C. Hewstone, contact and categorization 394-418

Although perceived group variability has become a central area of research on stereotyping and intergroup relations e.g., Park, Judd, & Ryan, 1991; see Ryan, Park, & Judd, 1996, we shall

READING 22

Contact and Categorization: Social Psychological

Interventions to Change

Intergroup Relations

Miles Hewstone • University of Cadiff

Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.-UNESCO Motto

One of the most powerful journalistic images of 1994 was of the atrocities committed in the African state of Rwanda, leaving hundreds of thousands dead or brutally injured

Remarkably, the conflict between Hutu and Tutsi is some four centuries old and seemingly intractable When memhers of the two groups were asked how they viewed each other, their responses were particularly pessimistic: "Asked whether the characteristics could be changed

by training and upbringing, both groups answered that only very limited changes could be made; the qualities were inherent" (Tajfel, 1978, p 85).1 This example gives a flavor of how difficult it may sometimes be to change strongly held stereotypes Not least, because there is often extensive social support for stereotypes, most evident in the form of power relations, mass media representations, and social norms (Pettigrew, 1981) Yet, because stereotypical perceptions of out-groups are often negative and homogeneous, rationalizing

discrimination and making cooperative intergroup interaction less likely, there is widespread agreement about the need for interventions that can bring about stereotype change The aim of this chapter is not to review all the available evidence from an array of potential interventions (see Duckitt, 1992; Fisher, 1990; Stephan, 1985; Wilder, 1986b) Instead, I begin by

highlighting some of the issues that should be raised at the outset of any review, and I then identify four main themes around which this chapter is organized The first point to clarify is

the present focus on social psychological interventions and their impact on intergroup

relations There are, of course, alternative kinds of interventions whose impact is directed at

different kinds of outcomes For example, some more sociological interventions are aimed at structural conditions (e.g., affirmative action programs directed at differential rates of employment in ethnic groups); whereas other more educational interventions target

specifically educational outcomes (e.g., academic achievement) These interventions will only

be included in this

chapter insofar as they influence intergroup relations, which they frequently do (see Schofield,

1989, 1991) The second point to clarify is that the title of this chapter refers to intergroup

relations, including behavior but especially perceptions, and not exclusively to stereotypes

This title reflects the diversity of measures found across studiesincluding racial attitudes, social distance scales, and sociometric measuresalthough studies that measure stereotypes will

be highlighted Furthermore, intergroup relations includes perceptions of ingroup as well as out-group (although most work deals mainly with the latter), because theoretical analyses of intergroup discrimination have emphasized that it is often driven by a pro-in-group rather than

an anti-out-group orientation (see Brewer, 1979) From the social identity theory perspective (e.g., Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) that has stimulated most of the work reviewed here, the most appropriate and effective interventions may be those that affect ingroup perceptions, although the consequences to out-group members may be no less pernicious when they are disadvantaged in this more subtle way (e.g., Mummendey & Schreiber, 1983) than when they are treated with open disparagement, hostility, or aggression

In writing this chapter for this particular book, I have used four general themes to organize the large number of studies and perspectives First, since a much-lamented failure of many interventions is that they do not "generalize," I begin by considering types of generalization that could serve as outcome measures in research and then relate the studies reviewed back to these criteria An underlying goal of the chapter is to identify which, if any, types of

generalization are achieved by which interventions Second, I accentuate the most promising

theoretical perspectives in this area To take the topic of school desegregation as an example,

several authors have argued that the lack of adequate theory is partly responsible for an inconclusive literature (e.g., Cohen, 1975; St John, 1975; Schofield, 1978) Third, I select

studies that specify more exactly the process underlying effects To this end, I prefer

experiments to surveys, and especially studies that have successfully specified the mediational

of moderational effects of key variables (see Baron

& Kenny, 1986) Unfortunately, many surveys in this area suffer from various design flaws, especially when only able to evaluate ongoing programs in a relatively reactive way (see Schofield, 1991) Where the results of experiments and good surveys converge, of course, we can have more faith in the underlying theoretical model supported (Campbell & Fiske, 1959) Fourth, and finally, the title of this chapter is selected to convey two main interventions that emerge from a broad literature: those aimed at encouraging contact between memhers of opposed groups, and those directed at altering the structure of social categorizations

underlying situations of intergroup conflict I argue that these interventionsand the variants contained within eachare distinct but complementary, and that the next thrust of research in this area should actively seek to integrate them Thus this chapter begins by looking at the go-generalized change in intergroup relationsand then considers what I view as the two most important means of achieving this

The Nature of Generalized Change

Before planning and evaluating any intervention, one should of course clarify the desired outcomes In a recent theoretical analysis, Brewer and Miller (1988) argued for a distinction between three types of generalization, any of which a successful intervention might seek to achieve They also made several useful predictions about the type of intergroup interaction likely to be associated with each type of generalization, and they pointed to some of the dangers associated with each approach to improving intergroup relations I will refer to these predictions as I evaluate each major intervention in turn The first type of generalization,

"change in attitudes toward the social category," is the classic outcome variable in this areageneralization from a target individual to the out-group as a whole Evidence of this effect

is quite rare (Amir, 1969, 1976) Brewer and Miller.(1988) argue that this type of

generalization is most likely to be effected by category-based interaction, in which a given

in-group member responds to out-in-group members as interchangeable representatives of a fairly homogeneous category Brewer and Miller see two

main problems with this type of interaction First, positive contact must be contrived, so that generalized change is in the desired direction; such change may not be easy to engender, and the contact may be constrained and superficial Second, the distinctiveness of the out-group social category may be reinforced during the course of interaction, thus maintaining in-group/out-group distinctions in the long run The second type of generalization, "increased complexity of intergroup perceptions," refers to an increase in the perceived variability of the outgroup Although perceived group variability has become a central area of research on stereotyping and intergroup relations (e.g., Park, Judd, & Ryan, 1991; see Ryan, Park, & Judd, 1996), we shall see that it has only very recently been incorporated as an outcome measure of stereotype change Brewer and Miller suggest that "differentiated" interaction is most likely to accomplish increased complexity (or perceived variability) of an out-group, whereby

perceivers recognize distinctions among members of a given category who are still subtyped within the larger superordinate category The danger is that the formation of subtypes may prevent change in the perceived characteristics of the group as a whole (stereotypes) The third type of generalization, "decategorization," refers to change in the perceived usefulness, or meaningfulness, of a social category for identifying and classifying new individuals Brewer and Miller suggest that this form of generalization is most likely to be realized by a final type

of interaction, "personalization," in which an in-group member responds to out-group individuals in terms of their relationship to self, such that self-other comparisons are made across category boundaries Although this form of generalization may be important in some circumstances, as when group identities are quite weak and recently formed, it seems less likely to be realistic in the context of established identifies, intensified by wider social and political factors The remainder of this chapter applies the foregoing analysis of change to an evaluation of interventions based on engineering contact between groups, and on changing the structure of social categorizations in intergroup settings For each separate intervention, I deal with theory, research, and critique, moving toward an integration that could potentially result

in all three kinds of generalization

The Contact Hypothesis: Getting Together but How?.

The more we get together, together, together The more we get together, the happier we'll be 'Cause your friends are my friends And my friends are your friends The more we get together, the happier we'll be.-Traditional Song

The "contact hypothesis" refers to the simple idea that contact between members of different groups will improve relations between them This view has been the basis of many social policy decisions advocating racial integration in North American schools, housing projects, the armed forces and so on Allport (1954/1979) acknowledged, however, that contact could increase as well as decrease prejudice and stereotyping He emphasized the "nature of contact" and saw that its effect would depend on the kinds of people and situations involved I will not provide a comprehensive review of contact research here (see Amir, 1969, 1976; McClendon, 1974; Riordan, 1978) Instead, I will summarize its main points, its evaluation to date, and its main limitation, opening up the way to a more detailed analysis of recent theoretical

developments and research Perhaps the major achievement of research on the contact hypothesis was to distill Allport's initial long list of potentially relevant factors down to the few main conditions that should be satisfied to bring about positive intergroup contact Thus Cook (1962, 1978) predicted that less derogatory out-group attitudes would result when individuals had personal contact with members of a disliked group, but under conditions of equal status, stereotype disconfirmation, cooperation, high "acquaintance potential" and

"equalitarian norms." Thus, Cook focused pragmatically on structural features of the

interaction situation, that could potentially be manipulated or controlled After contact under these conditions, people did tend to report more favorable evaluations of the individual out-group members they had come to know But an increasing number of variables was added to this list, leading to criticisms that the contact hypothesis was now subject to so many

qualifications that it had lost its initial value and appeal (Pettigrew, 1986) As Stephan (1987) pointed out, the long list of conditions considered important in creating contact situations with potential for

posi-rive outcomes made researchers realize that there are many ways in which contact can lead to negative consequences In addition, the elaborate creation of harmonious interpersonal relations was so obviously artificial when considered against the external realities of

residential segregation, widespread discrimination, and numerous intergroup inequalities (see Hewstone & Brown, 1986) Extensive assessments of the contact hypothesis yield a complex picture, hardly surprising given the predominance of relatively uncontrolled field studies over laboratory experiments, and the wide range of applied interventions (educational settings, armed services, workplace, and housing projects) The difficulties involved in evaluating the contact hypothesis are well illustrated with the topic of racial desegregation of U.S schools, the success or failure of which is still fiercely debated (e.g., Cook, 1979, 1985; Gerard, 1983; Schofield, 1991; Stephan, 1978) First, there have been a large number of outcome measures Evaluations of school desegregation have ranged from short-term, individual measures (e.g., the achievement and self-esteem of minority children) to long-term, societal measures (e.g., the chances that Blacks will subsequently work in integrated settings, or will live in integrated neighborhoods; see Braddock, 1985; Greenblatt & Willie, 1980) Secand, many school settings were merely "desegregated" (members of two previously segregated groups were physically copresent) rather than "integrated" (two groups mixed under conditions conducive

to positive outcomes; Pettigrew, 1973; Schofield, 1991) Thus, evaluations of school

desegregation tend to speak to the effects of mere contact, if even that, rather than to the effects of contact under the conditions specified by Cook and others Third, Schofield (1991)

has argued that contact theory did not fundamentally influence the conduct of much empirical

work on school desegregation, although when it did, results were generally promising (e.g., Cook, 1978; Schofield, 1979; Schofield & Sagar, 1977) Thus, research on the contact hypothesis has moved from the optimism based on early studies (e.g., Deutsch & Collins, 1951; Wilner, Walkley, & Cook, 1955; see Cook, 1985) to the pessimism eloquently

expressed by Rothbart and John (1993): "The contact hypothesis brings to mind T H Huxley's remark about the tragedy that occurs when 'a lovely idea is assaulted by a gang of ugly facts'" (p 42) A central aspect of this pessimism,

to some authors the main shortcoming of the contact hypothesis (Hewstone & Brown, 1986),

is the failure to generalize positive attitudes promoted by the contact experience ("specific attitude change") to include other members of the outgroup not actually present in the contact situation ("generalized change in out-group attitudes") The remainder of this section deals with recent theory-based approaches to contact that achieve different kinds of generalization, and shows how a cognitive approach can provide a deeper understanding of the processes underlying stereotype change in intergroup contact These three approaches give rise to a clearer and more critical understanding of what is accomplished by interventions based on the contact hypothesis

Contact as "Personalization"

The rationale that Cook (1978) developed for the conditions he felt would induce successful contact derived from a theory of interpersonal attraction: Contact between members of different groups allows individuals to discover that they have, after all, many similar values and attitudes (e.g., Byrne, 1969; Newcomb, 1961; Rokeach, 1960) Thus Triandis (1988, p 47), for example, argued that the goal of intergroup contact "should be to create in the shortest possible time the largest numher of 'successful interpersonal relationships.'" Brewer and Miller's (1984) model of personalized contact also takes an interpersonal perspective

THEORY To reduce the salience of category memberships, Brewer and Miller (1984, 1988) argued that contact should be "differentiated" (allowing for distinctions to be made among out-group members) but moreover "personalized" (allowing for perceptions of the uniqueness

of out-group members) More recently, Miller and Harrington (1990) have suggested that changes in the perception of self and of in-group members, as well as perceptions of out-group members, are important They view decategorized intergroup interaction (differentiation and personalization) as "mutual and reciprocal": Personalized interaction with a member of the out-group results both in personalization of self and other, and in differentiation of self from ingroup, and of the out-group member from the outgroup

The goal then is a more interpersonally oriented and "non-category-based" form of responding that allows members to "attend to information that replaces category identity as the most useful basis for classifying each other" (Brewer & Miller, 1984, p 288) With the process of personalization, memhers attend only to information that is relevant to the self and is not correlated with membership In personalized contact, category identity should no longer be the sole or major determinant of how members of different groups respond to one another It is assumed that repeated interpersonal contact of this kind disconfirms the negative stereotype of members of disliked out-groups who are seen as similar to the self Brewer and Miller contend that the ideal approach to inter-group contact involves personalized interactions that are "more likely to generalize to new situations because extended and frequent utilization of alternative information featured in interactions undermines the availability and usefulness of category identity as a basis for future interactions, with the same or different individuals" (pp 288-289) This kind of contact, they maintain, will bring about the third type of

generalizationdecategorization Frequent individuation of out-group members will result in the category being seen as less "useful" and, thus, being used less often

RESEARCH

Brewer, Miller, and their colleagues have investigated their model in a series of experimental studies (see Bettencourt, Brewer, Rogers-Croak, & Miller, 1992; Miller, Brewer, & Edwards, 1985) The basic paradigm in these studies follows a threephase sequence In the first phase, subjects are arbitrarily divided into two ad hoc groups To bolster identification with the group, members spend time working together on a task, make evaluations of their own and the other group's product, and receive feedback indicating that the out-group was biased in its evaluations In the second phase, previously isolated groups are brought together to form two heterogeneous teams comprised of memhers of each group At this stage, the independent variables are manipulated Brewer and Miller propose two general conditions necessary to realize positive outcomes from cooperative interventions: (1) that the nature of the cooperative

interaction promotes an interpersonal rather than a task orientation toward fellow team

members; and (2) that

the basis for assignment to team membership (or to roles within teams) is perceived to be independent of category memberships In a final phase, all subjects view a videotaped interaction of alleged members of both groups with whom they have not interacted

Evaluations of these groups serve as the primary measure of generalized attitude change The studies confirmed the hypothesized effects of personalized contact Under conditions of both interteam cooperation and competition, groups that adopted an interpersonal focus displayed significantly less favoritism toward the videotaped groups than did subjects in either the task focus conditions, or subjects who were given no instructional manipulation Confirming the proposed role of individuation, subjects differentiated among the out-group members more in the interpersonal conditions, and there was a strong correlation between perceived similarity

of out-group members (to each other) and the degree of bias shown toward memhers of the videotaped teams One of the most important potential benefits of Brewer and Miller's model

is in further improving cooperative learning techniques, which have been enthusiastically introduced into multiethnic classrooms with encouraging results These techniques were a response to the fact that traditional classroom instruction methods permitted little contact between students (including those from different groups) that was not simply superficial (Slavin, 1985) Yet, while many of these carefully structured techniques have proved positive

in improving dyadic relationships, they have not generally had an impact on perceptions of the group as a whole (for reviews see Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978; Aronson

& Gonzalez, 1988; Johnson & Johnson, 1982, 1989, 1992; Sharan, 1990; Slavin, 1985) Miller and Harrington (1992) show how key principles from their work impact on cooperative learning; these include "minimization of the salience of social categories when forming teams and during group process" and "provision of opportunities for personalization of team members." In fact, although a number of the models of cooperative learning appear

superficially similar, Miller and Harrington point to subtle differences (e.g., whether a competitive interteam reward structure is imposed on the classroom; see DeVries, Edwards, & Slavin, 1978) that do affect outcomes Miller and Davidson-Podgorny's (1987)

thoughtful review and meta-analysis of cooperative learning studies isolates some of the key strengths and shortcomings of each technique They point out that rules for assignment of students to subgroups are generally not explicit in the techniques, and they show that three of the variables highlighted by their theoretical model and laboratory work do moderate the impact of cooperative learning on social relations Specifically, the effect of cooperative learning is more positive when tasks require interdependence, when pupils are randomly assigned to roles, and when there are equal proportions of minority and White students on a team

CRITIQUE Notwithstanding the support gleaned from several elegant studies, there are several grounds on which the personalized model of contact can be criticized First, although decategorization does appear to have been achieved in the laboratory studies, it remains to be seen whether the "usefulness" of evaluatively laden social categories can be reduced in this way (but see Warring, Johnson, Maruyama, & Johnson, 1985) Second, although the model seems to accomplish one form of generalization (decategorization), Brewer and Miller concede that the conditions that promote personalization will impede i generalization of contact effects to the out-group s a whole (Brewer, 1988; Brewer & Miller, 1988) This is consistent with the paradox noted by Rose (1981), that intimate relationships may generalize over a wide range of situations, but not over dill ferent persons Miller and Harrington (1992) aci knowledge that the video rating used in the third i phase of their paradigm is designed to test whether I new out-group members are interacted with as in[ dividuals, rather than to assess generalized attitudes toward the out-group Third, interpretation of the results as pure efo fects of personalization is problematic Because members wore large identification badges denoting initial group membership, it could be argued that categories remained salient throughout the i: experiment Additionally, it is not clear whether I the experimental

inductions created a purely pert 0nalized form of contact, as the authors argue, ttince

decategorization is a joint function of both [differentiation, which is considered category|lsed, and personalization, which involves only

self-other considerations and comparisons In other words, categorizations appear to have been maintained, not erased Finally, the personalization strategy is based on the view that

decreasing the salience of group boundaries is likely to reduce intergroup bias Yet, as Schofield (1991) has pointed out, this conclusion is at odds with her own and others'

evaluations of schools that have adopted a "color-blind" perspective Encouraging the suppression of race or ethnicity by all those involved in a desegregated school may actually increase category salience (Saharso, 1989; Schofield, 1986) This is an interesting parallel to the cognitive experimental work showing that consciously trying not to think about something (including a stereotype) may increase the frequency with which one thinks about it (and make one more stereotypic in judgments and behavior; Wegner, 1989; see Bodenhausen & Macrae, 1996) Thus, personalization seems to avoid the important issue highlighted by Schofield (1991), of how cultural diversity can be acknowledged, even encouraged, without worsening intergroup relations Since membership of ethnic and other kinds of groups often provides a source of desired social identity (Tajfel, 1978), it would be impractical as well as undesirable for all parties concerned to ignore distinctive memberships (see Rist, 1979; Schofield & McGivern, 1979)

Intergroup Contact and Mutual Intergroup Differentiation

Hewstone and Brown (1986) put forward a theoretical perspective on contact, which diverges sharply from personalization, although both are derived from social identity Hewstone and Brown argue, first, that contact should be "intergroup" not "interpersonal"; and second, that an appropriate model of intergroup contact should be based on "mutual intergroup

differentiation,"

THEORY

Regarding intergroup contact, Hewstone and Brown (1986) contend (based on Brown & Turner, 1981) that the contact hypothesis is based theoretically on interpersonal relations, focuses in practice on improving interpersonal relations, and that the failure to effect a generalized change of outgroup attitudes can be attributed to this

interper-sonal perspective To be successful in changing out-group evaluations, they argue that

favourable contact with an out-group member must be defined as an intergroup encounter A

weak association between the contact-partner and the out-group (i.e., if the target is an atypical outgroup member) will define the contact situation as an interpersonal, rather than an intergroup, encounter Somewhat paradoxically, this means making the group affiliations

more salient and not less and ensuring that in some way the participants in the contact

encounters see each other as representatives of their groups (p 18) In the light of subsequent studies (to be discussed), this position appears now to be overstated However, I still argue that group affiliation, social categorization, should be evident in the contact situations, although not necessarily made "more salient" as originally argued In addition, I now follow

Stephenson's (1981) suggestion that Taj fel's (1978) distinction between interpersonal and intergroup forms of interaction should be restated as two orthogonal dimensions In certain contexts it is possible to make both personal and social identity highly salient, and thus an interaction might be both highly personalized and categorized (see the preceding interpretation

of Brewer and Miller's research) In view of this clarification of our earlier position, and some misunderstandings of it, it is important to emphasize what intergroup contact should, and should not, be like First, it is not always necessary for multiple members to be present, and two individuals acting as group representatives also constitute intergroup behavior In fact, it has been found that having three members of each group present led to less competitive and more cooperative behavior than did a condition in which two individuals opposed each other

as group representatives (Insko et al., 1987; cf team composition in Bettencourt et al., 1992; Miller et al., 1985) Second, intergroup contact should not be confused with "category-based assignment" (Miller et al., 1985), which is a strategy more akin to tokenism Third, Miller and

Harrington (1992) argue as if people will behave in ways that enhance the in-group's image relative to the outgroup whenever social categories are salient features of situational identity

In fact, although social categorization can be a sufficient condition for intergroup

discrimination, this is by no means a universal response, and can be extinguished by

feedback concerning how other members of the inand out-group respond (Locksley, Ortiz, & Hepburn, 1980) or by ensuring that the in-group and out-group are rated on independent dimensions (Mummendey & Schreiber, 1983) Finally, it is worth pointing out that Hewstone and Brown are neither alone nor the first to argue for "intergroup" contact Similar ideas were suggested many years ago by Chein, Cook, and Harding (1948) and Lewin and Grabbe (1945; see Van Oudenhoven, Groenewoud, & Hewstone, 1995) Regarding mutual intergroup differentiation, Hewstone and Brown (1986) recommended encouraging groups to recognize mutual superiorities and inferiorities, and to accord equal values to dimensions favoring each group (for similar ideas, see Tajfel, 1981; Turner, 1981; Van Knippenberg, 1984) Mutual intergroup differentiation would be reflected in positive in-group and out-group stereotypes (see D M Taylor & Simard, 1979) Again, this recommendation is consistent with other prescriptions for intergroup harmony (Berry, 1984; Schofield, 1986; Stephan & Stephan, 1984)

RESEARCH There is now considerable support for the view that out-group attitudes are generalized when memberships are clear in the contact situation Wilder (1984, Exp 1) systematically varied the typicality of the out-group college member in a simulated intergroup contact situation The nature of the contact was also varied in line with traditional theorizing

on contact Thus, the contact person behaved either in a pleasant and supportive way toward the real participants, or in a less pleasant and more critical fashion The interaction took place over a cooperative task Wilder predicted that only in the combined conditions, in which the interaction was pleasant and the partner could be seen as typical of her college, would ratings

of the out-group college become more favorable Wilder's results were exactly i9 line with his prediction Wilder's research also highlighted a potential problem associated with the manipulation of typicality Although his first study reported change in out-group attitudes, there was little evidence that the contact manipulation affected stereotypes of the out-group As Wilder noted, if stereotypes are negative, then "typical" out-group members need

to have some negative characteristics, but then how can we ensure positive change in out-group perception? He suggested that the key to this dilemma may lie in the specific

stereotypes the out-group members exhibit in the contact setting (Wilder, 1984, 1986a) Some beliefs about the out-group directly implicate the in-group (e.g., "They think they're better than us"), whereas other beliefs do not (e.g., "they're 'lazy") Wilder (1984, Exp 2) showed that contact with a typical out-group memher can improve intergroup relations when the outgroup

member's typicality is based on characteristics that do not involve negative actions directed at

the in-group Finally, Wilder (1984, Exp 3) demonstrated that the more positive evaluation of the out-group following contact with the typical member could be interpreted in terms of ease

of generalization Subjects judged the typical outgroup member's personality and behavior to

be more indicative of how others in the out-group would act in the same setting These findings were replicated and extended in a recent study by Vivian, Brown, and Hewstone (1995) In a cooperative work situation, British subjects were led to believe that their German partner (a confederate) was either typical or atypical of his national group (Germans), which was alleged to be either more or less homogeneous than other national groups within the European Community Presumably, contact with a typical memher from a relatively

homogeneous group is construed as more of an intergroup encounter than is contact with atypical members of heterogeneous groups Although there was no difference between conditions in rating German partners (who were viewed positively as a function of

cooperation), only in the typicality (and especially typicalityhomogeneity) conditions was this person explicitly associated with the German out-group as a whole, leading to most positive ratings of the outgroup as a whole The effects of perceived typicality were not, however, universally positive in this study Contact with a typical member also gave rise to some more negative evaluations of the outgroup (on stereotype-confirming traits such as materialistic and boring) than did contact with atypical members Thus, while a categorized form of contact may have some benefits, there may also be certain risks associated with this strategy (to be discussed) In a second study, Vivian, Hewstone, and Brown (in press) found that dimensions

of membership

salience moderated the impact of traditional contact variables on European students'

generalized attitudes toward a European out-group There was evidence that different salience variables (typicality, references to nationality, perceived out-group homogeneity) each moderated the effects of at least one contact variable (amount, intimacy, and interdependence

of contact) Typicality, especially, moderated the effects of contact variables in a manner consistent with the intergroup model of contact Thus, the amount of contact and the intimacy

of contact were more likely to be associated with a positive view of the out-group if an

outgroup target was perceived as typical of his or her national group The final study

supporting intergroup contact predicted that attitudes toward out-group members who did not participate in the cooperative setting would be more favorable if social categories were made salient than if the interaction were decategorized (Van Oudenhoven et al., 1995) We found that referring explicitly to the ethnic background of a Turkish partner helped to transfer Dutch students' favorable attitude with respect to a Turkish partner to Turks in general As in Vivian

et al (1995, Exp 2), cooperative interaction had a positive effect on ratings of the out-group partner in all conditions, but this was only transferred to the out-group as a whole when the contact was "intergroup." Taken together, these studies provide support for the intergroup contact model They show that encountered members of the out-group need to be perceived as having out-group membership as an attribute, that the associative link between individual members and the out-group as a whole cannot be broken altogether, or any change of attitude will not generalize beyond those particular individuals There has been less empirical work on mutual intergroup differentiation Brown and colleagues have, however, supported the idea that in work groups, group differences should be emphasized on dimensions that are accorded equal value, and that a division of labor between groups should permit mutual positive differentiation In this way, cooperative contact need not threaten one's social identity Again, the emphasis placed on distinctive memberships directly contradicts that of Brewer and Miller, who argue that group divisions should not be correlated with group membership In a pair of studies, Brown and colleagues have

shown that cooperative encounters involving a division of labor along group lines produce the most favorable responses to members of an out-group (Brown & Wade, 1987; Deschamps & Brown, 1983) Thus, attitudes towards the out-group were friendliest when the groups' roles were clearly defined, and least friendly when their respective roles were ambiguous To the extent that our model encourages the recognition of diversity rather than assimilation as a guiding social value, it can be thought of as a more pluralistic model of intergroup relations It

is therefore consistent with those scholars who contend that, in multiethnic societies, the cultural identity of each group should be maintained and positive relations between the groups valued (e.g., Berry, 1984; Berry, Kalin, & Taylor, 1977; Van Oudenhoven & Willemsen, 1989)

CRITIQUE

Although intergroup contact can boast greater success in realising generalized change in out-group attitudes, it is not without its dangers and critics (see Harrington & Miller, 1992; Miller

& Harrington, 1992b) First, as noted in the case of Wilder's (1984) research, successfully manipulating typicality may involve manipulating negativity As the research by Vivian and colleagues (1995) indicated, an intergroup form of contact may produce negative as well as positive generalized change Thus the basic conditions for successful contact, specified by Allport (1954/1979), Cook (1978) and others, must be met when group memberships are explicit, or made salient Second, intergroup contact may have a negative effect on intergroup relations via its effect on intergroup anxiety (Stephan & Stephan, 1985) In principle, contact should reduce anxiety, as it has been shown to among White pupils vis-h-vis Black pupils in some desegregated schools (Collins & Noblit, 1977; Noblit & Collins, 1981; Schofield, 1981) But in cases of real intergroup conflict, an overemphasis on group memberships may increase intergroup anxiety, thereby mitigating against the desired generalization of positive out-group attitudes Exactly this process was demonstrated by Islam and Hewstone (1993a) In a correlational study of contact between Hindu and Muslim religious groups in Bangladesh, they found that intergroup contact was positively associated with anxiety, which in turn was negatively associated with

perceived out-group variability and out-group attitudes These findings are consistent with the suggestions that anxiety narrows the focus of attention, leading to the treatment of out-group members less as individuals and more as equivalent members of a category (Stephan & Stephan, 1985) Anxiety can also weaken the impact of stereotype-disconfirming information (Wilder, 1993a, 1993b; Wilder & Shapiro, 1989) Thus, to the extent that intergroup contact brings about an increase in anxiety, it will worsen, not improve, intergroup relations

Notwithstanding these valid criticisms of the intergroup contact model, its emphasis on typicality is also shared by cognitive analyses of stereotype change, which approach the issue

of contact from a quite different theoretical background These approaches are now

considered The studies reported in the following section can arguably also be seen as relating

to the intergroup contact model (Hewstone & Brown, 1986; Vivian et al., in press)

A Cognitive Analysis of Contact: The Impact of Stereotype-Disconfirming Information Recent approaches to the contact hypothesis have, rather than addressing Allport's and Cook's (1978) dimensions separately, proposed that they share an impact on the ways people process stereotyperelevant, and especially stereotype-disconfirming, information This focus on information processing is the hallmark of cognitive analyses of intergroup relations

THEORY

Rothbart and John's (1985) cognitive analysis of intergroup contact is based on principles of categorization If we accept that objects, or exemplars, differ in the degree to which they are viewed as prototypical examples of a category (what Barsalou, 1987, calls "graded structure"),

then we should accept that it is the goodness of fit to the stereotype, and not just a few defining

features, that determines whether a person becomes associated with a given category Rothbart and Lewis (1988) showed that as prototypicality increased, the degree of inference from member to group increased From this view, disconfirming attributes are most likely to become associated with the

ste-reotype if they belong to an individual who is otherwise a very good fit to the category Rothbart and John's (1985) view implies that the more a particular episode disconfirms a stereotypic category of which it is an instance, the more likely it is to be associated with a different, possibly counterstereotypic, category This process enhances the tendency of stereotypic beliefs to confirm themselves Thus individuating information can "release" an exemplar from the attributes of a superordinate category, and at the same time render the stereotype immune from the attributes of the exemplar Somewhat counterintuitively, s tereotype-disconfirming information should therefore be linked to typical out-group members (see also Wilder, 1986a), a view that is consistent with Hewstone and Brown's (1986) idea that categories should be maintained in contact settings Unless this is the case, people tend to react

to stereotype-disconfirming information not with generalization, but with what Allport (1954/1979) called "re-fencing." The "special case" is excluded and the category held intact (see also Williams, 1964)

RESEARCH

Rothbart and John's (1985) prototype model has received support from experimental studies investigating three cognitive models of stereotype change: "bookkeeping," "conversion," and

"sabtyping" (Weber & Crocker, 1983) The bookkeeping model (Rothbart, 1981) proposes a gradual modification of stereotypes by the additive influence of each piece of disconfirming information Any single piece of disconfirming information elicits only a minor change in the stereotype; major change occurs gradually and only after the perceiver has accumulated many disconfirming instances that deviate systematically from the stereotype The conversion model (Rothbart, 1981) envisages a radical change in response to dramatic disconfirming

information, but no change in response to minor disconfirming information Finally, the subtyping model of stereotype change views stereotypes as hierarchical structures, in which discriminations can be created in response to disconfirming information (Ashmore, 1981; Brewer, Dull, & Lui, 1981; Taylor, 1981) This process leads to the formation of subtypes, which constitute exceptions, unrepresentative of the group as a whole One serious

consequence of

subtyping is that it may insulate the superordinate stereotype from change (Weber-Kollmann, 1985) These models were tested in a series of studies that compared stereotype change in response to disconfirming information that was either "dispersed" across several group members (each of whom slightly disconfirms the stereotype), or "concentrated" in a small number of highly disconfirming members Weber and Crocker (1983) found that stereotypes

of occupational groups (librarians and lawyers) changed more when the disconfirming information was dispersed than when it was concentrated, but only under largesample conditions (30 vs 6 members) They also showed that disconfirmers with high

representativeness (e.g., White, middle-class, high-earning lawyers) were more successful at bringing about stereotype change than were disconfirmers with low representativeness (e.g., Black lawyers) Overall, Weber and Crocker provided strongest support for subtyping, some support for bookkeeping, and none for conversion Generally, stereotypedisconfirming information had greater impact on perceptions of the group as a whole (generalization) when it was associated with a group member who was perceived as typical of the group The results from a series of studies by Hewstone and colleagues also strongly support the subtyping model (although there is some scattered support for the other models; for a review see Hewstone, 1994) These more recent studies have specified the cognitive processes underlying stereotype change Johnston and Hewstone (1992) showed, first, that weak disconfirming members (in the dispersed condition) were rated more typical than strong disconfirming members (in the concentrated condition) Moreover, this perceived typicality was the only dependent measure

that mediated the relatively weaker stereotyping in the dispersed condition This mediating

role of perceived typicality has also been demonstrated in three other independent studies, generalizing across manipulations, subject groups, and target groups (Hantzi, 1995; Hewstone, Hassebrauck, Wirth, & Waenke, 1995; Maurer, Park, & Rothbart, 1995) A "prototype subtyping" model seems to provide the best account of how stereotypes change in response to dispersed or concentrated patterns of disconfirming information Stereotype change is generally effected via the perceived typicality, or goodness of fit, of mild disconfirmers in the dispersed condition; it is generally impeded by the