Flattering compliments and savage insults – The influence of vicarious intergroup contact on minority (outgroup) support considering empathy as a mediating mechanism

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Bibliographische Infos

Cover der Ausgabe: SCM Studies in Communication and Media Jahrgang 15 (2026), Heft 1
Open Access Vollzugriff

SCM Studies in Communication and Media

Jahrgang 15 (2026), Heft 1

Autor:innen:
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyrightjahr
2026
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
ISSN-Print
2192-4007

Kapitelinformationen

Open Access Vollzugriff

Jahrgang 15 (2026), Heft 1

Flattering compliments and savage insults – The influence of vicarious intergroup contact on minority (outgroup) support considering empathy as a mediating mechanism

Autor:innen:
ISSN-Print
2192-4007
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
Kapitelvorschau:

Minderheitsgruppen in einer Gesellschaft, etwa nationale, ethnische oder religiöse Minderheiten, sind häufig auf die Unterstützung anderer Gruppen – sogenannter Outgroups – angewiesen, um ihre Interessen durchzusetzen und sozialen Wandel herbeizuführen. Soziale Medien bieten vielfältige Möglichkeiten für stellvertretenden Intergruppenkontakt, der als niedrigschwelliges Mittel zur Förderung von Fremdgruppenunterstützung angenommen wird. Diese Studie untersucht den Intergruppenkontakt zwischen der gesellschaftlichen Mehrheitsgruppe heterosexueller Personen als Ingroup und der Minderheitsgruppe homosexueller Personen als Outgroup sowie zwischen der Mehrheitsgruppe der White Persons als Ingroup und der Minderheitsgruppe der People of Color (PoC) als Outgroup. Homosexuelle Personen und PoC sind Minderheitsgruppen, die in unserer Gesellschaft systematischer Diskriminierung und sozialer Benachteiligung ausgesetzt sind. Wir untersuchen die Effekte von positiven und negativen Intergruppenkontakten auf verschiedene Formen des Outgroup-Supports sowie die Rolle von Empathie und Perspektivenübernahme gegenüber der Fremdgruppe als potenzielle affektive und kognitive Mediatoren. Die Ergebnisse eines Online-Experiments (N = 477) mit einer stratifizierten demografischen Stichprobe der deutschen Bevölkerung zeigen, dass beobachteter Intergruppenkontakt in Kommentarsektionen sozialer Medien weder Empathie noch verschiedene Formen des Outgroup-Supports beeinflusst. Stattdessen beeinflussen Empathie und Perspektivenübernahme Outgroup-Support unabhängig vom beobachteten Intergruppenkontakt.

Literaturverzeichnis

  1. Ziegele, M., Weber, M., Quiring, O., & Breiner, T. (2018). The dynamics of online news discussions: Effects of news articles and reader comments on users’ involvement, willingness to participate, and the civility of their contributions. Information, Communication & Society, 21(10), 1419–1435. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1324505 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  2. Xiao, R., & Li, S. (2024). The effect of positive inter-group contact on cooperation: The moderating role of individualism. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1323710 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  3. Wojcieszak, M., & Warner, B. R. (2020). Can interparty contact reduce affective polarization? A systematic test of different forms of intergroup contact. Political Communication, 37(6), 789–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1760406 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  4. Wojcieszak, M., & Azrout, R. (2016). I saw you in the news: Mediated and direct intergroup contact improve outgroup attitudes. Journal of Communication, 66(6), 1032–1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12266 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  5. Weber, M., Viehmann, C., Ziegele, M., & Schemer, C. (2020). Online hate does not stay online – How implicit and explicit attitudes mediate the effect of civil negativity and hate in user comments on prosocial behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106192 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  6. Vezzali, L., Hewstone, M., Capozza, D., Trifiletti, E., & Di Bernardo, G. A. (2017). Improving intergroup relations with extended contact among young children: Mediation by intergroup empathy and moderation by direct intergroup contact. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 27(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2292 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  7. Vezzali, L., Hewstone, M., Capozza, D., Giovannini, D., & Wölfer, R. (2014). Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology, 25(1), 314–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.982948 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  8. Vescio, T. K., Sechrist, G. B., & Paolucci, M. P. (2003). Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(4), 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.163 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  9. Tone, E. B., & Tully, E. C. (2014). Empathy as a “risky strength”: A multilevel examination of empathy and risk for internalizing disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 26(402), 1547–1565. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579414001199 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  10. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). In: W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–37). Brooks/Cole. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  11. Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  12. Stroud, N. J., van Duyn, E., & Peacock, C. (2016). News commenters and news comment readers. Engaging News Project. Retrieved from https://mediaengagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ENP-News-Commenters-and-Comment-Readers1.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  13. Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Morrison, K. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination (pp. 43–60). Psychology Press. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  14. Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55(4), 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00144 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  15. Spears, R. (2009). Four degrees of stereotype formation: Differentiation by any means necessary. In C. McGarty, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & R. Spears (Eds.), Stereotypes as Explanations (pp. 127–156). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489877.008 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  16. Schemer, C. (2014). Media effects on racial attitudes: Evidence from a three-wave panel survey in a political campaign. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26(4), 531–542. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edt041 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  17. Schaller, S., Wiedicke, A., Reifegerste, D., & Temmann, L. J. (2023). (De)Stigmatizing depression on social media: The role of responsibility frames. Journal of Health Communication, 28(11), 757–767. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2023.2266702 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  18. Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  19. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  20. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  21. Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.12.002 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  22. Park, S. Y. (2012). Mediated intergroup contact: Concept explication, synthesis, and application. Mass Communication and Society, 15(1), 136–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.558804 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  23. Paolini, S., Harwood, J., Logatchova, A., Rubin, M., & Mackiewicz, M. (2021). Emotions in intergroup contact: Incidental and integral emotions’ effects on interethnic bias are moderated by emotion applicability and subjective agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.588944 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  24. Paluck, E. L. (2010). Is it better not to talk? Group polarization, extended contact, and perspective taking in the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(9), 1170–1185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210379868 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  25. Ortiz, M., & Harwood, J. (2007). A social cognitive theory approach to the effects of mediated intergroup contact on intergroup attitudes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(4), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150701626487 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  26. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D., & Nielsen, R. K. (2016). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2016. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/research/files/Digital%2520News%2520Report%25202016.pdf Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  27. Nagda, B. A., & Zúñiga, X. (2003). Fostering meaningful racial engagement through intergroup dialogues. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001015 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  28. Mutz, D. C., & Goldman, S. K. (2010). Mass media. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination (pp. 1–19). SAGE Publications. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  29. Menke, M., Wagner, A., & Kinnebrock, S. (2020). Communicative care in online forums: how burdened informal caregivers seek mediated social support. International Journal of Communication, 14, 1662–1682. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/12479 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  30. Mazziotta, A., Rohmann, A., Wright, S. C., Tezanos-Pinto, P. de, & Lutterbach, S. (2015). (How) does positive and negative extended cross-group contact predict direct cross-group contact and intergroup attitudes? European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(5), 653–667. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2110 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  31. Mazziotta, A., Mummendey, A., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Vicarious intergroup contact effects. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210390533 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  32. Mastro, D., Behm-Morawitz, E., & Ortiz, M. (2007). The cultivation of social perceptions of Latinos: A mental models approach. Media Psychology, 9(2), 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260701286106 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  33. Mastro, D. (2015). Why the media’s role in issues of race and ethnicity should be in the spotlight. Journal of Social Issues, 71(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12093 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  34. Malloy, T. H. (2014). National minorities between protection and empowerment: Towards a theory of empowerment. Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 13(2), 11–29. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  35. Lim, T., Neel, R., & Hehman, E. (2024). Intergroup contact is consistently associated with lower prejudice across group properties. Collabra: Psychology, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.127426 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  36. Kim, N., & Wojcieszak, M. (2018). Intergroup contact through online comments: Effects of direct and extended contact on outgroup attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.013 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  37. Kim, N., Fishkin, J. S., & Luskin, R. C. (2018). Intergroup contact in deliberative contexts: Evidence from deliberative polls. Journal of Communication, 68(6), 1029–1051. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy056 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  38. Joyce, N., & Harwood, J. (2014). Improving intergroup attitudes through televised vicarious intergroup contact. Communication Research, 41(5), 627–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212447944 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  39. Jost, J. T., Chaikalis-Petritsis, V., Abrams, D., Sidanius, J., van der Toorn, J., & Bratt, C. (2012). Why men (and women) do and don’t rebel: Effects of system justification on willingness to protest. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211422544 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  40. Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorization, depersonalization, and group behavior. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology. Group Processes (pp. 56–85). Blackwell Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470998458.ch3 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  41. Hewstone, M., Lolliot, S., Swart, H., Myers, E., Voci, A., Al Ramiah, A., & Cairns, E. (2014). Intergroup contact and intergroup conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 20(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035582 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  42. 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 & Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216685291 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  43. Hässler, T., Ullrich, J., Bernardino, M., Shnabel, N., van Laar, C., Valdenegro, D., Sebben, S., Tropp, L. R., Visintin, E. P., González, R., Ditlmann, R. K., Abrams, D., Selvanathan, H. P., Branković, M., Wright, S., Zimmermann, J. von, Pasek, M., Aydin, A. L., Žeželj, I., . . . Ugarte, L. M. (2020). A large-scale test of the link between intergroup contact and support for social change. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(4), 380–386. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0815-z Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  44. Harwood, J., Hewstone, M., Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Tausch, N. (2013). Intergroup contact: An integration of social psychological and communication perspectives. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 55–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679126 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  45. Harwood, J. (2010). The contact space: A novel framework for intergroup contact research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09359520 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  46. Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Lopez, G. E. (2004). The benefits of diversity in education for democratic citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00097.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  47. Graf, S., Paolini, S., & Rubin, M. (2014). Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6), 536–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2052 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  48. Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  49. Galinsky, A. D., & Ku, G. (2004). The effects of perspective-taking on prejudice: The moderating role of self-evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(5), 594–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262802 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  50. Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 708–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  51. Finlay, K. A., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). Improving intergroup relations: The effects of empathy on racial attitudes 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1720–1737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02464.x Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  52. Esses, V. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). The role of emotions in determining willingness to engage in intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1202–1214. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672022812006 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  53. Dovidio, J. F., Love, A., Schellhaas, F. M. H., & Hewstone, M. (2017). Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 606–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217712052 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  54. Dovidio, J. F., Eller, A., & Hewstone, M. (2011). Improving intergroup relations through direct, extended and other forms of indirect contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210390555 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  55. Doull, M., O’Connor, A. M., Welch, V., Tugwell, P., & Wells, G. A. (2017). Peer support strategies for improving the health and well‐being of individuals with chronic diseases. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005352.pub2 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  56. Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  57. Chen, G. M., & Lu, S. (2017). Online political discourse: Exploring differences in effects of civil and uncivil disagreement in news website comments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2016.1273922 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  58. Capozza, D., Falvo, R., Trifiletti, E., & Pagani, A. (2014). Cross-group friendships, extended contact, and humanity attributions to homosexuals. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 114, 276–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.698 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  59. Capozza, D., Falvo, R., Favara, I., & Trifiletti, E. (2013). The relationship between direct and indirect cross-group friendships and outgroup humanisation: Emotional and cognitive mediators. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 20(4), 383–397. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  60. Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.105 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  61. Barlow, F. K., Paolini, S., Pedersen, A., Hornsey, M. J., Radke, H. R. M., Harwood, J., Rubin, M., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1629–1643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212457953 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  62. Banas, J. A., Bessarabova, E., & Massey, z. B. (2020). Meta-analysis on mediated contact and prejudice. Human Communication Research, 46(2–3), 120–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaa004 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  63. Baden, C., & Springer, N. (2014). Com(ple)menting the news on the financial crisis: The contribution of news users’ commentary to the diversity of viewpoints in the public debate. European Journal of Communication, 29(5), 529–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323114538724 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  64. Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison Wesley. Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  65. Aberson, C. L., & Haag, S. C. (2007). Contact, perspective taking, and anxiety as predictors of stereotype endorsement, explicit attitudes, and implicit attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207074726 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104
  66. Aberson, C. L. (2015). Positive intergroup contact, negative intergroup contact, and threat as predictors of cognitive and affective dimensions of prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18(6), 743–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214556699 Google Scholar öffnen DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-1-104

Zitation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download Kapitel (PDF) Download kompl. Werk (PDF)

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Per E-Mail teilen

Medien