welcome to uea digital repository - uea digital repository · web viewimagined contact is a...

Running head: IMAGINED CONTACT ENCOURAGES PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR 1

Imagined contact encourages prosocial behavior towards outgroup members.

Rose Meleady

Charles Seger

University of East Anglia

In press at Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

IMAGINED CONTACT ENCOURAGES PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Abstract

Imagined contact is a relatively new technique designed to focus the accumulated knowledge

of over 500 studies of intergroup contact into a simple and versatile prejudice-reduction

intervention. While it is now clear that imagined contact can improve intergroup attitudes, its

ability to change actual intergroup behavior is less well established. Some emerging findings

provide cause for optimism with non-verbal, and unobtrusive measures of behavior. This

paper extends this work by adopting methods from behavioral economics to examine more

deliberative behavior. Participants believed they were playing a prisoners dilemma with an

outgroup member. They could choose whether to cooperate or compete with the other player.

In three studies, we provide reliable evidence that imagined contact (vs. control) successfully

encouraged more prosocial, cooperative choices. In the third study we show that this effect is

mediated by increased trust towards the outgroup member. The findings demonstrate that

imagined contact interventions can have a tangible impact on volitional intergroup behaviors.

Key words: Intergroup contact; imagined contact; prosocial behavior; behavioral economics;

outgroup trust.

2


According to the intergroup contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954), we can reduce

prejudice between different cultural groups by encouraging interaction between them.

Volumes of evidence have now supported this hypothesis. Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2006)

meta-analysis of 515 studies confirms the robust, negative relationship between contact and

prejudice. This effect is strengthened by certain ‘optimal’ conditions (e.g., equal status of the

groups in the situation, intergroup cooperation, common goals, and authority support), but

remains even in their absence. The prejudice-reducing effect of contact also holds for groups

others than ethnic minorities for whom the hypothesis was originally formulated, including

groups stigmatized on the basis of their sexuality, age and religion (Brown & Hewstone,

2005). This is a simple, yet powerful effect. Having a positive, friendly encounter with

groups that differ from our own generally makes us feel warmer towards them.

While intergroup contact is now firmly established as a powerful strategy for

combating prejudice, it relies on individuals having both the opportunity and inclination to

engage in meaningful interactions across group lines. Unfortunately, many societies remain

highly segregated. It is difficult to bring groups together when they live, work and go to

school in segregated settings. Even in mixed social environments, the available evidence

suggests that interracial communication is often fleeting or superficial (e.g., Dixon &

Durrhiem, 2003; Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994). In order to enhance the applicability of

intergroup contact, recent research has considered some new, complementary strategies

which can be implemented when contact opportunities are scare, or people are disinclined to

engage in contact. Two new forms of contact have received particular research attention:

extended contact and imagined contact.

The extended contact hypothesis states that simply knowing or observing other people

in the ingroup who have contact with the outgroup can vicariously reduce prejudice (Wright,

Aron, McLaughlin-Vope, & Ropp, 1997). This notion has been supported in a variety of

3


intergroup contexts. Cross-sectional research demonstrates that extended contact is associated

with prejudice reduction among groups such as Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland

(Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns, & Voci 2004), and Whites and South Asians in England (Turner,

Hewstone, Voci, & Vonofakou, 2008). As an experimental manipulation, reading stories

depicting intergroup friendships has also improved children’s intergroup attitudes (Cameron,

Rutland, Brown, & Douch 2006). West and Turner (2014) have also shown that an extended

contact intervention buffered against physiological stress in anticipation of an intergroup

encounter and subsequently led to a more positive interaction.

Extended contact may allow for widespread reductions in prejudice as individuals

need not personally know an outgroup member in order to benefit from the positive effects of

cross-group friendship. However, in ethnically (or attitudinally) homogenous societies even

extended contact may be in short support. One simply may not know anyone who has an

outgroup friend. Extended contact is still restricted in that is still requires at least one ingroup

member to interact with an outgroup member in a way that is positive and public (West,

Turner, & Levita, 2015). Importantly, research has demonstrated the efficacy of an

alternative form on intergroup contact which has no such restriction - imagined contact.

Imagined contact principally comprises of “the mental simulation of a social

interaction with a member or members of an outgroup category” (Crisp & Turner, 2009, p.

234). Imagining oneself engaging in a behavior can activate the same neurological responses

as the real experience (Kosslyn, Ganis, & Thompson, 2001). This occurs not only on the

physiological level (e.g., the eye pupils adjusts to imaginary light; Laeng & Sulutvedt, 2014)

but also with higher-level processing (Barsalou, Niedenthal, Barbey, & Ruppert, 2003).

When applied to social situations, mentally simulating a particular social context can increase

the accessibility and expression of the relevant attitudinal and behavioral responses similar to

4


those experienced in the context itself (Blair, Ma, & Lenton, 2001; Garcia, Weaver,

Moskowitz, & Darley, 2002). Accordingly, the imagined contact hypothesis proposes that

simply imagining positive interactions with members of other groups should have many of

the same consequences as actually having interactions with members of other groups (Crisp

& Turner, 2009).

Despite its relatively recent inception, the imagined contact

hypothesis has received a great deal of empirical support (for a meta-

analysis of over 70 studies see Miles & Crisp, 2014). Imagined contact has

been shown to improve attitudes towards a range of target groups,

including those stigmatized on the basis of their nationality (e.g., Stathi &

Crisp, 2008), ethnicity (e.g., Husnu & Crisp, 2010; Stathi, Cameron,

Hartley, & Bradford, 2014) religion (e.g., Birtel & Crisp, 2012a), as well as

age (e.g., Turner, Crisp, & Lambert, 2007), mental health (e.g., West &

Bruckmuller, 2013; West, Holmes, & Hewstone, 2011) sexuality (e.g.,

Turner et al., 2007; Turner, West, & Christie, 2013) and weight (e.g.,

Turner & West, 2011). These effects have been observed at both the

explicit and implicit level (e.g., Turner & Crisp, 2010; Vezzali, Capozza,

Giovanni, & Stathi, 2012).

Significant advances have also been made in understanding the

factors mediating the effect of imagined contact on prejudiced attitudes.

Turner and colleagues (2007) originally proposed that like direct contact,

the effect of imagined contact was driven by reduced intergroup anxiety.

This mediating role of intergroup anxiety in imagined contact effects has

now been well replicated across task variants and target outgroups (e.g.,

5


Husnu & Crisp, 2010; West et al., 2011). Friendship related emotions also

seem to play an important role, including outgroup trust (Pagotto, Visintin,

De Iorio, & Voci, 2012; Turner et al., 2013), perceptions of outgroup

warmth (Bilewicz & Kogan, 2013), empathy (Kuchenbrandt, Eyssel, &

Seidel, 2013) and perspective taking (Husnu & Crisp, 2015).

The Behavioral Consequences of Imagined Contact

Intergroup contact research has been criticized for an excessive focus on self-reported

attitudes (as has the field of social psychology more generally, Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder,

2007). Notwithstanding the considerable evidence that imagined contact can improve

intergroup attitudes as reported on questionnaires, the ultimate goal of contact interventions is

an improvement in intergroup relations. It is positive behavior towards members of other

groups that is most likely to result in a harmonious society (Turner et al., 2013). It is therefore

important for research to investigate the effects of imagined contact on indicators of positive

intergroup behavior, as well as attitudes. Below we outline the progress that has made

towards this goal to date.

Imagined contact has been shown to improve behavioral intentions towards the

outgroup (in fact, meta-analytic tests reveal that the effect of imagined contact effects on

intentions is stronger than that on attitudes, Miles & Crisp, 2014). Husnu and colleagues first

demonstrated this effect in the context of prolonged conflicts in Cyprus (Crisp, Husnu,

Meleady, Stathi, & Turner, 2010; Husnu & Crisp, 2010). Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot

participants who imagined having contact with members of the opposite group subsequently

expressed greater intentions to positively engage with previously stigmatized groups in the

future (see also Asbrock, Gutenbrunner, & Wagner, 2013; Birtel & Crisp, 2012a; Stathi,

6


Crisp, & Hogg, 2011; Vezzali, Capozza, Stathi, & Giovannini, 2012; Vezzali, Stathi, Crisp,

& Capozza, 2015). In a similar vein, imagined contact has been shown to change approach

and avoidance behavioral tendencies. After imagined contact participants reported an

increased desire to get to know and spend time with members of the outgroup, and a weaker

desire to keep their distance for them (Turner et al., 2013). These results are complemented

by Vezzali, Crisp, Stathi and Giovannini (2015). The authors asked a cohort of Italian

students who were about to embark on a college exchange programme to imagine a positive

encounter with a native from the host country. A questionnaire administered on their return

revealed that these participants reported spending more time with natives during the trip

compared to those who only completed the post-exchange questionnaire.

While these studies hint at the potential benefits of imagined contact for intergroup

behavior, there are limitations to studies using questionnaires that ask people to report what

they will do, or what they have done. It is well established that people often fail to translate

their intentions into action, and accordingly behavioral intentions do not always correlate

highly with actual behavior (‘intention-behavior gap’; Sheeran, 2002). Moreover, self-

reported subjective measures of past behavior (and hypothetical future behaviors) may be

biased by social desirability concerns (Ganster, Hennessey, & Luthans, 1983) and

motivations to appear unprejudiced (Plant & Devine, 1998). In short, people will not always

do what they say they will do, and have not always done what they say they have done. For

this reason it is important that these results are supplemented with measures of actual

intergroup behavior.

A few imagined contact studies have now moved beyond self-reports of intergroup

behavior. Turner and West (2011) examined the impact of imagined contact on non-verbal

behavior. Participants were informed that they would shortly be taking part in a discussion

with an outgroup member, either an obese individual (Study 1) or a Muslim person (Study 2).

7


The dependent variable was a variation of the seating distance measure used by McConnell

and Leibold (2001), which serves as an unobtrusive measure of social distance. Participants

were asked to set out two chairs in preparation for this discussion. The distance placed

between the chairs by the participant constituted the dependent variable. In both studies,

participants who had engaged in an imagined contact manipulation subsequently placed the

chairs significantly closer than those in the control condition.

Birtel and Crisp (2012b) have also examined whether imagined contact may

counteract the detrimental effect of intergroup anxiety on the quality of intergroup

communication. Participants were asked to record a video message to introduce themselves to

an outgroup member. Independent coders rated the quality of non-verbal communicative

behavior within the videos, including how relaxed or strained, open or guarded the participant

appeared. The authors reported that while higher anxiety predicted lower quality of

communication, this relationship was eliminated following imagined contact. West and

colleagues (2015) recently supported these findings within the context of a face-to-face

interaction. The target outgroup in this case was people with schizophrenia. After completing

either the imagined contact or control simulation, participants were asked to have a two-

minute conversation with a person with schizophrenia (actually, a confederate). Imagined

contact was found to buffer against physiological stress in anticipation of the interaction, and

improve the perceived quality of the interaction, as rated by the confederate.

So, from the available research we can conclude that imagined contact successfully

improves self-reported intentions towards the outgroup (Crisp et al., 2010; Turner et al, 2013)

as well as subtle, non-verbal behaviors, such seating distance (Turner & West, 2011) and

interaction quality (Birtel & Crisp, 2012b; West et al; 2015). In this paper, we seek to extend

this line of research by examining more deliberative intergroup behavior.. Positive intergroup

relations are marked by engaging in actual, cooperative behavior with the other group to

8


achieve mutual welfare, particularly when such cooperative may run contrary to the ingroup’s

(or self’s) selfish interests (Everett, Faber, & Crockett, 2015). The present paper is the first

attempt to examine how imagined contact can influence these volitional behaviors within the

context of an economic decision making game.

The Present Research

This research aimed to examine the effect of imagined contact on cooperative

behavior towards outgroup members. Pagotto and colleagues (2012) have previously shown

that imagined contact increased cooperative behavioral intentions towards the outgroup. We

sought to extend this research by using a more direct, behavioral measure of cooperation. To

do so, we employed methods from behavioral economics. In the Prisoner’s Dilemma game

(Rapoport & Chammah, 1965), decision-makers must choose whether to cooperate or

compete with another party. The matrix indicates the payoffs participants receive as a

function of their choice, and the choice of the other player (see Table 1, adapted from Preston

& Ritter, 2013). To avoid norm-laden terms, we label the two choices J and P. (Meleady,

Crisp, & Hopthrow, 2013). J is the cooperative behavior because joint welfare is maximized

by both people choosing J. P is the competitive (non-cooperative) behavior, because

personal, selfish gain is maximized by choosing P, however, if both players choose to

compete (P) they will both receive a lower payoff than if they had both cooperated (J).

[insert Table 1 here]

The clear strength of economic games, such as the prisoner’s dilemma, is their focus

on behavior, rather than attitudes or self-reported behavioral tendencies. The external validity

of economic games and their ability predict individuals’ behavior in the field has also

received support (for review see Benz & Meier, 2008). In the present investigation

9


participants were led to believe that they are playing the prisoner’s dilemma against an

individual identified as a member of a national outgroup. In three studies we

comprehensively tested whether imagined contact will increase the likelihood of cooperative

(vs. competitive) choices. Study 1 and 2 soughtto demonstrate the basic effect of imagined

contact on cooperative behavior towards the outgroup. Study 3 then turned to consider the

mechanisms underlying this effect.

Study One

In Study 1 we provided the first test of the hypothesis that imagined contact would

lead to more prosocial, cooperative behavior towards outgroup members, compared to a

control simulation.

Participants and Design

Participants were American citizens in the United States, recruited through Amazon’s

Mechanical Turk (MTurk).This online platform allows for rapid and inexpensive data

collection. It is now commonly used in social science research and has been shown to provide

reliable data from samples that are more representative of the general population

(Burhmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). We employed a number of methods to identify

careless respondents, and recruited a total of 126 participants, aiming for a usable sample of

100 participants. The full sample consisted of 67 male and 59 female participants aged

between 18 and 71 (M = 35.20, SD = 10.79). Following exclusions (see ‘Data Preparation’

section below), the final sample size for analysis was 114, which included 63 males and 51

females, aged between 18 and 71 (M = 34.73, SD = 10.19). Participants received $1 in

exchange for their participation. They were randomly assigned to either the imagined contact

(n = 57) or the control condition (n = 57), in a between subjects design.

Procedure

10


Survey data has shown that the majority of MTurk ‘workers’ are located in either

America (57%) or India (32%; Ross, Irani, Silberman, Zalidivar, & Tomlinson, 2010). We

used this dichotomy to form the basis of the experimental procedure that follows. The

participant group was Americans, and the outgroup target became Indians.

Participants in the experimental condition completed a standard imagined contact

simulation, adapted for the relevant outgroup target (Turner & Crisp, 2010). They were

specifically instructed “We would like you to take a minute to imagine yourself meeting a

person from India for the first time. Imagine that the interaction is positive, relaxed and

comfortable”. Participants in the control condition completed a standard control simulation in

which they were asked to imagine meeting an unspecified stranger (i.e. the outgroup

descriptor is removed: see Stathi & Crisp, 2008). In both conditions participants were given

one minute to complete the simulation. They then wrote several lines describing what they

had imagined to reinforce the effects of the simulation.

Following the manipulation, participants were told that they would shortly be asked to

complete a financial decision-making task with a second participant. The following

information was presented:

An analysis of the demographics of MTurk workers shows that the majority

of users are located in either America or India. This research is investigating

how individuals from these two populations make financial decisions. You

will shortly be asked to complete a two-player financial decision-making task.

Your decision in this task with be combined with that of another, randomly

assigned participant recruited for this study from either America or India.

Your outcome in this task will depend on your choice, and the choice made

by the other player.

11


Participants were then presented with the prisoner’s dilemma payoff matrix (see

Table 1) and a detailed set of instructions explaining the structure of game.

Comprehension questions were administered to check participants’ understanding of the

nature of the dilemma. Participants were told that following the completion of data

collection, 10% of participants recruited for this experiment would be selected at

random to receive actual payment on any money earned in the task. Such lottery

methods are commonly use to implement real incentives in economic games and have

been shown to produce equivalent patterns of responses to that observed when payoffs

are guaranteed (Bolle, 1990).

After a short holding screen participants were told that the experimental

software had randomly assigned them to complete the financial decision making task

with a second participant who was from India. They were then re-presented with the

payoff matrix and asked to make their choice between the cooperative (J) or competitive

(P) behavior. In actuality there was no co-participant. Participants did not receive any

feedback on the outcome of their decision.

Participants completed a post-choice questionnaire measuring some possible

statistical covariates. To confirm that imagined contact exerted an effect on cooperation over

and above participants prior direct contact experience, we measured participants previous

contact with the outgroup with two items tapping the quantity and quality of contact

experience: “How often do you believe you have interacted with people from India” (1,

never to 7, all the time), “How positive or negative have your interactions with people from

India been” (1, very negative to 7, very positive, adapted from Paolini et al., 2014). Scores

were combined into a single multiplicative index of frequent positive contact (as per Dhont &

van Hiel, 2011). We also controlled for participants’ tendency to present themselves in

socially desirable ways, which in economic experiments may increase overall levels of

12


cooperation (Zizzo & Fleming, 2011). Participants completed with Stöber’s (2001) revised

Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17) which measures the extent to which individuals over-

report socially desirable behaviors and attitudes (e.g., “I always eat a healthy diet”) and

under-report social undesirable ones (e.g., “In traffic I am always polite and considerate of

others”). Participants answered on a true-false format. Responses were coded such that

answers of ‘true’ to socially desirable characteristics, and ‘false’ to socially-undesirable

characteristics were awarded 1 point (Stöber’s, 2001). A total score between 0-16 was

produced with higher scores indicating a higher tendency to respond in socially desirable

ways, α = .84

As there is a possibility that participants recruited via MTurk will rush through tasks

in order to increase their earnings, it is recommended that researchers employ screening

measures to prevent inattentive participants from introducing error to their studies (Meade &

Craig, 2012). To this aim participants responded to an attention screen adapted from

Oppenheimer, Meyvis and Davidenko (2009). They were presented with a lure question

“Which of these activities do you engage in regularly?” along with sports response options. A

paragraph of text directly above contained an instruction to answer ‘none of the above’ to this

question. Failure to do so constituted a failure of the attention screen. We also included an

instructional manipulation check that asked participants to confirm the nationality of the

player they had been assigned to play the financial decision-making task with.

To conclude the experiment participants provided demographic information and

completed a suspicion probe1. Ten percent of the sample was selected at random to receive

actual payment of any money earned in the prisoner’s dilemma game. To do so, the selected

participants were formed into pairs and the decisions of the two players were combined to

produce an outcome for each. Payments were sent via MTurk’s bonus payment feature.

13


Results and Discussion

Data Preparation. It was decided a priori to exclude any participants who failed the

prisoner’s dilemma comprehension questions, failed the attention screen, or incorrectly

reported the nationality of the partner. One participant reported their ethnicity as ‘South

Asian’, and was also removed. There was no main or interactive effect of

participant’s gender on the dependent variable, so this variable is not

considered any further.

Results. Cooperative behavior was operationalized as the proportion of cooperative

choices (J) within the prisoner’s dilemma (see Table 2). A chi-square test confirmed that

proportion of cooperation with the outgroup member was significantly higher in the imagined

contact (66.7%) than control condition (38.6%), X2 (1, N = 114) = 9.01, p = .003, with a

medium effect size, Cramer’s V = .28, 95% CI [.10, .45].


Supplementary Analysis. A logistic regression was conducted in which condition

(0 = control, 1= imagined contact), level of prior contact with the outgroup, and socially

desirable responding (SDR) were entered in the same step. The full model significantly

predicted cooperative behavior (Omnibus X2 = 15.23, df =3, p =.002), accounting for 16.8%

of the variance in cooperation. Importantly, the effect of condition remained significant when

the two control variables were included in the model (B = 1.08, Wald = 7.19, p =.007). The

odds ratio for the effect of condition was 2.96, 95% CI [1.34, 6.53]. That is, the imagined

contact increased the odds of cooperation by a factor of 2.96. Previous contact with the

14


outgroup also explained a significance amount of variance in cooperative behavior (B = 0.04,

Wald = 4.13 p =.042) with an odds ratio of 1.04, 95% CI [1.00, 1.09]. Surprisingly, SDR had

a marginally significant negative association with cooperative behavior (B = -0.10, Wald =

3.47, p =.062) with an odds ratio of 0.90, 95% CI [0.81, 1.01].2

The present study employed an economic game to explore the effects of

imagined contact on behavior. It has previously been demonstrated that imagined

contact can improve self-reported and subtle measures of intergroup behavior. This

study aimed to extend this line of research by employing a measure of more

deliberative, resource-sharing behavior. Participants completed a prisoner’s dilemma

game with another participant who was always purposely identified as a member of the

national outgroup, rather than the subject’s own group. Participants choose whether to

cooperate with this individual in pursuit of joint welfare, or compete in pursuit of their

own selfish interests. The results demonstrated that participants were more likely to

make the prosocial, cooperative choice when they had previously imagined a positive

encounter with a member of the outgroup. This effect held when accounting for the role

of previous contact with the outgroup, as well as participants’ tendency to response in a

socially desirable way.

Study Two

Study 1 provided the first evidence that imagined contact can successfully encourage

cooperative behavior towards the outgroup. Study 2 was designed specifically with the aim of

replicating these results. We also sought to establish the generalizability of the effect of

imagined contact on cooperative behavior by changing the intergroup context. To do this we

simply reversed the participant and target outgroups from Study 1. This time, Indians were

the participant group, and Americans became the target outgroup.

15



One hundred and twenty six participants (the same initial sample size as Study 1)

were recruited from Indian via MTurk. The full sample consisted of 70 male and 56 female

participants aged between 18 and 68 (M = 31.22, SD = 9.29). After exclusions (see Data

Preparation section), the final sample size used for data analysis was 95. This included 52

males and 43 females, aged between 18 and 67 (M = 31.70, SD = 9.50). Participants received

$1 in exchange for their participation (approx. 62 Indian Rupees). They were randomly

assigned to either the imagined contact (n = 49) or the control condition (n = 46), in a

between subjects design.

Procedure

The procedure was identical to Study 1. The study was presented in English, which is

typical for MTurk tasks available to Indian MTurk ‘workers’. The attention screening

methods (as per Study 1) doubled as a check of English language proficiency.

Participants in the imagined contact condition were instructed to imagine meeting and

interacting with an American, while those in control condition imagined interacting with an

unspecified stranger. Participants then completed the prisoner’s dilemma task. The same

payoff matrix from Study 1 was used in which possible outcomes were displayed in dollars. 3

As in Study 1, participants were told that the research was looking at decision making across

cultures, and they would shortly be asked to play a financial decision making game with

another participant who was from either India or America. Assignments were confirmed on

the next page. All participants were told that they had been paired with an American (i.e. an

outgroup member). After making their choice between the cooperative or competitive

behavior, participants completed measures of previous contact experience and SDR (α

= .77) as per Study 1. To complete the experiment participants provided demographic

16


information and completed a suspicion probe. Ten percent of participants were selected at

randomly to receive payment of any money earned in the prisoner’s dilemma.


Data Preparation. As in Study 1, any participants who failed the comprehension

questions, attention screen or instructional manipulation check were excluded from the

analysis. There was no main or interactive effect of gender.

Results. Results were in line with Study 1 (see Table 3). Participants in the imagined

contact condition were significantly more likely to make the cooperative choice (44.9%), than

those in the control condition (23.9%), X2 (1, N = 95) = 4.61, p =.032, Cramer’s V = .22, 95%

CI [0.03, 0.41].


Supplementary Analysis. Again, we conducted a logistic regression to control for

previous contact with the outgroup and SDR. The full model significantly predicted

cooperative behavior (Omnibus X2 = 8.06, df =3, p =.051), accounting for 11.7% of the

variance in cooperation. The effect of condition remained significant (B = 1.03, Wald = 4.94,

p =.026) with an odds ratio of 2.81, 95% CI [1.13, 6.98]. SDR was a marginally significant

positive predictor of cooperative behavior (B = 0.12, Wald = 2.81, p =.094) with an odds ratio

of 1.00, 95% CI [.97, 1.04]. The more people generally present themselves in a socially-

desirable way, the more they tended to behave cooperatively. The contribution of previous

contact experience was not significant in this case (p >.99).

17


The results of Study 2 help us confirm the reliability of our experimental effect.

Indian participants were more likely to exhibit cooperative (vs. competitive) behavior

towards Americans when they had first imagined positive contact with member of the

outgroup. By changing the intergroup context, we are also able to provide support for the

generalizability of the positive behavioral effects of imagined contact.

Study Three

Study 1 and Study 2 provide convergent evidence that imagined contact encourages

prosocial behavior towards outgroup members. Study 3 turned to consider the mechanisms

underlying this effect. Specifically, we considered the role of trust, which has often been

conceptualized as a mediator of the imagined contact effect (Pagotto et al., 2012; Turner et

al., 2013; Vezzali, Capozza, Stathi et al., 2012) and also plays a prominent role in

establishing cooperation in mixed-motive games (e.g., Messick et al., 1983; Parks & Hulbert,

1995). The prisoner’s dilemma used throughout the present investigation places participants

in a situation of interdependence with an outgroup member. They believe that their outcome

will depend on their choice, and the choice made by an outgroup member. The nature of the

dilemma is such that mutual cooperation provides better outcomes for both parties than

mutual competition. However, by cooperating individuals risk being exploited if cooperation

is not returned. If the other party does not cooperate, the cooperator will suffer a large loss

and the competitor will realize a large gain. In order to cooperate, one needs to trust one’s

partner. When trust is high, people have confidence that others will act in a mutually

beneficial way and experience less fear that others will exploit them, making it easier to

choose to cooperate themselves. Study 3 examined whether the effect of imagined contact on

18


cooperative behavior may be explained by increased feelings of trust towards the outgroup

member.


We reverted back to the participant and target groups used in Study 1. Participants

were American Citizens recruited from the United States (via MTurk) and the target outgroup

was Indians. The study was limited to individuals who had not participated in previous

studies in this investigation. The sample size was increased to provide additional statistical

power to test for mediational effects. We recruited 200 individuals, including 118 male and

82 female participants aged between 18 and 67 (M = 32.16, SD = 9.67). After exclusions

(see Data Preparation section), the final sample size for analysis was 172, including 102

males and 70 females aged between 18 and 67 (M = 32.05, SD = 9.73). Participants all

received $1 in exchange for their participation. They were randomly assigned to either the

imagined contact (n = 89) or control condition (n = 83) in a between subjects design.

Procedure

The procedure followed that of Study 1. The only addition was a measure of trust

towards the outgroup member. After making their prisoners dilemma choice, participants

rated their general trust of the other player, responding to the following question: “The person

you were assigned to complete the financial decision making task with was Indian. How

much do you trust this person?” (1, not at all to 7, very much). Participants then completed

the measures of previous contact experience and SDR (α = .80).


Data Preparation. Exclusion criteria were the same as in Study 1. Two participants

reported their ethnicity as ‘South Asian’ and were removed from the analyses. Participants

who failed the attention screen, comprehension questions, or incorrectly recalled the

19


nationality of their partner were also removed. Again, there was no main or interactive effects

of gender.

Results. In line with Study 1 and 2, a chi squared analysis revealed that the proportion

of cooperation was significantly higher in the imagined contact condition (48.3%) than the

control condition (33.7%), X2 (1, N = 172) = 3.77, p =.052, Cramer’s V = .15, 95% CI [0.02,

0.30] see Table 4.


An independent samples t-test revealed that participants in the imagined contact

condition reported significantly greater feelings of trust towards their Indian partner (M =

4.47, SD =1.57), compared to the control condition (M =3.72, SD =1.60), t (169) = 3.11, p

=.002, d =.47. A mediation analysis was computed to examine whether this increase in trust

accounted for the effect of imagined contact on cooperative behavior. Preacher and Hayes

(2008) INDIRECT SPSS macro was used to conduct this analysis. Based on bootstrapping

with 5,000 resamples, the mean estimate for the indirect effect was .35 (SE = .16), with 95%

confidence intervals of 0.11 to 0.75. As zero did not fall within the confidence intervals, the

results indicate significant mediation. Full path estimates are displayed in Figure 1.

[insert Figure 1 here]

Supplementary Analysis. A logistic regression was conducted to confirm that the

effect of imagined contact held when previous contact and SDR were included in the model.

The full model significantly predicted cooperative behavior (Omnibus X2 = 12.66, df = 3, p

=.005). The model accounted for 8.2% of the variance in cooperation. The effect of condition

remained a marginally significant predictor of cooperation (B = 0.48, Wald = 2.60 p =.107)

with an odds ratio of 1.61, 95% CI [0.90, 2.87]. Previous contact with the outgroup was also

a significant predictor of cooperation (B = 0.04, Wald = 8.109, p =.004) with an odds ratio of

20


0.96, 95% CI [0.93, 0.99]. SDR was not a significant predictor (p >.50). The indirect effect of

imagined contact on cooperative behavior through trust towards the outgroup member

remained significant when previous contact was included as a covariate (Point Estimate

= .31, SE = .34, 95% CI [0.05, 0.59]), and when both previous contact and SDR are both

included (Point Estimate = .23, SE = .14, 95% CI [0.05, 0.59]).

The results of Study 3 again demonstrate that imagined contact encourages

cooperation with outgroup members. This effect operated via increased trust. After imagined

a positive contact encounter with a member of outgroup individuals felt more trusting

towards their outgroup partner, thereby reducing the risk associated with the cooperative

choice. Outgroup trust has previously been shown to mediate the effect of imagined contact

on future contact intentions (Vezzali, Capozza, Stathi et al., 2012), outgroup approach

tendencies (Turner et al., 2013), and cooperative intentions (Pagotto et al., 2012). Here, we

extend this line of research by investigating whether trust may mediate the effect of imagined

contact on a direct measure of cooperative behavior. Previous imagined contact research has

tended to measure trust towards unknown outgroup members (Turner et al., 2014; Vezzali,

Capozza, Stathi, et al., 2012), or the outgroup as a whole (Pagotto et al., 2012). We focused

instead on trust towards a specific co-decision maker, as is more typical of research on

cooperation in mixed-motive situations (e.g. Messick et al., 1983; Parks & Hulbert, 1995).

We therefore demonstrate a novel effect, whereby when participants encounter a person

belonging to the group with whom contact was imagined, they are more willing to trust that

person as an individual. This trust, in turn, serves as a motivator of cooperative behavior

towards them.

General Discussion

21


It is now well established that imagined contact can facilitate more positive intergroup

attitudes and friendship-related emotions (Crisp & Turner, 2009). Some emerging findings

also provide cause for optimism about the potential of imagined contact to improve

intergroup behavior. The present research aims to extend this line of research by adopting

methods from behavioral economics to provide a more deliberative behavioral measure than

the subtle, non-verbal behaviors used in prior research (Birtel & Crisp, 2012; Turner & West,

2011; West et al., 2015). Participants believed they were playing a prisoner’s dilemma game

against an individual identified as belonging to an outgroup. In three studies we demonstrate

that imagined contact helps overcome intergroup competition and produces cooperative

behavior towards outgroup members. This effect persisted even when previous contact with

the outgroup and social desirable responding were controlled for.

Pagotto and colleagues (2012) have previously reported an effect of imagined contact

on cooperative behavioral intentions. Participants who imagined a positive encounter with a

Muslim immigrant were subsequently more likely to prefer their hometown municipality to

distribute funds in a way that maximized joint welfare between Italians and Muslim

immigrants. The present studies complement and extend these findings in several ways.

Asking participants to choose how government funds should be distributed is a purely

hypothetical task. More than this, the intended behavior in the Pagotto study was not to be

carried out by the participant themselves, but by another agent with consequences for

unknown ingroup and outgroup members In the present study, participants made a binding

personal choice that could have real economic consequences for the self as well as the

outgroup member. Moreover, our economic game allowed us to model a situation of

interdependence between the decision makers such that the choices of both parties determine

the outcomes they both receive (in contrast to the unilateral decisions made in Pagotto’s

study). Our mediational results suggest that after imagined contact, participants were more

22


trusting of their outgroup partner, and thus more inclined to make the cooperative choice

even though it carries the risk of exploitation.

Two investigations have now directly compared the strength of imagined and direct

contact interventions (Giacobbe, Stukas, & Farhall, 2013; Vezzali et al., 2015). Neither study

found reliable differences between the two strategies, however, as may be expected, effect

sizes did tend to be larger after direct experience (see Fazio, Powell, & Kerr, 1983). Rather

than being considered merely as a replacement for direct intergroup contact then, we suggest

imagined contact may also have significant utility as a pre-contact tool. Previous research has

shown that that imagined contact can reduce existing negative expectations and anxiety and

foster an interest in engaging with the outgroup in the future (Crisp et al., 2010). We go on to

suggest that when cross-group experiences do arise, imagined contact will help increase the

likelihood that they are cooperative. This is an important aim given that intergroup

cooperation is one of the four components of the ‘optimal’ contact situation identified by

Allport (1954). The rationale for this follows directly from realistic group conflict theory;

while a cooperative contact situation can reduce intergroup bias, competitive encounters are

likely to increase bias (Sherif, 1966; see also Barlow et al., 2012). We suggest that if people

spend some time imagining intergroup contact before engaging in such encounters, it will

increase the chance that individuals will choose cooperation over competition.

We replicate the basic effect of imagined contact on cooperative behavior in three

studies, and across two different target outgroups and two different participant groups.

Previous research has documented the beneficial effects of imagined contact towards a

diverse range of target outgroups. However, these studies largely rely on university students

as the participant group. In the present research we were able to recruit from the wider

community by using Amazon’s MTurk. This platform has been shown to provide reliable

data from samples that are more representative of the general population than traditional

23


student samples (Burhmester et al., 2011). In the present research we actually integrated the

prominent features of MTurk into the experimental procedure. The majority of MTurk

workers are located in either America or India (Ross et al., 2010). We recruited both

Americans and Indian participants and the other group became the target outgroup. To our

knowledge, this investigation is the first to demonstrate the effectiveness of imagined contact

with these populations, either as a participant group or target outgroup.

We note however, that it is possible that this procedure may have inadvertently

created a sense of superordinate identification between the two groups (Gaertner & Dovidio,

2000). Americans may have felt an affinity to Indians, and vice versa, as fellow ‘Turkers’.

This reference to a superordinate category was, however, consistent across the imagined

contact and control condition and so cannot be said to confound the present results or dispute

the role of imagined contact in elevating cooperation rates. Nevertheless, future research

should be tasked with replicating these findings with procedures that do not make reference

to communalities between the ingroup and outgroup, or within more hostile intergroup

contexts.

It should also be noted that, on the basis of the present data, it cannot be

unequivocally established whether imagined contact increases cooperation towards the

outgroup specifically, or cooperative behavior in general. Although participants believed that

they could be asked to play the economic game with either a member of the ingroup or the

outgroup, when the assignment was confirmed they were always told that they had been

paired with an outgroup member. Without a comparison to cooperation levels with an

ingroup partner (or partner whose nationality is unknown) we cannot conclude that imagined

contact makes people more cooperative towards the outgroup per se. Future research should

go on to manipulate the partner’s group membership in this way in pursuit of divergent

validity. Of course, if imagined contact is found to create a general positivity and increase the

24


chance of prosocial behavior, irrespective of the opponent, this would be equally valuable to

theory and would contribute to recent demonstrations of the more expansive benefits of

diversity experience, beyond prejudice reduction (Crisp & Turner, 2011; Crisp & Meleady,

2012).

A criticism that is often directed at imagined contact work is the potential role of

demand characteristics. That is, participants in the imagined contact condition may have

guessed the experimental hypotheses and adjusted their attitudes or behavior in accordance

with what they believed the experimenter expected of them. However, feedback following the

studies revealed that no participants were able to accurately guess the aims of the research.

Moreover, the effect of imagined contact persisted even after we controlled for scores on a

widely used measure of socially desirable responding. It does not appear that participants’

actions were intended simply to foster a positive impression of him- or herself. Indeed, while

there was a positive association between SDR and cooperative behavior in the Indian sample

as one may expect, in the two American samples the association between SDR and

cooperation was trending in the negative direction. It is possible that, in this cultural context,

cooperating across group lines was perceived as socially undesirable and contrary to

parochial cooperative norms (see De Dreu, Balliet, & Halevy, 2014).

We also controlled for participants’ previous direct contact with the outgroup. Again,

we find differential effects of previous contact in the two cultural contexts. In the American

samples, previous contact was positively associated with cooperation towards the outgroup.

Aside from the supplementary effect of imagined contact then, participants who reported

more frequent and positive contact with Indians were more likely to make the cooperative

(vs. competitive) choice. In the Indian sample, on the other hand, direct contact experience

was unrelated to cooperation. Such findings are in line with what we know about contact

being generally less impactful for members of the lower status group (Tropp & Pettigrew,

25


2005) which constitutes Indians in the present context. On the whole, India’s economy is

significantly less developed than the American economy (e.g. United Nations Development

Programme, 2014) and even urban, middle class Indians feel relative deprivation when

American ideals are salient (Yang, Ramasubramanian & Oliver, 2008). It is encouraging

then, that an imagined contact intervention successfully elevated cooperation in both groups.

It must be noted, however, that the two covariates considered in this research were

measured after the experimental manipulation. Thus we cannot be sure that they are

completely independent of the imagined contact effect. Examination of the descriptive

statistics revealed no significant effect of the manipulation on either previous contact or SDR

in Studies 1 or 2. However in Study 3, we did observe that participants reported significantly

higher prior contact experience in the imagined contact condition compared to the control4.

We expect that this is likely explained by the fact that imagined contact served to make the

concept of contact more cognitively available, thereby inflating participants judgments of the

frequency of their past contact encounters (Carroll, 1978; Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). We

cannot, therefore, rule out the possibility that the effect of previous contact that we observe in

Study 3 is not driven, in part, by the imagined contact exposure. Future research would best

be served by measuring these possible covariates independently of the experimental

manipulation. Additionally, our mediator variable was measured with a single-item. Although

is in line with similar studies of economic choice (e.g. De Cremer & van Vugt, 1998; Mulder,

van Dijk, De Cremer, & Wikle, 2006), a measure that allows for the possible

multidimensionality of trust-related emotions and cognitions may also be valuable in future

investigations.

To date, only a few studies have implemented a delay between the imagined contact

intervention and measures of intergroup bias (e.g., Husnu & Crisp, 2010; Vezzali et al., 2015;

Vezzali, Capozza, Giovanni et al., 2012; Vezzali, Capozza, Stathi et al., 2012). We suggest

26


that experimental economic games may be a good way of examining the durability of the

imagined contact effect. In the present study we employed a one-shot economic game.

Future research should go on to confirm that the behavioral effects of imagined contact

persist in iterated games when participants are asked to make several cooperative or

competitive choices over repeated trials. This would also introduce the interesting possibility

of studying how participants respond to feedback on the apparent behavior of the outgroup

partner. If the outgroup member always chooses to cooperate, might individuals who

imagined contact be less prone to exploiting them by switching to the competitive choice, for

instance?

It has previously been demonstrated that imagined contact effects can be enhanced

when the imagery script includes aspects of cooperation. Kuchenbrandt et al. (2013) asked

participants to imagine a scenario in which they worked with a Roma stranger to find some

extra chairs so that they could both join a class with no available seats. Adding this

cooperation component to the instructions increased the effect of the intervention on

prejudiced attitudes compared to a standard positive contact scenario. It is worth noting that

the manipulations used in the present studies made no reference to cooperation. Priming

participants with the goal to cooperate can be an effective means of eliciting cooperative

behavior (Bargh, Gollwitzer, Lee-Chai, Barndollar, & Trotschel, 2001). We may therefore

expect that a cooperative variant of the imagined contact manipulation would supplement the

effects of the intervention on cooperative behavior, and perhaps help ensure sustained

cooperation.

We recommend that future research should also seek to corroborate the present

findings with other measures of prosocial behavior. We focus here on cooperative behavior

whereby individuals come together to work towards a common goal that will benefit all

parties involved. Future research may go on to consider whether imagined contact might also

27


increase helping behavior, where a helper delivers assistance to a benefactor (Dovidio,

Piliavin, Schroeder, & Penner, 2006). Could imagined contact increase individuals

willingness to donate to charitable organization associated with the outgroup, or help an

outgroup member in an emergency situation, for example. While trust was important in the

present case, we may expect other mediators, such as empathy, to come into play with these

more unidirectional prosocial behaviors.

Conclusion

According to the imagined contact hypothesis, the very concept of contact, mentally

articulated in the form of an imagined interaction can provide an effective prejudice-

reduction technique. Here, we demonstrate that imagined contact has a tangible effect on

intergroup behavior. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated that participants who engaged in an

imagined contact were subsequently more likely to cooperate with an outgroup member in an

economic game, compared to those in the control condition. Study 3 demonstrated that this

effect was mediated by trust towards the outgroup member. When resources were

interdependent, individuals were more likely to engage in behaviors that are taken at a

personal risk in order to maximize mutual benefit, because they felt more trust towards the

outgroup member. We recommend that future research should go on to examine the effects of

imagined contact techniques on other deliberative intergroup behaviors.

28


Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

29


References

Allport, G. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley.

Asbrock, F., Gutenbrunner, L., & Wagner, U. (2013). Unwilling, but not unaffected—

Imagined contact effects for authoritarians and social dominators. European Journal

of Social Psychology, 43(5), 404-412. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1956

Bargh, J.A., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., Gollwitzer, P.M., & Trotschel, R. (2010). The

automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (6), 1014-1027. doi: 10.1037//0022-

3514.81.6.1014.

Barlow, F.K., Paolini, S., Pederson, A., Hornsey, M.J., Radke, H.R., Harwood, J…Sibley,

C.G. (2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more

than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 38 (12), 1629-1643. doi: 10.1177/0146167212457953

Barsalou, L. W., Niedenthal, P. M., Barbey, A. K., & Ruppert, J. A. (2003). Social

embodiment. In B. Ross (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 43,

(pp.43-92.). San Diego: Academic Press.

Baumeister, R.F., Vons, K.D., & Funder, D.C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-

reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior. Perspectives

on Psychological Science, 2, 396-403. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x

Benz, M., & Meier, S. (2008). Do people have in experiments as in the field? Evidence from

donations. Experimental Economics, 11, 268-281. doi: 10.1007/s10683-007-9192-y

Bilewicz, M., & Kogan, A. (2014). Embodying imagined contact: Facial feedback moderates

the intergroup consequences of mental simulation. British Journal of Social

Psychology, 53(2), 387-395. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12057

30


Birtel, M.D., & Crisp, R.J. (2012a). “Treating” prejudice: An exposure-therapy approach to

reducing negative reaching towards stigmatized groups. Psychological Science, 23

(11), 1379-1386. doi: 10.1177/0956797612443838

Birtel, M.D., & Crisp, R.J. (2012b). Imagining intergroup contact is more cognitively

difficult for people higher in intergroup anxiety but this does not detract from its

effectiveness. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 15 (6), 744-761. doi:

10.1177/1368430212443867

Blair, I.V., Ma, J.E., & Lenton, A.P. (2001). Imagining stereotypes away: The moderation of

implicit stereotypes through mental imagery. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 81 (5), 828-841. doi: I0.1037//0022-3514.81.5.828

Bolle, F. (1990). High reward experiments without high expenditure for the experimenter?

Journal of Economic Psychology, 11, 157-167. doi:10.1016/0167-4870(90)90001-P

Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. Zanna

(Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255-343). San Diego,

CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S.D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new

source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives in Psychological Science, 6

(1), 3-5, doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980

Cameron, L., Rutland, A., Brown, R., & Douch, R. (2006). Changing children's intergroup

attitudes toward refugees: Testing different models of extended contact. Child

Development, 77(5), 1208-1219. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00929.x

Carroll, J.S. (1978). The effect of imagining an event on expectations for the event: An

interpretation in terms of the availability heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 14 (1), 88-96. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(78)90062-8

31


Crisp, R. J., Husnu, S., Meleady, R., Stathi, S., & Turner, R. N. (2010). From imagery to

intention: A dual route model of imagined contact effects. European Review of Social

Psychology, 21(1), 188-236. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2010.543312

Crisp, R.J. & Meleady, R. (2012). Adapting to a multicultural future. Science, 336, 853-855.

doi: 10.1126/science.1219009

Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions?

Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. American Psychologist, 64 (4),

231-240. doi: 10.1037/a0014718

Crisp, R.J. & Turner, R.N. (2011). Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social and

cultural diversity. Psychological Bulletin, 137 (2), 242-266. doi: 10.1037/a002184

De Dreu, C. K. W., Balliet, D. P., & Halevy, N. (in press). Parochial cooperation in humans:

Forms and functions of self-sacrifice in intergroup conflict. In A. Elliot (Ed.),

Advances in Motivational Science (vol. 1, pp 1—47). New York: Elsevier.

De Cremer, D. & Van Vugt, M. (1998). Collective identity and cooperation in a public goods

dilemma: A matter of trust or self-efficacy? Current Research in Social Psychology, 3

(1), 1-11.

Dhont, K., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Direct contact and authoritarianism as moderators between

extended contact and reduced prejudice: Lower threat and greater trust as mediators.

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14 (2), 223-237. doi:

10.1177/1368430210391121

Dixon, J.A., & Durrheim, K. (2003). Contact and the ecology of racial division: Some

varieties of informal segregation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 1-23.

doi: 10.1348/014466603763276090Dovidio, J.F., Pilivan, J.A., Schroeder, D.A., &

Penner, L.A. (2006). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

32

http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0014718


Everett, J.A.C., Faber, N.S., & Crockett, M. (2015). Preferences and beliefs in ingroup

favoritism. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9 (15), doi:

10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00015

Fazio, R.H., Powell, M.C., & Herr, P.M. (1983). Toward a process model of the attitude-

behavior relation: Assessing one’s attitude upon mere observation of the attitude

object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (4), 723-735.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.4.723

Ganster, D. C., Hennessey, H. W., & Luthans, F. (1983). Social desirability response effects:

Three alternative models. Academy of Management Journal, 26 (2), 321-331.

Gaertner, S.L., & Dovidio, J.F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The Common Ingroup

Identity Model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., Moskowitz, G. B., & Darley, J. M. (2002). Crowded minds: the

implicit bystander effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 843-

853. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.843

Giacobbe, M.R., Stukas, A.A. & Farhall, J. (2013). The effect of imagined versus actual

contact with a person with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Basic and Applied Social

Psychology, 35 (3), 265-271. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2013.785403

Husnu, S., & Crisp, R.J. (2010). Imagined intergroup contact: A new technique for

encouraging greater inter-ethnic contact in Cyprus. Peace and Conflict: Journal of

Peace Psychology, 16, 97-108. doi: 10.1080/10781910903484776

Husnu, S., & Crisp, R. J. (2015). Perspective-taking mediates the imagined contact

effect. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 44, 29-34.

doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.11.005

Kosslyn S.M., Ganis G., & Thompson W. (2001). Neural foundations of imagery. Nature

Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 635-642. doi:10.1038/35090055

33


Kuchenbrandt, D., Eyssel, F., & Seidel, S.K. (2013). Cooperation makes it happen: Imagined

intergroup cooperation enhances the positive effects of imagined contact. Group

Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16 (5), 635-647. doi

10.1177/1368430212470172

Laeng, B., & Sulutvedt, U. (2014). The eye pupil adjusts to imaginary light. Psychological

Science, 25, 188-197. doi:10.1177/0956797613503556

Meade, A.W., & Craig, S.B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data.

Psychological Methods, 17 (3), 437-455. doi: 10.1037/a0028085

Meleady, R., Hopthrow, T., & Crisp, R.J. (2013). Simulating social dilemmas: Promoting

cooperative behavior through imagined group discussion. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 104 (5), 839-853. doi: 10.1037/a0031233

Messick, D.M., Wilke, H., Brewer, M.B., Kramer, R.M., Zemke, P.E., & Lui, L. (1983).

Individual and structural change as solutions to social dilemmas. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (2), 294-309. doi: 10.1037/0022-

3514.44.2.294

McConnelll, A.R., & Leibold, J.M. (2001). Relations among the implicit association test,

discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial attitudes. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 435-442. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1470

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than style.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51 (6), 882-888. doi: 10.1037/0022-

006X.51.6.882

Miles, E., & Crisp, R.J. (2014). A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis.

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17 (1), 3-26. doi:

10.1177/1368430213510573

34


Mulder, L.A., van Dijk, E., De Cremer, D., & Wilke, H.A.M. (2006). Undermining trust and

cooperation: The paradox of sanctioning systems in social dilemmas. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 42 (2), 147-162. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.002

Oppenheimer, D.M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks:

Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 45, 867-872. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009

Pagotto, L., Visintin, E. P., De Iorio, G., & Voci, A. (2012). Imagined intergroup contact

promotes cooperation through outgroup trust. Group Processes & Intergroup

Relations, 16, 209–216. doi: 10.1177/1368430212450057

Paolini, S., Harwood, J., Rubin, M., Husnu, S., Joyce, N., & Hewstone, M. (2014). Positive

and extensive intergroup contact in the past buffers against the disproportionate

impact of negative contact in the present. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44

(6), 548-562. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2029

Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. (2004). Effects of direct and indirect cross-

group friendships on judgments of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: The

mediating role of an anxiety-reduction mechanism. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 30, 770-786. doi: 10.1177/0146167203262848

Parks, C.D., & Hulbert, L.G. (1995). High- and low-trusters’ responses to fear in a payoff

matrix. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38, 718-730.

doi: 10.1177/0022002795039004006

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783. doi: 10.1037/0022-

3514.90.5.751

35


Plant, E.A., & Devine, P.G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to response without

prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (3), 811-832. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing

and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research

Methods, 40 (3), 879-891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Preston, J. L., & Ritter, R. S. (2013). Different effects of religion and God on prosociality

with the ingroup and outgroup. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1471-

1483. doi: 10.1177/0146167213499937

Rapoport, A., & Chammah, A.M. (1965). Prisoner’s dilemma. Ann Arbor: University of

Michigan Press.

Ross, J., Irani, L., Silberman, M. S., Zaldivar, A., & Tomlinson, B. (2010). Who are the

crowdworkers? Shifting demographics in mechanical turk. In CHI EA ’10:

Proceedings of the 28th of the international conference extended abstracts on Human

factors in computing systems, pp. 2863–2872, New York, NY, USA. ACM.

Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behaviour relations: A conceptual and empirical review. In M.

Hewstone, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 12, pp.

1–36). Chichester, England: Wiley

Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and cooperation: Their social psychology. London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Stathi, S., & Crisp, R. J., (2008). Imagining intergroup contact promotes projection to

outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 943–957. doi:

10.1016/j.jesp.2008.02.003

36


Stathi, S., Crisp, R.J., & Hogg, M.A. (2011). Imagined intergroup contact enables member-

to-group generalization. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 15 (3),

275-284. doi:10.1037/a0023752.

Stathi, S., Cameron, L., Hartley, B., & Bradford, S. (2014). Imagined contact as a prejudice-

reduction intervention in schools: The underlying role of similarity and attitudes.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44 (8), 536-546. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12245

Stöber, J. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity,

discriminant validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological

Assessment, 17, 222- 232. doi: 10.1027//1015-5759.17.3.222

Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1994). Theories of intergroup relations: international

social psychological perspectives (2nd ed.) London: Praeger.

Tropp, L.R., & Pettigrew, T.F. (2005). Relationship between intergroup contact and prejudice

among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16 (12), 951-957.

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01643.x

Turner, R.N., & Crisp, R.J. (2010). Imagining intergroup contact reduces implicit prejudice.

British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 129-142. doi:10.1348/014466609X419901

Turner, R. N., Crisp, R. J., & Lambert, E. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve

intergroup attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 427-441.

doi:10.1177/1368430207081533

Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., & Vonofakou, C. (2008). A test of the extended

intergroup contact hypothesis: the mediating role of intergroup anxiety, perceived

ingroup and outgroup norms, and inclusion of the outgroup in the self. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 843-860. doi: 10.1037/a0011434

37


Turner, R. N., & West, K. (2011). Behavioural consequences of imagining intergroup contact

with stigmatized outgroups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,

1368430211418699. doi: 10.1177/1368430211418699

Turner, R. N., West, K., & Christie, Z. (2013). Out‐group trust, intergroup anxiety, and out‐group attitude as mediators of the effect of imagined intergroup contact on intergroup

behavioral tendencies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 196-205. doi:

10.1111/jasp.12019

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and

probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5 (2), 207-232. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90

033-9

United Nations Development Programme (2014). Human Development Report. Retrieved

from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr14-report-en-1.pdf

Vezzali, L., Capozza, D., Giovannini, D. & Stathi, S. (2012). Improving implicit and explicit

intergroup attitudes using imagined contact: An experimental intervention with

elementary school children. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 203-212.

doi: 10.1177/1368430211424920

Vezzali, L., Capozza, D., Stathi, S., & Giovannini, D. (2012). Increasing outgroup trust,

reducing infrahumanization, and enhancing future contact intentions via imagined

intergroup contact. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 437–440.

doi:10.1016/j. jesp.2011.09.008.

Vezzali, L., Crisp, R.J., Stathi, S., & Giovannini, D. (2015). Imagined intergroup contact

facilitates intercultural communication for college students on academic exchange

programmes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18 (1), 66-75. doi:

10.1177/1368430214527853

38


West, K., & Bruckmüller, S. (2013). Nice and easy does it: How perceptual fluency

moderates the effectiveness of imagined contact. Journal of Experimental Social


West, K., Holmes, E., & Hewstone, M. (2011). Enhancing imagined contact to reduce

prejudice against people with schizophrenia. Group Processes & Intergroup

Relations. 14, 407-428. doi:10.1177/1368430210387805

West, K., & Turner, R. (2014). Using extended contact to improve physiological responses

and behaviour toward people with schizophrenia. Journal of Experimental Social


West, K., Turner, R., & Levita, L. (2015). Applying imagined contact to improve

physiological responses in anticipation of intergroup interactions and the perceived

quality of these interactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.

doi: 10.1111/jasp.12309

Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact

effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 73, 73-90. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73

Yang, H., Ramasubramanian, S., & Oliver, M.B. (2008). Cultivation effects on quality of life

indicators: Exploring the effects of American television consumption on feelings of

relative deprivation in South Korea and India. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic

Media, 52 (2), 247-267. doi: 10.1080/08838150801992060

Zizzo, D.J. & Fleming, P. (2011). Can experimental measures of sensitivity to social pressure

predict public good contribution? Economic Letters, 111 (3), 239-242. doi:

10.1016/j.econlet.2011.02.021

39


Notes

1 In all studies reported in this investigation, a small minority of participants, when probed,

reported some suspicion that the second participant may not have been real. The pattern of

data is the same within these participants as the non-suspicious participants, and therefore we

retained their data.

2 In all studies we also considered both covariates as potential moderators of the effect of

condition on cooperative behavior. Across the three studies we found no significant

interaction between condition and either previous contact, or socially desirability responding

at p< .05.

3 Indian MTurk users are paid for tasks in US dollars, which can later be exchanged for Indian

Rupees when participants withdraw their funds.

4 There was significant effect of condition on SDR in any of the three experiments (Study 1,

Mexperimental = 7.42 Mcontrol = 8.19; Study 2, Mexperimental = 11.12 Mcontrol = 11.19;

Study 3 Mexperimental = 8.50 Mcontrol = 8.30). There was also no effect of condition on

reports of previous contact with the outgroup in Study 1 or 2 (Study 1 Mexperimental =

17.93, Mcontrol = 17.45; Study 2 Mexperimental = 28.10, Mcontrol = 27.69). However, in

Study 3 we did find that participants reported their previous contact as significantly higher in

the imagined contact condition compared to the control (Mexperimental = 19.48 Mcontrol =

16.18), t (170) = 2.16, p =.032.

40


Table 1. The prisoner’s dilemma payoff matrix employed in Studies 1-3 (adapted from

Preston & Ritter, 2013).

Note: J = cooperative behavior, P = competitive behavior

41

OTHER PLAYERYOU J P

J You receive: $5Other player: $5

You receive: $0Other player: $10

P You receive: $10Other player: $0

You receive: $2Other player: $2


Table 2. Proportion of cooperative and competitive behavior as a function of condition in

Study 1.



Study 2.


42

Behavioral Choice

J P

Condition

Imagined Contact 66.7% 33.3%

Control 38.6% 61.4%

Behavioral Choice

J P

Condition


Control 23.9% 76.1%



Study 3


43

Behavioral Choice

J P

Condition


Control 33.7% 66.3%


Figure 1. Mediational model of the relationship between imagined contact and behavior through

trust towards the outgroup partner (Study 3)

Note: Path estimates represent unstandardized coefficients. Standard errors presented in

parentheses.

*p < .10**p < .05 *** p<.01.

Adj R2 = .05 F(1,169) = 9.66 p = .01

Condition (0 = control, 1 = imagined contact)

Trust Towards the Outgroup Member

.75 (.24)***

Behavior (0 = competitive, 1=

cooperative)

.47 (.12) ***

.64 (.32) **

.36 (.34)

44

welcome to uea digital repository - uea digital repository · web viewimagined contact is a...

Documents