identity may also serve as the basis for justifying status differences (Tajfel, 1975). That is, if disadvantaged group members do not perceive the existing inequality as unfair, they lack a reason to make a collective effort to eradicate it. Empirical evidence corroborates that perceived legitimacy of group status asymmetry between the ingroup and the outgroup is linked to lower motivation to engage in collective action among the disadvantaged (e.g., Ellemers & Barreto, 2009; Jetten et al., 2011; Saguy & Dovidio, 2013; Scheifele et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 2020; Wright & Lubensky, 2009) and to a greater inclination towards individual mobility (Mummendey et al., 1999; Verkuyten & Reijerse, 2008). Finally, disengagement from collective action is more likely when the disadvantaged additionally believe that the existing system is stable and thus difficult to change (Becker, 2012; Ellemers, 1993; Ellemers et al., 1988, 1993; Mummendey et al., 1999; Saguy & Dovidio, 2013). Altogether, SIT suggests that disadvantaged group members are less motivated to pursue change (and less cognizant of discrimination) when they perceive group boundaries as permeable, and the hierarchy as either legitimate or stable. However, it is worth noting that recognizing the existing social structure as stable might also involve heightened awareness of existing inequality. Thus, stability could be also positively linked to perceived group discrimination or even support for social change.

Further, these specific perceptions of social hierarchy may stem from the experience of asymmetric intergroup contact (Bikmen, 2011). However, there is little understanding of the explanatory role of perceived sociostructural relations in the well-established connection between intergroup contact and support for social change among members of disadvantaged groups (Hässler et al., 2020). The existing evidence regarding the mechanisms underlying this link is based on a single study and is not entirely conclusive (see Di Bernardo et al., 2021). Among the disadvantaged, contact might divert attention away from an unequal distribution of power, leading to differential implications among the advantaged and the disadvantaged (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005). This is because cultivating relationships with individuals who posse more power creates common ground between the groups involved in the contact, which can blur perceptions of intergroup differences and conflicting social identities. In other words, when disadvantaged group members feel less connected to their original group and more connected to a common group category, they may overlook group boundaries and perceive the system as “open” (Saguy, 2018).

It is thus reasonable to expect that the more positive relationships—and in particular friendships—that disadvantaged individuals have with members of the advantaged group, the more they will think that group boundaries are open for them (i.e., permeable) and that anyone who works hard can achieve higher status, aligning with the idea of the “illusion of meritocracy” (see Ellemers & Barreto, 2009). Imagine Majid, a Moroccan immigrant who has secured a good job at a company where he has developed several local friendships. Majid feels as if he is traversing a “privilege bubble”, which leads him believe that group barriers do not exist. Empirical evidence supports this notion, showing that contact with the advantaged group is associated with perceiving the social system as permeable (Tausch et al., 2015), and that meritocracy beliefs explain the effects of contact with the privileged group on opposition to equality-oriented policies (Sengupta & Sibley, 2013). Although data collected among immigrant adolescents do not support this relationship and the explanatory mechanism via perceived permeability in a more complex model, there still is a noteworthy positive correlation between the two variables in a relatively small sample (r = .17), pointing in the expected direction (Di Bernardo et al., 2021).

Consistent with the idea that intergroup contact with the advantaged might turn attention away from existing inequities (e.g., Dixon et al., 2010), pleasant interactions with the advantaged should also be linked with the impression that the privileged group treats members of one’s own group—or at least oneself—fairly. Following the example of the “privilege bubble”, Majid might think that the situation is actually not that challenging for people like him. Building on positive experiences, disadvantaged individuals may engage more in system justification, aligning with existing empirical research (Cheung et al., 2011; Durrheim et al., 2014; Saguy & Chernyak-Hai, 2012; Saguy et al., 2009). Consequently, positive contact with members of privileged groups should be associated with perceiving the social system as legitimate, and thus with less support for social change. However, in Di Bernardo et al.’s (2021) study, a negative relationship was found between the contact immigrants had with host nationals and perceived legitimacy (i.e., they perceived more illegitimacy of the status differences). Therefore, we believe this relationship should be further examined.

In regard to perceiving group status differences as stable, two potential mechanisms can be considered. Firstly, it is possible that the more positive social relationships members of the disadvantaged group have with those in a more advantaged social position, the more they realize the difficulty of changing the status quo. Through contact, they become aware that those belonging to advantaged groups are motivated to maintain the existing social hierarchy that benefits them (Saguy et al., 2008; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Hence, accessing the “bubble of privilege” increases the awareness that the “bubble” will never burst since those inside are strongly motivated to safeguard their privileged position. But, if disadvantaged individuals become less aware of inequality as a result of contact, they are also less likely to recognize the stability of existing power relations (Saguy 2018; Saguy et al., 2009). However, existing research does not support the explanatory role of perceptions of stability (Di Bernardo et al., 2021), thus warranting further investigation.

In conclusion, we hypothesized that, among the disadvantaged, contact with members of the privileged group would be associated with lower perceptions of group discrimination and collective action intentions (H1), and this link would be explained by higher perceptions of permeability and legitimacy of the existing social structure (H2a). Regarding the perceived stability of intergroup relations, we predicted a negative link with perceived group discrimination and collective action intentions among the disadvantaged, but we did not set specific predictions regarding the association between contact and stability perceptions, exploring the direction of this link (H2b). The hypotheses for the disadvantaged group are depicted in Figure 1A.

The Psychology of Social Change: The Advantaged Group’s Perspective

Relative to the extensive research on collective action among the disadvantaged (e.g., van Zomeren et al., 2004, 2008), there has been little work on motivation for social change on the part of advantaged groups (but see Kutlaca et al., 2020; Louis et al., 2019; Radke et al., 2020), although interest in this question is not completely new (e.g., Leach et al., 2002, 2006; Saguy et al., 2008). Recent empirical data has shown that, among the advantaged, intergroup contact is one of the central predictors of support for collective efforts against social inequality (Hässler et al., 2020), yet the mechanisms underlying this link remain unexplored.

One of the most powerful motivations to either deny or challenge existing inequality is perceiving one’s advantage as fair or illegitimate, respectively (Jost et al., 2008; Leach et al., 2006). Empirical evidence confirms that privileged individuals need to recognize unfairness and experience feelings of anger or even guilt over injustice in order to be motivated to act on behalf of a disadvantaged group (e.g., Iyer & Ryan, 2009; Leach et al., 2006, 2007; Saguy & Dovidio, 2013; Saguy et al., 2013; Selvanathan et al., 2018).

The role of perceived stability and permeability of the existing social structure as drivers of ally collective action remains relatively less understood. Concerning the permeability of social structure, the relative advantage framework posits that perceiving disadvantage as a result of personal choices and individual responsibility should be linked with reduced sympathy and therefore solidarity with disadvantaged groups (Leach et al., 2002). It is therefore possible to anticipate that the privileged will be willing to amend social inequality to the extent they perceive group boundaries as impermeable, which implies limited opportunities for the disadvantaged to improve their status.

Scholars have also suggested that the instability of the social structure can evoke feelings of threat among the advantaged, leading to defensive or conciliatory actions in response to social change (Leach et al., 2002; Louis et al., 2019). Specifically, when the advantaged recognize their position as prone to change, they may believe they need to compete with the disadvantaged to secure their privileged status, resulting in disapproval of collective action against the existing hierarchy (Leach et al., 2002). Experimental studies (Saguy & Dovidio, 2013) and correlational data (Di Bernardo et al., 2021) corroborate that privileged groups are more willing to address inequality when they discern the power structure is stable. Nevertheless, in the survey-based research by Di Bernardo et al. (2021), this relationship disappeared after accounting for sense of injustice and permeability. However, if we assume that viewing intergroup relations as resistant to change goes along with becoming aware of existing structural inequality (Saguy, 2018), it is also possible to expect that perceived instability of intergroup relations may encourage the advantaged to address the unfair social reality.

Whereas intergroup contact may distract the disadvantaged from inequality and thus have sedative effects on them, the mobilizing effect of positive contact to support social change among the advantaged (Hässler et al., 2020) could occur due to increased awareness of inequality. For instance, the presence of immigrant friends, such as in the case of Maria, a Spanish citizen, can heighten her awareness of the “privilege bubble” she lives in, as these social relationships expose her to the challenges faced by her less privileged friends on a daily basis. Hence, if contact with those in a lower social position makes the advantaged more cognizant of the existing social system’s inequality, it should be linked to a recognition that the unequal status hierarchy is not fair. Supporting this claim, Di Bernardo et al.’s study (2021) found that contact with the disadvantaged was associated with perceiving social disparities as illegitimate among the advantaged, and thus with more support for collective action.

It is also possible to expect that contact with the disadvantaged would be linked with stronger beliefs in the impermeability of group boundaries. To our knowledge, only Di Bernardo et al. (2021) have empirically examined this link, revealing that contact with the disadvantaged is in fact associated with more perceptions of permeability. However, the measurement of permeability in this study may have been confounded with perceptions of stability, because it referred to the improvement of immigrants’ status (“How easy is it for immigrant individuals to improve their status in Italian society?”). There is therefore a necessity for more research inspecting the link between contact and perceptions of the social system as permeable.

Finally, engaging in repeated interactions with members of a disadvantaged group should be associated with heightened awareness of the potential for challenging the social system. For example, Maria, who has immigrant friends, firmly believes that “change is possible” if people like her become allies. However, a recent empirical study offers contrasting results: Quality and quantity of contact were linked with more perceptions of stability among the advantaged (Di Bernardo et al., 2021). Nevertheless, these perceptions did not serve as an explanatory mechanism for the mobilizing effects of contact with the disadvantaged. Consequently, there is a need for research clarifying the mechanisms that underlie the link between contact and awareness of existing inequality and support for collective action.

To summarize, we predicted that, among the advantaged, contact with members of a less privileged group would be associated with greater awareness of group discrimination and collective action intentions (H3). We further hypothesized that this link would be explained by lower perceptions of permeability and legitimacy of the existing social structure (H4a). Regarding the explanatory role of the perceived stability of intergroup relations, we approached it in an exploratory way (H4b). That is, we did not have specific predictions regarding the direction of the link between contact, stability, and perceived group discrimination or collective action intentions. These hypotheses are visually represented in Figure 2A, illustrating the proposed relationships for the advantaged group.

Present Research and Context

We analyzed the explanatory role of perceived sociostructural conditions (i.e., permeability, stability, and legitimacy) in the link between intergroup contact and awareness of existing inequality (i.e., perceived group discrimination), as well as in the link between contact and collective action intentions among both the privileged (i.e., host nationals) and the unprivileged (i.e., immigrants). Considering that, as of 2022, there were 281 million international migrants in the world (International Organization for Migration, 2022), it is important to better understand why immigrants are willing or unwilling to collectively act on behalf of their ingroup, because such actions can potentially enhance their quality of life. Unlike dominant groups who may have more of a choice to establish contact with members of socially disadvantaged groups, immigrants are often expected to do so with members of the mainstream society (i.e., the advantaged group) as part of their integration into the host culture. Despite these expectations, they do not always have opportunities for such contact nor the possibility of exactly choosing individuals from the mainstream society with whom they would like to develop a meaningful relationship.

Study 1

Study 1 was based on survey data collected between December 2009 and February 2010 in the Basque Country in collaboration with the Basque Observatory of Immigration. At the time of data collection, immigrants accounted for 12% of the population in Spain as a whole and 6.4% in the Basque Country (Ikuspegi – Basque Observatory of Immigration 2020). This research was a part of a large-scale survey on immigrants’ social identity processes, integration, and well-being. Data, R code, and survey materials, as well as supplemental online material (SOM) with additional information about both studies are available at the Open Science Framework (OSF) page (https://osf.io/z6vcy/).

Method

Participants

The disadvantaged group (immigrants)

We recruited 1,250 foreign-born adult participants from immigrant backgrounds who had lived in the Basque Country for at least 6 months¹ (M_age = 33.22 years, SD = 9.44, range: 18–64 years; 44.3% female). The participants were born in Bolivia, Colombia, Morocco, Romania, or sub-Saharan African countries (with 250 participants in each group). Participants’ average time of residence was 6.26 years (SD = 4.83).

The advantaged group (host nationals)

A sample of 500 host nationals, born in Spain and living in the Basque Country autonomous region, was matched with the immigrant sample by gender and age (M_age = 34.77 years, SD = 10.38, range: 18–64 years; 44.4% female).

Procedure

The total sample was drawn from public records through a probability sampling procedure with stratification by gender and age, and, for immigrants, ethnicity as well. The maximum sampling errors were ±2.77% (95% CI, σ = 1.96) for immigrants and ±4.38% (95% CI, σ = 1.96) for host nationals. Immigrants were recruited by random route approach in their households, whereby one route was randomly selected in a random section of each census district. Only one interview per household was carried out.² The host national sample was designed to be a proportional replica of the immigrant population, thus mitigating and eliminating biases arising from differences in age and gender distribution.

The respondents participated in a fully structured, face-to-face interview. The interviewers were equipped with a set of show cards displaying the corresponding response categories. Interviews with immigrants were conducted in Spanish, but many of the interviewers were bilingual (spoke Spanish and English/French), and all were provided with English and French versions of the questionnaire as back ups. All study participants signed written informed consent.

Measures

Intergroup contact

Participants responded on a 5-point scale (1 = none, 2 = not many, 3 = neither a few nor a lot, 4 = a fair number, 5 = lots) to the question of how many friends they had from other countries and ethnic groups. We captured contact with immigrants (i.e., “Do you have friends from other countries and ethnic groups?”) and with host nationals (i.e., “Do you have Basque and/or Spanish friends?”) with a single item each, among host nationals and immigrants, respectively.

Perceived social structure

Social structure variables were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree) with a set of items created for the purpose of this survey and adapted from Mummendey et al. (1999). Permeability of group boundaries was assessed with two items: “Immigrants [who live here/from my country who live here] have the possibility of participating in Basque society life like everyone else” and “It is easy for [an immigrant/an immigrant from my country] to be treated as a Basque or a Spaniard” (r_immigrants = .64, r_{host nationals} = .45). Stability of group status differences was also captured with two items: “The current relationship between immigrants and Basques is highly likely to get better” and “It is possible that the situation of immigrants here will improve” (r_immigrants = .59, r_{host nationals} = .52). For both items, we reverse-coded the responses and averaged them such that higher scores indicate more stability. Legitimacy of existing inequality was operationalized using one item only (“It’s fair that people from here (Basques) do better in life than immigrants”). This dimension was initially covered with an additional item: “It’s fair that immigrants have equal rights and access to services as Basques or Spaniards.” However, these two items correlated weakly (r_immigrants = .03, r_{host nationals} = −.36), and we decided to retain the item that had better face validity—that is, specifically measuring the fairness of perceived intergroup inequality (rather than the endorsement of equality).

Perceived group discrimination

Perceptions of discrimination against the disadvantaged group were measured with a single item adapted from the EU-MIDIS questionnaire of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA 2009), placed on a 5-point Likert response scale (1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = neither little nor a lot, 4 = quite some, 5 = a lot). Both groups were asked: “To what extent do you think [immigrants from your country/immigrants] are discriminated against (they are treated worse than Basques or Spaniards) for example, in access to housing, employment conditions, or in bars?”

Sociodemographic information

Participants were asked to provide information regarding their age, gender (1 = male, 2 = female), ethnic group (i.e., host national or immigrant), and education level (1 = no or incomplete primary education, 2 = primary studies, 3 = lower and upper secondary education, 4 = first stage of tertiary education, 5 = second stage of tertiary education), among other demographic characteristics.

Results

Analytical strategy

All analyses in both studies were conducted in R (R Core Team, 2014) with RStudio (RStudioTeam, 2015). Correlation analyses were performed using the “apaTables” package (Stanley, 2018). The main models were estimated using the “lavaan” (Rosseel, 2014) and “semTools” packages (Jorgensen et al., 2019). We calculated descriptive statistics such as reliabilities, means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations between the variables of the study for both groups. We used the conventional goodness-of-fit criteria to assess the model fit: comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) ⩾ 0.90, and a root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) ⩽ .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). We ran the models in both studies with and without bootstrapping confidence intervals for the indirect effects. We applied bias-corrected bootstrapping with 10,000 replacement samples to obtain confidence intervals. Because there were no differences in the obtained results, we report the results without bootstrapping.

In Study 1, considering group membership (i.e., immigrants as the disadvantaged group vs. host nationals as the advantaged group) as a grouping variable, we estimated a multigroup (MG) path model to test the relationship between intergroup contact and perceived group discrimination, as well as the same link indirectly through three social structure variables (i.e., permeability, legitimacy, and stability). All mediators were correlated with each other. Given that we expected (mostly) opposite effects for immigrants and host nationals, all regression paths were left unconstrained. We compared this model with a model in which all regression paths were constrained. The unconstrained model exhibited significantly better fit to the data than the constrained model, χ²(7) = 118.98, p < .001. Based on these results, we concluded that, as predicted, group membership moderated the effects in our model.

Descriptive analyses

The descriptive data and bivariate correlations for each group can be seen in Table 1. In the case of immigrants, contact with host nationals was associated with greater perceived permeability, less stability, and less perceived group discrimination, but showed no significant relationship with legitimacy. Among host nationals, contact was linked with lower perceptions of permeability, legitimacy, and stability of the social structure, and greater perceived group discrimination.

Table 1.

Descriptive and correlation analyses of variables among immigrants (above diagonal) and host nationals (below diagonal): Study 1.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5
1. Intergroup contact		.21**	−.26**	−.03	−.15**
1. Intergroup contact		[0.15, 0.26]	[−0.31, −0.20]	[−0.09, 0.02]	[−0.20, −0.09]
2. Permeability	−.15**		−.42**	.30**	−.40**
2. Permeability	[−0.23, −0.06]		[−0.47, −0.37]	[0.25, 0.35]	[−0.45, −0.35]
3. Stability	−.20**	−.20**		−.07*	.35**
3. Stability	[−0.28, −0.11]	[−0.28, −0.12]		[−0.12, −0.01]	[0.30, 0.40]
4. Legitimacy	−.23**	.10*	.05		−.30**
4. Legitimacy	[−0.31, −0.14]	[0.02, 0.19]	[−0.03, 0.14]		[−0.35, −0.25]
5. PGD	.14**	−.34**	−.08	−.28**
5. PGD	[0.05, 0.22]	[−0.42, −0.26]	[−0.17, 0.01]	[−0.36, −0.20]
Immigrants
M	3.07	2.96	2.30	3.33	2.65
SD	1.28	1.18	0.89	1.30	1.17
Host nationals
M	2.66	2.91	2.75	3.06	2.89
SD	1.24	0.96	0.90	1.24	1.13

Note. Above the diagonal: immigrants (N = 1,209/1,250); below the diagonal: host nationals (N = 489/500). Intergroup contact = intergroup contact differentiated for the samples. PGD = perceived group discrimination. 95% confidence intervals for each correlation are shown in square brackets.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Multigroup path model

We tested a MG path model using permeability, stability, and legitimacy as parallel mediators in the link between intergroup contact and perceived group discrimination (see Table 2 for detailed results).

Table 2.

Multi-group path analyses predicting perceived group discrimination: Study 1 .

	Immigrants (N = 1,209/1,250)						Host nationals (N = 489/500)
Effect	B	SE	p	95% CI		β	B	SE	p	95% CI		β
Effect	B	SE	p	LL	UL	β	B	SE	p	LL	UL	β
Perceived group discrimination
Total effect	−0.14	0.03	< .001	−0.19	−0.09	−.15	0.13	0.04	.002	0.05	0.21	.14
Direct effects
IG contact on permeability	0.19	0.03	< .001	0.14	0.14	.21	−0.11	0.03	.001	−0.18	−0.05	−.15
IG contact on stability	−0.18	0.02	< .001	−0.22	−0.22	−.26	−0.15	0.03	< .001	−0.21	−0.08	−.20
IG contact on legitimacy	−0.03	0.03	.242	−0.09	0.02	−.03	−0.23	0.04	< .001	−0.31	−0.14	−.23
IG contact on PGD	−0.05	0.02	.050	−0.09	0.00	−.05	0.01	0.04	.887	−0.07	0.08	.01
Permeability on PGD	−0.23	0.03	< .001	−0.29	−0.17	−.23	−0.41	0.05	< .001	−0.50	−0.31	−.35
Stability on PGD	0.29	0.04	< .001	0.22	0.36	.23	−0.17	0.05	.001	−0.28	−0.07	−.14
Legitimacy on PGD	−0.20	0.03	< .001	−0.24	−0.15	−.22	−0.21	0.04	< .001	−0.29	−0.14	−.24
Indirect effects via
Permeability	−0.04	0.01	< .001	−0.06	−0.03	−.05	0.05	0.02	.002	0.02	0.08	.05
Stability	−0.05	0.01	< .001	−0.07	−0.04	−.06	0.03	0.01	.008	0.01	0.04	.03
Legitimacy	0.01	0.01	.247	−0.01	0.02	.01	0.05	0.01	< .001	0.03	0.07	.05
Model fit
CFI	1.00
TLI	1.00
RMSEA [90% CI]	.00 [0.00, 0.00]

Note. B, β, and SE represent unstandardized, standardized regression coefficients, and their standard errors, respectively. Indirect effects were tested with bootstrap-based 10,000 samples with 95% confidence intervals. IG contact = intergroup contact, PGD = perceived group discrimination. Bold standardized estimates indicate p < .05.

The disadvantage group (immigrants)

Contact with host nationals was associated with lower perceptions of group discrimination, confirming H1 (Figure 1B). We also observed significant indirect effects through perceived permeability of intergroup relations. Specifically, the more contact immigrants had with host nationals, the more they perceived the existing social structure as permeable and, in consequence, less group discrimination. Although perceived legitimacy was linked with lower awareness of group discrimination, we did not observe significant indirect effects via legitimacy, so we only partially confirmed H2a. Further, our exploratory examination of the contact–stability link pointed in a specific direction: contact was associated with perceiving less stability. However, contrary to what we expected, we found a positive relationship between stability and awareness of group discrimination (and an opposite to expected indirect effect), thus only partially lending empirical support to H2b.

The advantaged group (host nationals)

In the case of host nationals, intergroup (out)group discrimination (H3 confirmed). Further, the more contact with immigrants, the less host nationals perceived the existing social structure as permeable, legitimate, and stable (confirming H2a and H2b). In turn, these perceptions were linked to greater acknowledgment of outgroup discrimination (Figure 2B). All indirect effects were significant.

Study 2

In order to replicate our findings using more recent data and in a broader context beyond the Basque Country, we conducted a new study in Spain in 2021. Spain was ranked as the 11th top destination country for international migrants in 2019 in the world (International Organization for Migration, 2022), and immigrants accounted for 15.2% of the population. We also relied on more robust measurements for all key variables, including contact, perceived social structure, and perceived discrimination. We additionally measured collective action intentions, and preregistered the hypotheses and analyses in this study (https://osf.io/kdpb7).

In contrast to Study 1, in which we tested the role of stability in an exploratory way based on our initial theoretical reasoning, in Study 2, we preregistered all hypotheses as confirmatory, including the predictions regarding the associations with stability. Specifically, based on data obtained in Study 1, we predicted that, among the disadvantaged, contact with privileged group members would be associated with lower perceptions of group discrimination and collective action intentions (H1), and this link would be explained by higher perceptions of permeability and legitimacy, and lower perceptions of stability of the existing social structure (H2). Among the advantaged, contact with disadvantaged group members would be associated with higher perceptions of group discrimination and collective action intentions (H3), and this link would be explained by lower perception of permeability, legitimacy, and stability of the existing social structure (H4).

Method

Participants

Based on the results from Study 1, we conducted a power analysis to determine the necessary sample to detect a correlation of r = .15 between contact and perceived group discrimination. Using a probability error of .05 and statistical power of .80, the suggested sample was 270 participants per group. We thus aimed to stop data collection once we reached 300 participants per group, making a total sample of 600. However, due to the implementation of quotas based on population distributions according to gender, age range, and zone of residence, the number of participants in the host national group slightly exceeded 300 (n = 338) during the process of fulfilling the quotas for each group. As a result, the final total sample size amounted to 627 participants.

The disadvantaged group (immigrants)

We recruited 289 foreign-born adults from immigrant backgrounds residing in Spain during the data collection period (M_age = 44.00 years, SD = 14.64, range: 18–85 years; 52.25% female).³ To be eligible for the study, both the participant and their parents should have been born outside of Spain. The majority of participants were born in Latin America (88.6%; e.g., Argentina 26.0%, Colombia 11.0%, Venezuela 11.0%, and Ecuador 10.0%, among other countries), but some were born in North Africa (4.2%), the Middle East (0.7%), Asia (2.8%), sub-Saharan Africa (1.4%), or other countries.

The advantaged group (host nationals)

We relied on a sample of 338 host national participants, who were adults born and living in Spain and whose parents had been born in Spain (M_age = 47.22 years, SD = 15.07, range: 18–86 years; 48.52% female).

Procedure

Between August and October 2021, the recruitment company Netquest distributed a one-use-only invitation to fill in an online questionnaire and compensated participants. To ensure diversity within the sample, we implemented quotas based on the population distributions of gender, age range, and area of residence within the country. Participants filled in a survey that encompassed questions pertaining to intergroup contact, perceptions of social structure, perceived group discrimination against immigrants, collective action intentions, as well as other variables included for exploratory purposes (e.g., intergroup attitudes, group identification, political orientation), aimed at optimizing research efforts and funding. Participants signed an informed consent form, as in Study 1.

Measures

Detailed information regarding the factorial structures and reliabilities for each group, along with the results of measurement invariance tests, can be found in the SOM. All responses were placed on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree) unless specified otherwise.

Intergroup contact

We created an ad hoc measure of intergroup contact for both immigrants and host nationals (adapted from Tausch et al., 2015) consisting of six items. First, participants indicated (a) “How many of your friends are Spanish people/immigrants in Spain” (none, one, two, three, four, five, six to ten, more than ten). Next, they responded to five items on a 6-point scale (1 = several times per year or less, 2 = once a month, 3 = several times a month, 4 = once a week, 5 = several times a week, 6 =every day) about the frequency of contact (at least a brief face-to-face or real-time online conversation) they had in different domains, including close friendships (i.e., [b] “How often do you have contact with your Spanish/immigrant close friends?”) and more casual relationships (i.e., “How often do you have contact with other Spanish people/immigrants besides close friends: [c] “in general,” [d] “at school/work,” [e] “in the neighborhood,” and [f] “during free time?”). All these six items formed a single latent factor. The reliabilities for the scale were ω = .81 and .86 for immigrants and host nationals, respectively.

Perceived social structure

Building upon existing research (e.g., Scheifele et al., 2021; Verkuyten & Reijerse, 2008), we created a more robust measure of perceived social structure, using three or four items for each dimension.⁴ Participants were asked about their agreement with 15 statements in total to tap perceived permeability (three items; e.g., “No matter how much effort immigrants make, they will never attain the same social position as Spanish people”; reverse-coded before estimating the SEM model; ω_immigrants = .70, ω_{host nationals} = .63); legitimacy (four items; e.g., “I believe that differences in living conditions between immigrants and Spanish people are unjust”; reverse-coded; ω_immigrants = .60, ω_{host nationals} = .74); and stability (four items; e.g., “The differences in socioeconomic situation between immigrants and Spanish people are likely to change in the coming years”; reverse-coded). Yet, preliminary confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the stability scale did not form a reliable one-factor dimension (model fit: CFI = .78, TLI = 0.35, RMSEA = 0.13; see OSF project for details). We thus removed the two reverse-coded items that shared a significant error variance: “The living conditions of immigrants and Spanish people will be the same in the next few years” and “Differences between immigrants and Spanish people in access to resources will remain stable (will not change) in the next few years.” These items did not correlate well with the remaining two items and made reference specifically to the stability of group status differences. The final reliabilities for stability were: r_immigrants = .34, r_{host nationals} = .37. The three latent variables were estimated such that higher factor scores indicated more permeability, legitimacy, or stability.

Perceived group discrimination

The measure of perceived group discrimination was adapted from earlier research (Carvallo & Pelham, 2006). Participants were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed with four statements (e.g., “Immigrants here are discriminated against”). Reliabilities were: ω_immigrants = .88, ω_{host nationals} = .91.

Collective action intentions

Participants were also asked to indicate on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all willing, 2 = unwilling, 3 = moderately willing, 4 = quite willing, 5 = very willing) to what extent they would be willing to take different actions to improve the situation of immigrants in Spain (seven items; e.g., “Sign a petition to promote immigrants’ professional training or job placement,” “Donate money to an organization that fights discrimination against immigrants”; reliabilities were: ω_immigrants = .90, ω_{host nationals} = .92).⁵

Sociodemographic information

Participants provided information regarding their age, gender (1 = male, 2 = female), nationality, geographical zone in which they live, main activity, and income, among other characteristics. Some of this information was provided directly from the panel data by the recruitment agency.

Results

Analytical strategy

The analytical strategy was similar to that used in Study 1. However, in this study, we had several items for each variable, and we could thus test our theoretical model with multigroup structural equation modeling (MG-SEM) using latent variables. We examined the factorial structures of the variables through confirmatory factor analyses and established metric measurement invariance across groups, which ensured comparisons of regression paths across groups (see SOM for details). We estimated a MG-SEM model including six latent factors to test the effect of intergroup contact on two outcome variables (i.e., perceived group discrimination and collective action intentions), and the possible indirect effects through three parallel mediators (i.e., permeability, stability, and legitimacy). The latent variable for intergroup contact was a second-order factor composed of two first-order factors: (a) two items on intergroup friendships (number of friends and frequency of contact with friends), and (b) four items on intergroup casual relationships in four domains (in general, at school/work, in the neighborhood, and during free time). The collective action intentions scale was a second-order factor with two first-order factors: (a) four items referring to signing petitions in favor of immigrants’ rights, and (b) three items referring to protesting and collaborating with NGOs supporting immigrants. All factor loadings were constrained to be equal, whereas regression paths were allowed to load freely across groups.⁶ Because there were missing data in Study 2, we employed full information maximum likelihood (FIML) procedure for their imputation.

Descriptive analyses

Descriptive data and bivariate correlations for each group can be seen in Table 3. For immigrants, intergroup contact was related to higher perceived permeability, lower perceptions of stability, and lower perceptions of group discrimination. Among host nationals, contact was associated with lower perceptions of legitimacy, but higher perceptions of permeability, and with more collective action intentions.

Table 3.

Descriptive and correlation analyses of variables among immigrants (above diagonal) and host nationals (below diagonal): Study 2.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Intergroup contact		.17**	−.13*	.02	−.12*	.12
1. Intergroup contact		[0.05, 0.28]	[−0.24, −0.01]	[−0.10, 0.14]	[−0.24, −0.00]	[−0.00, 0.23]
2. Permeability	.15*		−.02	.00	−.44**	−.05
2. Permeability	[0.03, 0.27]		[−0.13, 0.10]	[−0.11, 0.12]	[−0.53, −0.34]	[−0.16, 0.07]
3. Stability	−.11	−.14*		.05	−.17**	.01
3. Stability	[−0.23, 0.00]	[−0.25, −0.03]		[−0.07, 0.16]	[−0.28, −0.05]	[−0.11, 0.13]
4. Legitimacy	−.18**	−.15**	.16**		−.25**	−.32**
4. Legitimacy	[−0.30, −0.07]	[−0.26, −0.04]	[0.04, 0.27]		[−0.36, −0.14]	[−0.42, −0.21]
5. PGD	.03	−.23**	−.17**	−0.48**		.18**
5. PGD	[−0.09, 0.15]	[−0.34, −0.12]	[−0.28, −0.06]	[−0.56, −0.38]		[0.06, 0.29]
6. CA intentions	.27**	.11	−.18**	−.58**	.48**
6. CA intentions	[0.15, 0.37]	[−0.01, 0.22]	[−0.29, −0.07]	[−0.66, −0.50]	[0.39, 0.56]
Immigrants
M	4.84	3.33	2.79	2.37	3.34	3.51
SD	1.27	0.94	0.76	0.74	0.92	0.95
Host nationals
M	2.91	3.66	2.73	2.36	3.17	3.10
SD	1.49	0.84	0.74	0.81	0.95	0.99

Note. Above the diagonal: immigrants (N = 289); below the diagonal: host nationals (N = 338). Intergroup contact represents intergroup contact differentiated for the samples. PGD = perceived group discrimination; CA intentions = collective action intentions. 95% confidence intervals for each correlation are shown in square brackets.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Multigroup structural equation modeling

We tested a MG-SEM model using permeability, stability, and legitimacy as parallel mediators in the link between intergroup contact and both perceived group discrimination and collective action intentions (see Table 4 for detailed results).

Table 4.

Multigroup SEM analysis predicting perceived group discrimination and collective action intentions: Study 2 .

	Immigrants (N = 289)						Host nationals (N = 338)
Effect	B	SE	p	95% CI		β	B	SE	p	95% CI		β
Effect	B	SE	p	LL	UL	β	B	SE	p	LL	UL	β
Perceived group discrimination
Total effect	−0.18	0.11	.102	−0.39	0.04	−.13	0.07	0.10	.453	−0.12	0.26	.05
Direct effects
IG contact on permeability	0.26	0.01	.004	0.08	0.45	.26	0.10	0.07	.173	−0.04	0.24	.10
IG contact on stability	−0.27	0.11	.010	−0.47	−0.06	−.26	−0.18	0.09	.043	−0.35	−0.01	−.18
IG contact on legitimacy	0.05	0.09	.604	−0.13	0.22	.05	−0.21	0.08	.009	−0.36	−0.05	−.20
IG contact on PGD	−0.09	0.11	.422	−0.30	0.13	−.06	−0.06	0.09	.497	−0.23	0.11	−.04
Permeability on PGD	−0.68	0.10	< .001	−0.88	−0.49	−.52	−0.72	0.11	< .001	−0.93	−0.51	−.51
Stability on PGD	−0.42	0.12	< .001	−0.64	−0.19	−.32	−0.14	0.10	.170	−0.34	0.06	−.10
Legitimacy on PGD	−0.47	0.11	< .001	−0.68	−0.26	−.35	−0.86	0.11	< .001	−1.07	−0.65	−.62
Indirect effects via
Permeability	−0.18	0.07	.008	−0.31	−0.05	−.13	−0.07	0.05	.182	−0.18	0.03	−.05
Stability	0.11	0.05	.035	0.01	0.22	.08	0.03	0.02	.260	−0.02	0.07	.02
Legitimacy	−0.02	0.04	.605	−0.10	0.06	−.02	0.18	0.07	.013	0.04	0.32	.12
Collective action intentions
Total effect	0.18	0.11	.079	−0.02	0.39	.15	0.38	0.10	< .001	0.18	0.58	.27
Direct effects
IG contact on CAI	0.28	0.11	.015	0.06	0.50	.23	0.20	0.09	.029	0.02	0.37	.14
Permeability on CAI	−0.15	0.09	.101	−0.33	0.03	−.13	−0.16	0.10	.085	−0.35	0.02	−.12
Stability on CAI	0.10	0.11	.362	−0.12	0.32	.09	−0.09	0.10	.369	−0.28	0.10	−.06
Legitimacy on CAI	−0.64	0.11	< .001	−0.86	−0.41	−.53	−0.90	0.11	< .001	−1.10	−0.67	−.66
Indirect effects via
Permeability	−0.04	0.03	.170	−0.10	0.02	−.03	−0.02	0.02	.296	−0.05	0.01	−.01
Stability	−0.03	0.03	.399	−0.09	0.04	−.02	0.02	0.02	.402	−0.02	0.05	.01
Legitimacy	−0.03	0.06	.608	−0.14	0.08	−.02	0.18	0.07	.010	0.04	0.32	.13
Model fit
CFI	.94
TLI	0.93
RMSEA [90% CI]	.05 [0.05, 0.06]

Note. B, β, and SE represent unstandardized, standardized SEM regression coefficients, and their standard errors, respectively. Indirect effects were tested with bootstrap-based 10,000 samples with 95% confidence intervals. IG contact = intergroup contact; PGD = perceived group discrimination; CA intentions = collective action intentions. Bold and italicized standardized estimates indicate p < .05 and < .10, respectively.

The disadvantaged group (immigrants)

Intergroup contact did not show a significant association with perceived group discrimination and collective action intentions, disconfirming H1. Contact was associated with greater perceived permeability, and thus lower awareness of discrimination (an indirect effect), but not with legitimacy, thus partially corroborating H2a (Figure 1C) and replicating Study 1. Still, perceived legitimacy was negatively linked to both outcomes. We did not observe similar indirect effects for collective action intentions. Regarding the exploratory H2b, we found again that contact was associated with perceiving intergroup relations as unstable, but perceiving less stability was linked to more awareness of group discrimination, yet unrelated to collective action intentions.

The advantaged group (host nationals)

Contact with the disadvantaged did not show a significant relationship with perceived (out)group discrimination (unlike in Study 1), but it was associated with greater collective action intentions, partially corroborating H3. We also identified significant indirect effects of contact on both perceived group discrimination and collective action intentions via perceived illegitimacy, but not through permeability, partially supporting H2a (Figure 2C). As in Study 1, perceived permeability was linked to lower awareness of group discrimination, and the relationship between permeability and intentions to engage in collective action did not reach statistical significance. There was also a negative link between contact and perceptions of intergroup relations as stable (H2b). Perceived stability was not significantly related to group discrimination and collective action intentions, but these relationships were in the same direction as in Study 1.

General Discussion

Positive intergroup contact has been shown to be linked to more support for collective efforts against social inequality among the advantaged, but the opposite is true for the disadvantaged (e.g., Dixon et al., 2010, 2017; Hässler et al., 2020; Wright & Lubensky, 2009). In the current research, we aimed to understand these differential effects by examining two nationwide and diverse samples consisting of members of underprivileged (immigrants) and privileged (host nationals) groups. Our findings highlight that asymmetrical contact involves contrasting perceptions of social hierarchy, particularly in terms of its permeability and fairness, among disadvantaged and advantaged group members. Notably, regardless of their position in the hierarchy, the more contact each group has with the other group the more they perceive intergroup relations as possible to change.

We also observed that perceptions of permeability, legitimacy, and stability have different weights as key mechanisms in the link between contact and support for social change among the advantaged, as well as the lack of such support among the disadvantaged. Both studies suggested that, the more contact with the privileged the disadvantaged have, the more they consider the existing social structure as permeable, and the less they are inclined to perceive their group as discriminated against. Among the advantaged, the perceived illegitimacy of existing status disparities consistently emerged as a significant explanatory mechanism in the association between contact and social change motivations. The role of the stability of intergroup relations was less clear.

The Disadvantaged Group’s Perspective

Our work largely validates existing evidence that positive contact with members of advantaged groups has sedative effects among the disadvantaged (e.g., Çakal et al., 2011; Hässler et al., 2020; Saguy, 2018; Saguy et al., 2009, 2017; Tausch et al., 2009; Wright & Lubensky, 2009). The frequency of reported contact with more privileged individuals (i.e., host nationals) was largely linked with less acknowledgment of group discrimination (Dixon et al., 2010; Saguy & Chernyak-Hai, 2012), yet unrelated to their willingness to engage in collective action to defend their ingroup’s rights. Although we did not find support for the demobilization effect, our findings still indicate that interaction with more privileged individuals has sedative effects because it distracts immigrants from recognizing and addressing inequality.

Further, our findings elucidate the role of perceived power dynamics as possible explanatory mechanisms in the aforementioned link. Specifically, consistent with our expectations, both studies supported the notion that contact with the high-status group indirectly predicts lower perceived ingroup disadvantage via immigrants’ perceptions that boundaries between groups are permeable. These results align with prior evidence showing that meritocratic beliefs explain the role contact with the privileged group has in predicting opposition to equality-oriented policies (Sengupta & Sibley, 2013). Additionally, our data support earlier investigations linking contact with the privileged group and perceptions of permeable group boundaries (Tausch et al., 2015).

We did not find support for the explanatory role of perceptions of legitimacy and stability among the disadvantaged. Controlling for perceived permeability, we did not observe the anticipated indirect relationship between contact with the privileged and social change motivations via system-challenging beliefs, contrary to some earlier findings (Cheung et al., 2011; Saguy & Chernyak-Hai, 2012; Saguy et al., 2009). Our results also diverge from those obtained by Di Bernardo et al. (2021), who found a link between positive contact among immigrants and the recognition of status differences as illegitimate. It is plausible that the nature and quality of contact play a role in determining whether relationships with the more advantaged translate into either system-justifying or system-challenging beliefs. Yet, our data from both studies confirm earlier evidence that the more the disadvantaged engage in legitimizing inequality, the less they are aware of inequality or inclined to address the status quo, showing that perceptions of injustice are the main driver of collective action among the disadvantaged (e.g., Jetten et al., 2011; Saguy & Dovidio, 2013; Scheifele et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 2020).

Our research suggests that contact with the privileged group predicted recognizing group differences as changeable (rather than stable). This aligns with the argument that contact may divert the attention of disadvantaged individuals from group differences and the pervasiveness of existing inequality (Saguy, 2018). These results shed light on the absence of a significant relationship between contact and stability observed among immigrant adolescents in the study conducted by Di Bernardo et al. (2021). Nevertheless, in our research, the belief that power dynamics can change showed an opposite relationship with perceived group discrimination (and thus significant indirect effects opposite in sign) across the studies. This discrepancy could be due to differences in the measurement of stability across the different studies. In Study 1, as in Di Bernardo et al. (2021), stability was associated with a stronger acknowledgment of inequality or social change motivations, and referred to intergroup relations as improvable (i.e., the likelihood of future intergroup harmony or even perhaps perceived group efficacy) or to the status of both groups as likely to remain the same. In contrast, Study 2 provided a more comprehensive assessment of the extent to which existing differences between groups can be modified or not. Perceptions of social inequality as modifiable were linked with more social change motivation. In conclusion, further systematic research is required to clarify the link between perceived stability and support for social change among the disadvantaged.

The Advantaged Group’s Perspective

Our findings indicate that, for the advantaged individuals, positive contact with underprivileged group members was, overall, predictive of higher perceptions of inequality (Study 1, but not 2) and more support for social change (Study 2). Our data thus largely corroborate several prior studies showing that contact with the disadvantaged activates solidarity responses (e.g., Di Bernardo et al., 2021; Dixon et al., 2007; Hässler et al., 2020; Vezzali & Giovannini, 2011).

Our research further clarifies the role of perceived sociostructural relations in the link between contact with members of underprivileged groups and perceptions of group discrimination and ally collective action intentions. First, across both studies, we found evidence that perceiving existing inequality as unfair is a key mechanism that operates between contact and these outcomes. Our results are coherent with previous evidence for the well-established link between perceiving one’s advantage or the system as illegitimate and support for social change (Iyer & Ryan, 2009; Jost et al., 2008; Leach et al., 2006, 2007; Saguy et al., 2013; Saguy & Dovidio, 2013; Selvanathan et al., 2018). Moreover, our findings shed light on the role of perceptions of legitimacy as an explanatory factor in the link between contact and support for social change among the advantaged (e.g., Di Bernardo et al., 2021), but also among disadvantaged individuals when they experience supportive contact (Becker et al., 2013; Droogendyk, Louis, & Wright, 2016; Droogendyk, Wright, et al., 2016).

The findings regarding the role of perceptions of group boundary permeability and stability of existing group status differences in the relationship between contact with the disadvantaged and both awareness of group discrimination and support for social change are less straightforward. In Study 1, we measured a specific type of contact—namely, the number of interethnic friendships. Employing this measure, we observed that among the privileged host majority the perception that it is difficult for immigrants to become members of the advantaged group (i.e., group boundaries are impermeable) explained the connection between contact with the disadvantaged and the acknowledment of discrimination and greater willingness to engage in collective action in favor of immigrants’ rights. These results resonate with research showing that reduced perceptions of meritocracy account for the link between contact with other members of one’s own disadvantaged group and support for proequality policies (Sengupta & Sibley, 2013), as predicted by system justification theory (see Jost et al., 2008).

However, in line with data from Di Bernardo et al. (2021), we did not find support for the role of impermeability as a factor of mobilization in our second study, and the observed indirect effect even points in the opposite direction. One possible explanation for the inconsistency in the obtained findings is that, in Study 1, our focus was specifically on intergroup friendships, whereas both Study 2 and the research of Di Bernardo et al. (2021) measured contact in terms of more casual and likely superficial relationships. Thus, our findings align well with the idea that close and high-quality intergroup relationships, such as friendships, which are characterized by high relational embeddedness, have a stronger potential to shape evaluations of outgroup members. This is because they involve relations of trust and thus facilitate the transfer of complex and tacit knowledge such as beliefs or attitudes (Bobowik et al., 2022; Davies et al., 2011). With this preliminary evidence as a foundation, the study of differential effects of close and more distant intergroup relationships in relation to support for collective action presents an intriguing possibility for future investigation.

Concerning stability, as in the case of immigrants, we have consistently observed in both studies that intergroup contact is linked with acknowledging that intergroup relations can change. These findings diverge from the work of Di Bernardo et al. (2021), in which stronger beliefs in the pervasiveness of the existing social structure were linked to more casual forms of intergroup contact. Further, perceiving relations between host nationals and immigrants as changeable was, in our research, associated with more acknowledgement of inequality in Study 1, yet unrelated to both outcomes in Study 2. Additionally, the indirect effect observed in Study 1 was negligible in magnitude. Hence, future research should clarify the role of stability perceptions of power dynamics in explaining the solidarity of the advantaged towards the disadvantaged. Integrating the contact hypothesis and the social identity framework in a more nuanced way, including testing possible interaction effects between different dimensions of the social structure, could enhance our understanding of the consequences intergroup relationships have on the promotion of equality in rights.

Limitations, Strengths, and Future Research

While our research yields promising results, it is important to acknowledge its limitations and consider them in future studies. One shortcoming concerns the cross-sectional nature of our data, which prevents us from drawing conclusions about the causality of the models tested. It is plausible that perceptions of group discrimination among the disadvantaged result in perceiving the social structure as impermeable or unfair, and thus in reluctance to engage in contact with the advantaged. Among the advantaged, in contrast, these perceptions could be a motivating factor to initiate supportive contact. However, our model follows prior conceptualizations that posit contact as a predictor of awareness of inequality (e.g., Dixon et al., 2010; Saguy & Chernyak-Hai, 2012; Saguy et al., 2009; Tausch et al., 2009). In Study 2, we additionally included measurements of collective action intentions to address potential limitations associated with using group discrimination as our primary outcome. It is worth noting that, in Study 1, the reference group for the advantaged category varied slightly across items. For instance, whereas we mostly referred to Basques as the host nationals, some questions about contact with the advantaged group encompassed both Basques and Spaniards. We made this decision to facilitate immigrant respondents’ comprehension and ensure their ability to provide accurate responses by utilizing a broader category for members of the host society. Future studies could also examine the differential role of positive and negative contact not only in (de)mobilizing the disadvantaged (see Reimer et al., 2017) but also in shaping perceptions of the social structure.

The current research has notable strengths as it encompasses two studies conducted with diverse samples and obtained in two different historical periods. Specifically, the inclusion of data from 2010 adds value to our work because, compared to the following 10 years, 2010 represents a peak in migration trends in Spain. In contrast, Study 2 offers valuable insights into present intergroup relations, which have been significantly affected by the worldwide pandemic. It should be acknowledged that studying in-person intergroup contact is challenging in these times, because direct relationships remain problematic for many individuals, and it is highly probable that social interactions have fluctuated and weakened at different moments in 2021.

Overall, our research extends previous empirical evidence by examining the hidden effects of intergroup contact among members of both advantaged and disadvantaged groups, using large and quasirepresentative samples of immigrants and host national members of a community. Specifically, we tested the explanatory mechanisms involving perceptions of social structure in the (de)mobilizing effects of intergroup contact. The findings of this study may have important practical implications for designing intercultural exchange interventions, which can serve not only to promote favorable intercultural relations but also respect for human rights and social equality. To develop a fuller picture of the link between contact and intergroup relations between members of disadvantaged and advantaged groups, more research is needed that further investigates the mechanisms involved in this link.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We wish to express our deepest appreciation to all the participants in this study.

Author note

M.B. designed the research and conceptualized the paper. N.B. was responsible for the fieldwork in Study 1 and collaborated in the research design of Study 1. G.M. coordinated and executed the fieldwork of Study 1. L.Z. and J.P. collaborated in the research design of Study 2. L.Z. and M.B. coordinated and executed the fieldwork for Study 2. L.Z. and J.P. performed data curation and preprocessing, and J.P. conducted formal statistical analyses. M.B. wrote the original draft in collaboration with L.Z. and J.P. All the authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. J.P. has incorporated new university affiliations during the process of publishing this manuscript: Universidad Católica del Norte (Antofagasta, Chile) and Pompeu Fabra University (Barcelona, Spain).

Data availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article is available at the OSF page ().

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Grants PSI2017-84145 and P/PID2020-115738GB-I 00, funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033) and the Basque Government (Grants IT-1187-19 and IT1598-22). M.B. was funded by the Ramón y Cajal Program awarded by the Spanish Ministry of Universities (Grant RYC2021-032887-I), and by a University of the Basque Country postdoctoral research grant (Grant IESPC3L4-D00109-1). L.N.Z. (Grant ESPDOC18/33) and J.J.P. (GrantDOCREC20/23) received a postdoctoral research grant by a University of the Basque Country.

ORCID iDs

Magdalena Bobowik

Larraitz N. Zumeta

José J. Pizarro

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online at .

Notes

References

Bagci

S. C.

Turnuklu

(2019). Intended, unintended, and unknown consequences of contact: The role of positive–negative contact on outgroup attitudes, collective action tendencies, and psychological well-being. Social Psychology, 50, 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000355

Bagci

S. C.

Turnuklu

Bekmezci

(2018). Cross-group friendships and psychological well-being: A dual pathway through social integration and empowerment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 773–792. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12267

Becker

J. C.

(2012). Virtual special issue on theory and research on collective action in the European Journal of Social Psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1839

Becker

J. C.

Wright

S. C.

Lubensky

M. E.

Zhou

(2013). Friend or ally: Whether cross-group contact undermines collective action depends on what advantaged group members say (or don’t say). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213477155

Bikmen

(2011). Asymmetrical effects of contact between minority groups: Asian and Black students in a small college. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 186–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023230

Blair

I. V.

Jost

J. T.

(2003). Exit, loyalty, and collective action among workers in a simulated business environment: Interactive effects of group identification and boundary permeability. Social Justice Research, 16, 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024271019738

Bobowik

Benet-Martínez

Repke

(2022). “United in diversity”: The interplay of social network characteristics and personality in predicting outgroup attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25, 1175–1201. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211002918

Çakal

Hewstone

Schwär

Heath

(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, 606–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02075.x

Carvallo

Pelham

B. W.

(2006). When fiends become friends: The need to belong and perceptions of personal and group discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 94–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.94

10.

Cheung

R. M.

Noel

Hardin

C. D.

(2011). Adopting the system-justifying attitudes of others: Effects of trivial interpersonal connections in the context of social inclusion and exclusion. Social Cognition, 29, 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.3.255

11.

Davies

Tropp

L. R.

Aron

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411103

12.

Di Bernardo

G. A.

Vezzali

Stathi

McKeown Jones

Cocco

V. M.

Saguy

Dixon

(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, 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219889134

13.

Dixon

Çakal

Khan

Osmany

Majumdar

Hassan

(2017). Contact, political solidarity and collective action: An Indian case study of relations between historically disadvantaged communities. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 27, 83–95. http://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2296

14.

Dixon

Durrheim

Tredoux

(2007). Intergroup contact and attitudes toward the principle and practice of racial equality. Psychological Science, 18, 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01993.x

15.

Dixon

Durrheim

Tredoux

Tropp

Clack

Eaton

(2010). A paradox of integration? Interracial contact, prejudice reduction, and perceptions of racial discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01652.x

16.

Dixon

Levine

Reicher

Durrheim

(2012). Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002214

17.

Dovidio

J. F.

Love

Schellhaas

F. M. H.

Hewstone

(2017). Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 606–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217712052

18.

Droogendyk

Louis

W. R.

Wright

S. C.

(2016). Renewed promise for positive cross-group contact: The role of supportive contact in empowering collective action. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 48, 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000058

19.

Droogendyk

Wright

S. C.

Lubensky

Louis

W. R.

(2016). Acting in solidarity: Cross-group contact between disadvantaged group members and advantaged group allies. Journal of Social Issues, 72, 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12168

20.

Durrheim

Jacobs

Dixon

(2014). Explaining the paradoxical effects of intergroup contact: Paternalistic relations and system justification in domestic labour in South Africa. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 41, 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.11.006

21.

Ellemers

(1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity management strategies. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 27–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000013

22.

Ellemers

Barreto

(2009). Collective action in modern times: How modern expressions of prejudice prevent collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 749–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560b.2009.01621.x

23.

Ellemers

van Knippenberg

de Vries

Wilke

(1988). Social identification and permeability of group boundaries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 497–513. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180604

24.

Ellemers

Wilke

van Knippenberg

(1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 766–778. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.766

25.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). (2009). EU-MIDIS. European Union minorities and discrimination survey: Questionnaire 2009. https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/eu-midis_questionnaire.pdf

26.

Hässler

Ullrich

Bernardino

Shnabel

van Laar

Valdenegro

Sebben

Tropp

L. R.

Visintin

E. P.

González

Ditlmann

R. K.

Abrams

Selvanathan

H. P.

Branković

Wright

von Zimmermann

Pasek

Aydin

A. L.

Žeželj

. . . Ugarte

L. M.

(2020). A large-scale test of the link between intergroup contact and support for social change. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 380–386. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0815-z

27.

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, 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216685291

28.

L.-t.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

29.

Ikuspegi – The Basque Observatory of Immigration. (2020). Población de origen extranjero en la CAE 2020 [Population of foreign origin in the CAE 2020]. Panorámica, 76. https://www.ikuspegi.eus/documentos/panoramicas/es/pan76casOK.pdf

30.

International Organization for Migration. (2022). World migration report 2022. https://publications.iom.int/books/world-migration-report-2022

31.

Iyer

Ryan

M. K.

(2009). Why do men and women challenge gender discrimination in the workplace? The role of group status and in-group identification in predicting pathways to collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 791–814. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01625.x

32.

Jetten

Schmitt

M. T.

Branscombe

N. R.

Garza

A. A.

Mewse

A. J.

(2011). Group commitment in the face of discrimination: The role of legitimacy appraisals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.743

33.

Jorgensen

T. D.

Pornprasertmanit

Schoemann

A. M.

Rosseel

(2019). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling (R package Version 0.5-2) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/package=semTools

34.

Jost

J. T.

Wakslak

C. J.

Tyler

T. R.

(2008). System justification theory and the alleviation of emotional distress: Palliative effects of ideology in an arbitrary social hierarchy and in society. Advances in Group Processes, 25, 181–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0882-6145(08)25012-5

35.

Kutlaca

Radke

H. R. M.

Iyer

Becker

J. C.

(2020). Understanding allies’ participation in social change: A multiple perspectives approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 1248–1258. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2720

36.

Leach

C. W.

Iyer

Pedersen

(2006). Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1232–1245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206289729

37.

Leach

C. W.

Iyer

Pedersen

(2007). Angry opposition to government redress: When the structurally advantaged perceive themselves as relative deprived. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466606X99360

38.

Leach

C. W.

Snider

Iyer

(2002). “Poisoning the consciences of the fortunate”: The experience of relative advantage and support for social equality. In Walker

Smith

H. J.

(Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, integration (pp. 136–163). Cambridge University Press.

39.

Louis

W. R.

Thomas

Chapman

C. M.

Achia

Wibisono

Mirnajafi

Droogendyk

(2019). Emerging research on intergroup prosociality: Group members’ charitable giving, positive contact, allyship, and solidarity with others. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13, Article e12436. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12436

40.

MacInnis

C. C.

Hodson

(2019). Extending the benefits of intergroup contact beyond attitudes: When does intergroup contact predict greater collective action support? Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 3, 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts5.23

41.

Miller

C. A.

Guidry

J. P. D.

Dahman

Thomson

M. D.

(2020). A tale of two diverse Qualtrics samples: Information for online survey researchers. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 29, 731–735. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-0846

42.

Mummendey

Kessler

Klink

Mielke

(1999). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.229

43.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

44.

Radke

H. R. M.

Kutlaca

Siem

Wright

S. C.

Becker

J. C.

(2020). Beyond allyship: Motivations for advantaged group members to engage in action for disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24, 291–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320918698

45.

R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

46.

Reimer

N. K.

Becker

J. C.

Benz

Christ

Dhont

Klocke

Neji

Rychlowska

Schmid

Hewstone

(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, 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216676478

47.

Rosseel

(2014). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

48.

RStudioTeam. (2015). RStudio: Integrated development for R. http://www.rstudio.com/

49.

Saguy

(2018). Downside of intergroup harmony? When reconciliation might backfire and what to do. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732217747085

50.

Saguy

Chernyak-Hai

(2012). Intergroup contact can undermine disadvantaged group members’ attributions to discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 714–720. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.01.003

51.

Saguy

Chernyak-Hai

Andrighetto

Bryson

(2013). When the powerful feels wronged: The legitimization effects of advantaged group members’ sense of being accused for harboring racial or ethnic biases. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 292–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1948

52.

Saguy

Dovidio

J. F.

(2013). Insecure status relations shape preferences for the content of intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1030–1042. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213487078

53.

Saguy

Dovidio

J. F.

Pratto

(2008). Beyond contact: Intergroup contact in the context of power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207311200

54.

Saguy

Shchory-Eyal

Hasan-Aslih

Sobol

Dovidio

J. F.

(2017). The irony of harmony: Past and new developments. In Vezzali

Stathi

(Eds.), Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 53–71). Routledge.

55.

Saguy

Tausch

Dovidio

J. F.

Pratto

(2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20, 114–121. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02261

56.

Scheifele

Ehrke

Viladot

M. A.

van Laar

Steffens

M. C.

(2021). Testing the basic socio-structural assumptions of social identity theory in the gender context: Evidence from correlational studies on women’s leadership. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51, e1–e16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2678

57.

Selvanathan

H. P.

Techakesari

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, 893–912. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217690908

58.

Sengupta

N. K.

Sibley

C. G.

(2013). Perpetuating one’s own disadvantage: Intergroup contact enables the ideological legitimation of inequality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1391–1403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213497593

59.

Stanley

(2018). apaTables (R package Version 2.0.5) [Computer software]. https://github.com/dstanley4/apaTables/issues

60.

Stott

Drury

(2004). The importance of social structure and social interaction in stereotype consensus and content: Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts? European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.183

61.

Tajfel

(1975). The exit of social mobility and the voice of social change: Notes on the social psychology of intergroup relations. Social Science Information, 14, 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847501400204

62.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflicts. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks-Cole.

63.

Tausch

Becker

J. C.

(2012). Understanding the psychological processes involved in the demobilizing effects of positive cross-group contact. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 447–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001446

64.

Tausch

Hewstone

Roy

(2009). The relationships between contact, status and prejudice: An integrated threat theory analysis of Hindu–Muslim relations in India. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.984

65.

Tausch

Saguy

Bryson

(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, 536–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12127

66.

Thomas

E. F.

Zubielevitch

Sibley

C. G.

Osborne

(2020). Testing the social identity model of collective action longitudinally and across structurally disadvantaged and advantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46, 823–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219879111

67.

Tropp

L. R.

Pettigrew

T. F.

(2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16, 951–957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01643.x

68.

Van Zomeren

Spears

Fischer

A. H.

Leach

C. W.

(2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 649–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.649

69.

van Zomeren

Postmes

Spears

(2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504

70.

Verkuyten

Reijerse

(2008). Intergroup structure and identity management among ethnic minority and majority groups: The interactive effects of perceived stability, legitimacy, and permeability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 106–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.395

71.

Vezzali

Andrighetto

Capozza

Di Bernardo

G. A.

Saguy

(2017). Discussing differences between groups: The content of intergroup encounters and motivation for social change among members of advantaged groups. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 1, 52–59. http://doi.org/10.1002/jts5.12

72.

Vezzali

Giovannini

(2011). Intergroup contact and reduction of explicit and implicit prejudice towards immigrants: A study with Italian businessmen owning small and medium enterprises. Quality and Quantity, 45, 213–222. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-010-9366-0

73.

Vezzali

Giovannini

Capozza

(2010). Longitudinal effects of contact on intergroup relations: The role of majority and minority group membership and intergroup emotions. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 20, 462–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1058

74.

Wright

S. C.

Lubensky

M. E.

(2009). The struggle for social equality: Collective action versus prejudice reduction. In Demoulin

Leyens

J. P.

Dovidio

J. F.

(Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). Psychology Press.

75.

Wright

S. C.

Taylor

D. M.

(1998). Responding to tokenism: Individual action in the face of collective injustice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 647–667. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992