Content uploaded by Tamar Saguy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tamar Saguy on Nov 29, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
3
THE IRONY OF HARMONY
Past and new developments
Tamar Saguy, Noa Shchori-Eyal, Siwar Hasan-Aslih,
Danit Sobol and John F. Dovidio
Key words: prejudice, intergroup relations, social change, collective action,
intergroup contact
The irony of harmony: past and new developments
One of the most critical aims of social psychological science is to inform practical
solutions to pressing social problems, many of which are associated with tensions
between groups in society (Demoulin, Leyens, & Dovidio, 2009). Among the most
studied interventions for ameliorating tension between groups is intergroup contact
(Allport, 1954; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami, 2003; Pettigrew, 1998; Paluck
& Green, 2009). The central notion in contact theory is that intergroup bias can
be substantially reduced via positive encounters between members of different
groups. Decades of research within the framework of intergroup contact have
focused on the processes that are responsible for the effects of contact on attitudes,
and on the underlying principles of what constitutes a ‘positive’, or optimal,
encounter (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). A central element that emerges from this
work is that in order for contact to be effective, it needs to give rise to a sense of
common identity, shared by members of both groups. This intuitive notion dates
back to classic works of Allport (1954) and Sherif and colleagues (1961), and was
systematically investigated under the framework of processes associated with
categorization (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2010). This chapter is devoted to this notion
of commonality as means to create better intergroup relations.
In their classic studies on the basis of intergroup conflict, Sherif and colleagues
(1961) have demonstrated that animosity between groups can be reverted by
having members of both groups work together towards a common goal. This notion
was later developed by Gaertner and Dovidio in their work on the common
in-group identity model (2000, 2011). The principle behind the model is that
inducing people to think of themselves as sharing a common, superordinate ident-
ity with members of another group can overcome fundamental intergroup bias.
A superordinate identity may be, for example, a common school, organization or
national identity, and can be also induced by providing people with goals, tasks
1111
2
3
4
5111
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111
4
5
6
7
8111
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
41111
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 53
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
or even only cues that emphasize common elements to both groups (Dovidio,
Gaertner, & Saguy, 2015).
The mechanism behind the common identity effects is rooted in processes of
categorization (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). To the extent
that socially categorizing people into different groups automatically activates
stereotypes and prejudice (Dovidio & Gartner, 2010), recategorizing the groups as
sharing a superordinate, overarching identity can redirect those motivational and
cognitive processes to increase positive orientations towards out-group members
(Dovidio et al., 2015). Indeed, a focus on commonalities has consistently been shown
to relate to more positive out-group attitudes (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000), to foster
more intimate cross-group interactions (Dovidio et al., 1997), and to promote
prosocial behaviour across group lines (Nier et al., 2001).
The development of a common in-group identity does not necessarily require
each group to forsake its original, less inclusive group identity. Depending on their
degree of identification with the different categories and contextual factors that
make particular identities salient, individuals may activate two or more of their
multiple social identities simultaneously (Roccas & Brewer, 2002) or sequentially
(Turner et al., 1987). For example, people can conceive of two groups (e.g. science
and art majors) as distinct units within the context of a superordinate social entity
(e.g. university students). The mutual intergroup differentiation model (Brown &
Hewstone, 2005) relatedly proposes that positive contact between members of
different groups produces particularly robust improvements in intergroup attitudes
when different groups maintain their separate identities but have cooperatively
interdependent relations.
Although recategorization, both in terms of substituting separate group identities
with a common in-group identity or creating dual identities, can produce more
positive intergroup attitudes, in recent years scholars have begun to question the
utility of a focus on commonalities. This line of critique links research on prejudice
reduction to research on social change and collective action (Wright & Lubensky,
2009). While research on prejudice reduction has primarily focused on the
psychology of members of advantaged groups, research on collective action has
centred on psychological processes among the disadvantaged. This latter work
has shown that in order for disadvantaged group members to engage in actions for
promoting social change, they need to be strongly attached to their disadvantaged
group (Stürmer & Simon, 2004), have negative views of the advantaged group
(Simon & Klandermans, 2001) and be well aware of the existence of structural
inequalities between the groups (van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004).
This observation has sparked criticism on optimal intergroup contact as an
intervention that could, in practice, increase disadvantaged group members’
acceptance of a biased system and weaken their motivation to act for equality (Dixon,
Levine, Reicher, & Durrheim, 2012; Tausch, Saguy, & Bryson, 2015; Wright &
Lubensky, 2009). As such, intergroup harmony might have ironic consequences
by contributing to social stability rather than social change (Saguy, Tausch, Dovidio,
& Pratto, 2009).
54 Tamar Saguy et al.
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 54
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
The goal of this chapter is to summarize research on the ‘irony of harmony’
(Saguy et al., 2009) and to introduce new developments in this line of thinking.
First, we review existing research on how members of disadvantaged groups
respond to commonalities. This body of work demonstrates that among members
of disadvantaged groups, a focus on commonalities (both via contact, but also
independently of contact) can undermine attention to inequality and collective action
tendencies. This section further describes the various mechanisms that were
identified as responsible for such ironic effects. Second, we describe the documented
effects of a commonality focus on members of advantaged groups, which reveal
mixed evidence as for the existence of an irony of harmony effect. The third and
final section in this chapter is devoted to new developments in the irony of harmony
research, extending it to the realm of harmonious emotions (i.e. hope) and to gender
relations, and identifies promising future directions for research in this area.
How do members of disadvantaged groups respond to
commonalities?
In this section, we provide a chronological description of theorizing and research
on the responses of disadvantaged group members to situations that emphasize cross-
group commonalities. We begin by describing the early, and central, theorizing
and findings that serve as the basis for subsequent developments on the irony of
harmony phenomenon (2005–2009). We then move to describe more recent
research from the years 2010 to the present day.
2005–2009: central theorizing and pioneering evidence
Up until 2005, most published work on intergroup contact was fairly optimistic
(but see Forbes, 1997; Jackman & Crane, 1986; and Reicher, 1986; for notable
exceptions), treating it as one of the greatest promises of social psychology to
ameliorate social injustice, and even promote world peace (Hewstone, Cairns, Voci,
Hamberger, & Niens, 2006). In 2005, Dixon, Durrheim and Tredoux published
a paper in which they offered a ‘reality check’ for the contact hypothesis. This
paper introduced a set of challenges in (what was then) extant research on
intergroup contact, among which was a rift between the ultimate aim of contact
interventions, to transform social injustice at a broad social level, and the changes
it was shown to produce, mainly reductions in individuals’ prejudices. According
to Dixon et al., an improvement in individuals’ attitudes might not necessarily
promote the political reforms that are essential for the reduction of racism.
Furthermore, they added that positive contact might impact minority group
members’ political consciences in ways that can lead them to become less concerned
with current discriminatory practices.
At the time this paper was published, this notion did not have much empirical
support (the sole paper cited to support this claim is by Ellison & Powers, 1994).
In 2007, the authors published an empirical paper documenting correlations
1111
2
3
4
5111
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111
4
5
6
7
8111
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
41111
The irony of harmony 55
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 55
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
between contact and various outcomes that pertain to social change in South Africa
(Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2007). Consistent with their theoretical argument
of the association between contact and political consciousness of minority groups,
they found that Black South Africans who reported more positive contact with
Whites were less supportive of compensatory policies promoting the interests of
Blacks in education and employment.
A few years later, in 2009, a seminal chapter by Wright and Lubensky was
devoted entirely to the rift between the theoretical individualism of prejudice
reduction research, and the structural, system-related focus of research on social
change. Being social psychological inquiries, both lines of research deal with
individuals’ perceptions, attitudes and emotions. However, while prejudice reduc -
tion research focuses on psychological orientations towards out-group members
(emotions and attitudes towards them), collective action research examines
psychological orientations towards the social system (to what extent it is fair, just,
frustrating, etc.). In their chapter, Wright and Lubensky specified four specific
contradictions between the intergroup contact approach and collective action
approach – both of which are aimed at ameliorating social injustice.
As stated earlier, the first contradiction concerned the issue of identification
and categorization. While collective action requires strong identification with
one’s subgroup, contact interventions for the most part are aimed at reducing the
salience of intergroup boundaries, which can lead to reduction in in-group
identification. The second, related issue involved recognition of disadvantage. While
collective action requires the solid recognition of intergroup inequality (van
Zomeren et al., 2004), contact interventions are designed to reduce the salience
of status differences (so that those will not be reproduced in the encounter; see
Saguy, Tropp, & Hawi, 2013). As such, contact interventions can direct attention
away from the very recognition that is required in order for collective action to
occur. The third contradiction between prejudice reduction research and collec-
tive action had to do with perceptions of boundary permeability. While collective
action requires a perception of rather strict intergroup boundaries (Wright, 2001),
contact interventions can serve to blur the boundaries between the groups
(Rosenthal & Crisp, 2006), to the point of inducing a perception of permeability
of group boundaries. Finally, the last contradiction between the two lines of thought
concerned perceptions of the out-group. While collective action arises along with
negativity towards the advantaged group (Simon & Klandermans, 2001), prejudice
reduction efforts aim to produce the exact opposite effects by attempting to
improve attitudes and emotions across group lines.
In the same year that this chapter was published, we published the first
experimental evidence for the irony of harmony effects, supporting several of Dixon
et al.’s and Wright and Lubensky’s key claims (Saguy et al., 2009). Specifically, we
created an intergroup dynamic in the laboratory by dividing students (who came
to the laboratory in groups of six) into one of two groups. One group was assigned
the power to allocate extra course credits to the two groups. Before the advantaged
group members allocated the credits, members of both groups interacted with
56 Tamar Saguy et al.
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 56
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
instructions to focus on either intergroup commonalities or differences. Consistent
with prior research, interactions focusing exclusively on commonalities (rather than
differences) produced more positive intergroup attitudes for both advantaged and
disadvantaged group members. In addition, for both groups, attention to inequality
was lower when the interaction focused on commonalities. Moreover, in part
because they had more positive feelings about the other group, members of the
disadvantaged group expected the advantaged group to be fairer in allocating the
resources and to distribute the credits in a more equitable fashion following
discussions about commonalities, rather than about differences.
However, although disadvantaged group members expected a more equal
distribution of credits after commonality-focused contact, advantaged group
members were just as biased in this condition as in the difference-focused interaction
– biasing in favour of their own group. Thus, this experiment demonstrated for
the first time that for members of disadvantaged groups, commonality-focused
contact resulted in false expectations for equality – an effect that reflects an
inaccurate perception of one’s social standing. These findings were corroborated
in a field survey conducted among Arabs in Israel (Saguy et al., 2009, Study 2), in
which we found that having more Jewish friends was associated with more positive
attitudes towards Jews, and with reduced awareness to inequality between Jews
and Arabs. These outcomes were associated with increased perceptions of Jews as
fair and with reduced motivation for collective action to advance the status of Arabs
in Israel.
Taken together, these studies provided initial support, both experimental
and correlational, to the irony of harmony phenomenon among members of
disadvantaged groups. Over the years, additional evidence, both correlational and
experimental, has accumulated to further substantiate the findings as we elaborate
below.
2010–2015: correlational and experimental evidence for the
demobilizing effects of a focus on commonalities
Subsequent research, conducted in different parts of the world and employing various
methods, further demonstrated that promoting common identity (e.g. via positive
intergroup contact or via an emphasis on a one-group representation) can reduce
minority group members’ attention to structural inequality and motivation to engage
in collective action to achieve equality.
Glasford and Dovidio (2011) experimentally induced either a superordinate
representation of intergroup relations among minorities in the US or a dual-identity
representation. In the common identity condition, participants read an alleged news
report designed to increase salience of superordinate identity (‘Recognizing that
all of us are Americans can contribute to making America a better nation’). In the
dual identity condition, both a common (American) and subordinate (racial/ethnic)
identity were emphasized (‘Recognizing that all of us are members of groups that
have different traditions but also share a common American identity can contribute
1111
2
3
4
5111
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111
4
5
6
7
8111
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
41111
The irony of harmony 57
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 57
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
to making America a better nation’). Relative to dual identity condition, promoting
a common identity decreased social change motivation, an effect mediated by
increased optimism about future relations. These results are much in line with Saguy
et al. (2009), demonstrating that among disadvantaged group members a focus on
commonalities gives rise to optimism (Study 1), which in turn can decrease
motivation for social change (Study 2).
These findings are consistent with a correlational study conducted in South Africa
around that same time (Cakal, Hewstone, Schwär, & Heath, 2011), in which a
survey among 488 Black South African students revealed that intergroup contact
negatively predicted collective action tendencies.
In a longitudinal analogue, Tropp and colleagues (2012) examined the
relationship between friendships with Whites and recognition of discrimination as
well as support for ethnic activism. The study was conducted at the University
of California (UCLA) between 1996–2001, involving 771 participants from three
minority groups (African Americans, Latino and Asian Americans). Participants
indicated how many of their closest friends at UCLA are Caucasian, whether they
of other members of their ethnic group experienced discrimination at UCLA and
whether they would consider partaking in different types of social change action,
such as signing petitions to advance the status of their group. The participants
completed those measures at three different time points (end of first year in college,
second/third year and end of college). More friendships with Whites at Time 1
predicted both lower perceptions of discrimination and less support for ethnic
activism among African and Latino Americans at Time 2, but not among Asian
Americans. In addition, a greater number of friendships with Whites and lower
levels of perceived discrimination at Time 2 predicted marginally lower support
for ethnic activism at Time 3 among African Americans, and significantly among
Latino Americans, but not among Asian Americans – suggesting that for the latter
there was less room for movement as a function of contact (given the already low
levels of activism).
The association between contact and perceptions of discrimination was further
corroborated in an experimental study conducted in Israel. Saguy and Chernyak-
Hai (2012) had students from a low status academic institution (private college)
engage in an interaction with an (alleged) member of a high status institution (highly
prestigious public university). The colleges in Israel are unsubsidized and are asso -
ci ated with less academic prestige, often regardless of the actual level of the
program. Thus, students who attend a private college often encounter challenges
by having to ‘prove themselves’ when applying for jobs. Participants were randomly
assigned to one of three contact conditions. In one condition, the interaction empha -
sized commonalities between the institutions, in another condition the emphasis
was on differences and in a third condition there was no contact involved.
After the interaction, participants were asked to judge a hypothetical scenario
that described a student from their college who got rejected from a desirable position
after successfully going through a long application process. Reasons for the rejection
were purposefully left ambiguous, and participants then indicated whether they
58 Tamar Saguy et al.
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 58
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
attributed the rejection to discrimination or to the applicant’s abilities. Whereas
after differences-focused contact, participants were more likely to attribute rejection
to discrimination rather than to internal attributes, after commonality-focused contact
this tendency was reversed such that attributions to discrimination were less likely
than attributions to lack of effort. In the control condition, the difference between
attributions was not significant, but the patterns resembled the one in the differences
condition.
Beyond the measure of attributions, Saguy and Chernyak-Hai (2012) assessed
the extent to which the status relations between the institutions were considered
to be legitimate. Results revealed that after the commonality-focused contact,
legitimacy perceptions were significantly higher, both relative to the differences-
focused condition and relative to the no contact conditions. These findings were
replicated in a field analogue using Ethiopian Jews in Israel (Saguy & Chernyak-
Hai, 2012, Study 2), providing additional evidence for the effects of contact on
perceptions that can undermine participation in action for promoting social change.
Consistent findings were obtained among members of the Maori (N = 1,008),
a disadvantaged indigenous group in New Zealand, for whom having more friends
from the dominant group (New Zealand Europeans) was associated with per cep-
tions of inequality as arising from differences in individual merit, rather than from
historical, group-based disparities (a meritocratic view; McCoy & Major, 2007).
These views, in turn, predicted less support for reparative social policies (Sengupta
& Sibley, 2013).
Additional studies, which were not centred on intergroup contact, attempted
to illuminate the mechanisms underlining the association between harmonious inter -
group dynamics and collective action orientations. Ufkes et al. (2016) experimentally
varied the emphasis on participants’ common (US) identity with Whites, their
separate subgroup (racial/ethnic identity) or their dual identity (Black-American
or Latino-American identity). Emphasizing common identity led to low levels of
anger and lower perceptions that collective action by their minority group would
effectively accomplish change. Both of these perceptions, in turn, predicted lower
motivation to engage in collective action to address structural inequality. These
findings were supported in another study conducted in Europe among Kurds (Ufkes,
Dovidio, & Tel, 2015) in which identification patterns were measured. Also in
this study, stronger common in-group identity (i.e. identification as European) was
negatively related to collective action to repair structural disadvantage, and strong
Kurdish identity was positively related to collective action. Moreover, both effects
were mediated by anger such that a common identity was associated with less anger
regarding one’s disadvantage, and strong sub-group identity was associated with
more anger.
The role of identification in shaping the effects of commonalities on collective
action is further evident in a field survey conducted among Latinos in the US
(Tausch et al., 2015). Friendship contact with Whites was negatively associated with
interest in collective action. This relation was due to both reduced identification
with the disadvantaged group and positive attitudes towards the advantaged group,
1111
2
3
4
5111
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111
4
5
6
7
8111
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
41111
The irony of harmony 59
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 59
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
which predicted reduced anger about inequality. Interestingly, this study was the
first to show that contact was also positively associated with an individual mobility
orientation, a relation that was explained through increased perceived permeability
– providing further support for Wright and Lubensky’s (2009) key formulations
regarding the contradictions between prejudice reduction and collective action.
Taken together, the research on the responses of disadvantaged groups to a focus
on commonalities suggests that despite its positive consequences when considering
intergroup attitudes, it can have a sedative effect on disadvantaged group members,
rendering them less concerned with their disadvantaged position and less motivated
to repair their own situation. In the next section, we focus on advantaged group
members, and on how their perceptions regarding the system and their orientations
towards change are shaped by a focus on commonalities.
How do members of advantaged groups respond to
commonalities?
The bulk of research on prejudice reduction, and particularly on intergroup
contact, has focused on members of advantaged groups. For the most part, the
outcomes that were considered in this line of research surrounded attitudes and
emotions towards the disadvantaged group, which were shown to be more positive
following contact (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Little work has focused on the way
members of advantaged groups conceive of social inequality following a focus on
commonalities, and even less work has considered behavioural outcomes such as
resource distribution. In this section, we review the research that did take this step
by examining how a focus on commonalities, either via a superordinate identity
or via positive contact, relates to outcomes pertaining to inequality and social change
among members of advantaged groups. The section is organized around the two,
somewhat inconsistent, conclusions that can be deduced from this research. First,
one set of findings suggests that a focus on commonalities improves attitudes but
does little to impact social change orientations of advantaged group members.
Second, we move on to present the seemingly contradictory evidence showing
that commonalities give rise to greater sensitivity to inequality, and even to
egalitarian behaviour. At the end of the section, we attempt to reconcile these sets
of findings.
Paradoxical effects of contact on members of advantaged
groups
Jackman and Crane published a paper in 1986 in which they analyzed data
collected during a national probability survey (N = 1,914) in the US that included
measures of interracial contact as well as measures of racial attitudes and support
for policies that can benefit minorities. They found evidence for a positive
association between contact and racial attitudes. In addition, though, they found
that contact had little association with Whites’ support for political policies designed
60 Tamar Saguy et al.
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 60
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
to redress racial inequalities (e.g. inequalities in housing and employment). This
finding was echoed in work by Durrheim and Dixon (2004; see also Dixon et al.,
2005), who argued for a general gap between advantaged group members’ commit-
ment to justice in principle, and their support for actual policies that can promote
equality (e.g. affirmative action), a phenomenon they labelled ‘the principle-
implementation gap’ (Dixon et al., 2007).
Our experimental investigation in 2009 (Saguy et al., 2009), described earlier,
offered an explanation for this gap. In that study, advantaged and disadvantaged
group members engaged in either a commonality-focused or a differences-focused
interaction. Members of the advantaged groups indeed came to like the
disadvantaged group more after an interaction that centred on commonalities (rather
than differences). However, in that condition, they also focused less on the
inequality that was created in the study. Most importantly, members of advantaged
groups discriminated against the disadvantaged group to the same extent after both
types of contact. Thus, consistent with the notion of a rift between tolerant attitudes
and egalitarian behaviour, changes in attitudes across the contact conditions did
not lead to changes in the allocation of resources, which were discriminatory
regardless of the type of encounter.
In line with these ideas, Banfield and Dovidio (2013) demonstrated paradoxical
effects of commonalities on recognition of discrimination among majority group
members. White participants in the US were exposed to a manipulation that
emphasized common-group (American) identity of Blacks and Whites, separate
racial-group memberships, or to a control condition that did not emphasize
identities. Participants then read a hiring scenario that involved either subtle or blatant
discrimination, in which a Black candidate was not offered a job. The outcomes
of interest were perceptions of discrimination and expressions of willingness to protest
on behalf of the applicant who was denied the job. Results revealed that when the
bias witnessed was subtle, White participants for whom common identity was
emphasized perceived lower levels of bias than those for whom separate identities
were emphasized or those in a control condition, and these perceptions mediated
less willingness to protest the negative outcome for the Black person who was
rejected. No significant differences emerged when discrimination was blatant. In
another study (Banfield & Dovidio, 2013, Study 3), the authors induced a common
identity versus a dual identity (vs an empty control). Although across conditions
participants were equally likely to recognize racial bias, participants in the dual
identity condition expressed greater willingness to protest the decision compared
to participants in the common identity and control conditions.
Taken together, these findings suggest that a sole focus on commonalities can
have the paradoxical outcome of reducing sensitivity to subtle injustice across group
lines. Nevertheless, a focus that combines both commonalities and differences can
more effectively promote willingness to take action on behalf of minority group
members. In the next section, we move to describe somewhat inconsistent
evidence, demonstrating that contact, and a focus on commonalities, can give rise
to egalitarian tendencies among advantaged groups.
1111
2
3
4
5111
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111
4
5
6
7
8111
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
41111
The irony of harmony 61
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 61
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Contact, commonalities and commitment to equality
among members of advantaged groups
Despite the evidence reviewed earlier, several correlational studies indicate a
positive association between experiences of contact and social change orientations
among majority groups. In the research by Dixon and colleagues described earlier
(2007), White South Africans were surveyed regarding their contact with minorities
and their support for a range of race-related policies. Results showed evidence for
a principle-implementation gap, such that while only few Whites opposed the
principle of equality, a much larger proportion of Whites opposed the implementation
of justice-related polices. Nevertheless, friendships with Blacks was still positively
associated with support for policies of restitution (in domains of education, land
ownership and employment). Interpreting this finding, one needs to bear in mind
that the effects of contact on such support were modest in size, and that overall,
White’s support for such policies was much lower than their support for justice as
a principle. In a subsequent study, Dixon and colleagues (2010) attempted to further
understand the type of egalitarian policies that are most likely to be supported as
a function of intergroup contact. White South Africans (N= 794) indicated how
much they experienced contact with Blacks and the degree to which contact was
friendly, cooperative, close and equal in status. Respondents also evaluated
government compensatory policies (e.g. scholarship for Black students), and race
preferential policies (e.g. preferential tax breaks for Black businesses). Compensatory
policies can be thought of as providing supplementary resources to Blacks (adjusting
for historical barriers to them), whereas preferential policies give Blacks advantages
over Whites in specified contexts – the latter, therefore, are more threatening to
Whites’ resources. Results revealed that the more contact Whites had with Blacks,
and the better the quality of such contact, the less likely they were to oppose both
types of policies. However, the effect of contact on support for compensatory policies
tended to be stronger than its effect on attitudes for preferential policies – suggesting
that contact exerts stronger effects on policies that encompass less immediate threat
to Whites’ resources.
Studies in Western Europe and the US further find that positive contact with
immigrants is associated with pro-immigration attitudes. For example, Hayes and
Dowds (2006) found that non-immigrants in the UK who had been exposed to
immigrants, as friends or work colleagues, or living in the same residential area,
were more likely to support the inclusion of immigrants in the UK, and to have
close contact with immigrants (see also Pettigrew, Wagner, & Christ, 2007). Similar
effects were found among advantaged group members in the study by Cakal and
colleagues described earlier (2011) conducted among Whites (N= 244) in South
Africa: They found that intergroup contact was significantly associated with support
for policies favouring Blacks.
A recent experimental study with US participants supports this line of findings
(Kunst, Thomsen, Sam, & Berry, 2015). These researchers examined how induced
common identity impacts egalitarian behaviours of advantaged group members
62 Tamar Saguy et al.
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 62
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
towards immigrants. Common identity was primed with an emphasis on shared
fate and heritage to both White Americans and immigrants, whereas in the separate
group condition the items emphasized the differences between the groups. In the
common identity condition, participants were more willing to donate money to
an organization dedicated at integrating immigrants and to volunteer to help support
them – suggesting that the effects of common identity translated via tolerance into
egalitarian behaviour.
Reconciling the findings for advantaged group members
Taken together, the findings regarding the effects of a commonality focus on
advantaged group members seem to be inconclusive. While some research shows
that a commonality focus does little to impact advantaged group members’
egalitarian behaviour (e.g. Banfield & Dovidio, 2013; Saguy et al., 2009), other
studies point to a positive association between contact and support for policies that
can advance disadvantaged group members (e.g. Cakal et al., 2011; Hayes & Dowds,
2006). How can these seemingly contradictory lines of evidence be reconciled?
As far as we are aware, no study (except for Saguy et al., 2009, Study 1) has
examined the effects of experimentally manipulated contact on majority group’s
actions aimed at advancing equality. To be sure, self-reported contact likely
represents contact in its naturalistic form more than manipulated contact does.
Nonetheless, we are still limited as for the causal claims that can be drawn regarding
the effects of positive contact on egalitarian tendencies of majority groups. In the
absence of this causal evidence, a plausible competing explanation for the
correlational effects described above is that general tolerance, or tolerant norms,
account for both increased contact and support for egalitarian policies. Moreover,
although most of the studies described in the previous section have considered
support for social policies that could benefit disadvantaged groups, they measure
behavioural intentions rather than actual behavioural outcomes. Thus, the principle-
implementation gap (Dixon et al., 2005) can be a valid conceptual lens via which
these findings can be interpreted – suggesting that while contact may predict
advantaged group members’ support for minority rights in principle, their support
for the practice of equality is less clearly predicted by a focus on commonalities.
The distinction between support for the principle of equality and for the
implementation of equality, nevertheless, does not explain all of the inconsistency
described earlier. Saguy et al. showed a negative effect of positive contact on actual
resource allocation, whereas Kunst et al. (2015) found that emphasizing common
connections produced more helpful behaviours towards immigrants. Given the
strong emphasis on assimilation in American culture, it could be the case that priming
commonalities in this context primes the values of individual freedom and equality,
hence leading majority group members to endorse equality also for immigrants.
However, this might not be the case in contexts that are marked by more enduring
power dynamics, where most of the inequality is structural and often difficult to
detect (Ufkes et al., 2016). In those dynamics, commonalities can still mask central
1111
2
3
4
5111
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111
4
5
6
7
8111
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
41111
The irony of harmony 63
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 63
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
differences in the power dynamics between the groups, and give rise to less support
for egalitarian actions. Indeed, in the study by Banfield and Dovidio described earlier,
an emphasis on commonalities undermined recognition of subtle disadvantage but
not of blatant disadvantage. This calls for additional research, and particularly
experimental research, that could potentially investigate the conditions under
which a focus on commonalities (via contact or not) drives recognition to power
inequalities and related action.
In the next section, we move to describe new development on the irony of
harmony. We briefly present two different lines of research. One takes the irony
of harmony ideas to the realm of violent conflicts; it focuses on hope as a
harmonious emotion in those contexts. The second line of work begins to apply
the ideas to the irony of harmony to the contexts of gender relations. Even though
scholars have theorized about gender relations as providing a fertile ground for
ironic effects of harmony, no studies that we are aware of have considered such
effects.
The irony of harmony: new developments and future
directions
The theory and research we have reviewed earlier on the irony of harmony suggest
that harmony created by contact between groups can distract attention away from
inequality, and thereby weaken the disadvantaged group’s commitment to social
change. This line of research can be taken further to argue that certain emotions
experienced by disadvantaged group members can reflect harmonious orientations
towards the advantaged group, and therefore, their mere experience can undermine
engagement in collective action (even in the absence of actual harmony).
We are currently investigating this idea by focusing on hope in the contexts of
violent intergroup conflict (Hasan-Aslih, Pliskin, van Zomeren, Halperin, & Saguy,
in press). Hope, when referring to the feasibility of social change, is considered an
important basis for individuals’ motivation to engage in collective action (Cohen-
Chen, van Zomeren, & Halperin, 2015). However, this type of hope for
change is not the only type of hope that can be experienced in situations of conflict.
Hope can also refer to expectations for better future relationships between the
disadvantaged and the advantaged group. We tested the idea that such hope for
harmonious intergroup relations, even without the occurrence of actual harmony,
could produce optimism about the prospects for equality between groups and hence
undermine motivation for social change.
We conducted two field studies among Palestinian citizens of Israel during two
different periods of mass protests against the Israeli government. The studies
examined the association between two types of hope and collective action: hope
regarding better future relations with the advantaged out-group (harmony-based
hope), and hope for promoting the future status of the in-group (empowerment-
based hope). As expected, across studies, harmony-based hope was associated with
decreased intentions for collective action, while empowerment-based hope was
64 Tamar Saguy et al.
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 64
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
unrelated to collective action. Moreover, the relationship between harmony-based
hope and collective action was found mainly among Palestinians who were less
identified with their group, whereas highly identified participants had relatively
strong action tendencies regardless of their feelings of hope. This moderation likely
reflects high identifiers’ solid motivation for social change (Van Zomeren, Spears,
& Leach, 2008), indicating that strong identification could work to protect against
the demotivating effects of hope related to harmony.
This work extends insights from research on the irony of harmony to the realm
of harmony-based emotions, suggesting that it is not only identity representations,
or optimal contact, that can give rise to psychological tendencies that relax concerns
about structural inequality. This line of thinking opens several directions for future
research. One such direction involves the effects of communicated hope on members
of advantaged groups. It could be the case that to the extent that disadvantaged
group members communicate hope about the future relations (harmony-based
hope), members of advantaged groups will become less threatened because the
possibility of collective resistance might seem less plausible. One possible con -
sequence of this process can be reduced commitment to equality on part of advan -
taged groups, whose concerns about losing power and about appearing moral
might be relaxed as a function of communicated hope by the disadvantaged. This
notion would parallel some of the effects mentioned earlier, indicating that a focus
on commonalities with the disadvantaged group can undermine commitment to
equality among members of advantaged groups.
Along the same lines, members of advantaged group might even become
motivated to induce hope among the disadvantaged, so that the status quo would
remain stable. Even though this idea was yet to be tested, it is in line with research
on appeasement, showing that advantaged group members are motivated, partic -
ularly under threat, to render disadvantaged groups satisfied (Chow, Lowery, &
Hogan, 2013).
Indeed, apart from hope, relations between groups can also generate other
positive emotions such as satisfaction, which may function like hope and induce
harmony between groups. Extending these ideas, we attempted to deepen our
investigation of the role of positive emotions in unequal power dynamics by testing
the irony of harmony ideas in the context of satisfactory and intimate heterosexual
romantic relationships.
Even though women’s status in Western society has improved considerably over
the last 50 years, gender gaps remain significant and there is still undeniable evidence
of gender inequality across various life domains (Ridgeway, 2011). At the same
time, relations between men and women on an interpersonal level are characterized
by intimacy and oftentimes manifest as close and meaningful relationships. This
dynamic, involving enduring positive contact between members of the groups at
the interpersonal level, alongside pervasive inequality at a structural level calls for
the question of whether one feeds the other. Namely, could it be the case that the
very harmony that characterizes many relations between men and women serves
to demotivate women from engaging in social change?
1111
2
3
4
5111
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111
4
5
6
7
8111
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
41111
The irony of harmony 65
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 65
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
To test this possibility, we conducted an initial study aimed at testing whether
the occurrence of optimal contact between men and women predict women’s lower
recognition of inequality and less support for social change (Sobol, Shchori-Eyal,
& Saguy, in preparation). Even though they are rarely considered as such, romantic
relationships between men and women usually answer Allport’s (1954) conditions
necessary for optimal contact, particularly when we consider relations in Western
society. First, the relationship partners often share mutual goals (e.g. child rearing),
and they collaborate in order to achieve them. Personal familiarity between the
partners is an integral part of romantic relationships. Moreover, even though status
relations between the groups are evident, at an interpersonal level man and woman
mostly enter the relationship as equal beings (at least at a stated level). Finally in
most romantic relationships, institutional support is present and accompanies the
formalization of the relationships. If committed romantic relationships do indeed
meet the conditions of optimal contact, it is of much interest to examine whether
they would have the same impact on the low-status group as in other contexts.
In the initial study we run, 67 women completed a measure assessing the degree
to which the committed relationship in which they were engaged met the
conditions of optimal contact (e.g. ‘I feel my partner and I have common goals’).
They then completed measures of gender-related system justification, modern
sexism, and perceptions and feelings about the power relations between men and
women. Consistent with our reasoning, to the extent that women reported their
relationship quality as high on dimensions reflecting optimal contact, the stronger
were their justification of gender power relations. Optimal contact was also
positively correlated with satisfaction regarding gender relations in general and within
the romantic relationship.
As in many other contact studies, due to the correlative nature of the study we
cannot draw conclusions about causality. It could certainly be the case that gender
system justification drives satisfaction with romantic relationship, and not the other
way around. Nevertheless, the initial evidence gathered sets the stage for future
experimental work in which different elements pertaining to optimal contact can
be manipulated in the context of close relationships.
Finally, perhaps the most fundamental and pressing question for future work is
how harmony can be effectively produced, while not involving demobilizing
effects on disadvantaged or advantaged groups. Vezzali, Andrighetto and Saguy
(2016) have begun to address this question by proposing that direct contact would
not undermine motivation for social change, and might even increase it, when the
content of the contact is focused more on differences than commonalities between
groups. In their work, they found that among native Italians (advantaged group
members), cross-group friendships with immigrants were associated with increased
social change motivation, but only when contact was focused more on differences
than commonalities. Results were replicated with another sample of both
advantaged (Italian) and disadvantaged (immigrant) group members.
In addition of being consistent with Brown and Hewstone’s (2005) model, which
advocates an emphasis on separate as well as on common identities, these results
66 Tamar Saguy et al.
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 66
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
are also consistent with the ‘critical intergroup dialogue approach’, advocating the
explicit focus on power relations during a structured contact situation (Zúñiga,
Nagda, & Sevig, 2002). Similarly, Becker, Wright, Lubenski and Zhou (2013)
demonstrated that when the content of contact involved (versus did not involve)
a focus on power differences as illegitimate, contact did not have a demobilizing
effect among members of disadvantaged groups. Future research can productively
develop a systematic model of contact that involves a focus on differences, and/or
differences in power – such a model will be evidenced-based, and will enable critical
theoretical and practical advancement in this field of intergroup contact, and
harmony more generally.
When thinking of such a model of contact, a great challenge that arises is how
to get members of advantaged and disadvantaged groups to be willing to openly
address their differences, and particularly their differences in power. Extant research
suggests that members of advantaged groups would avoid such discussions in order
to protect their moral image (Knowles, Lowery, Chow, & Unzueta, 2014; Saguy
& Kteily, 2014). Future work can advance this very avenue by investigating ways
to promote advantaged group members’ willingness to recognize their advantage
and be motivated to dismantle inequality. Such interventions should rely on rele -
vant findings on the psychology of dominant groups. For example, one potential
way of raising recognition to inequality can be to direct majority group members’
attention to potential losses in their moral image, given a certain inequality. Such
an intervention would consider advantaged group members’ motive to sustain a
sense of morality in face of privilege (Knowles et al., 2014; Lickel, Schmader, &
Barquissau, 2004) and could be potentially effective.
Closing remarks
Harmony-inducing strategies can have obvious and relatively immediate positive
consequences for intergroup attitudes. Nevertheless, research on the irony of
harmony effect clearly demonstrates that even though the consequences for the
advantaged group are sometimes positive, members of disadvantaged groups are
likely to become more supportive of the very system that disadvantaged them. This
dynamic is first important to recognize because without such recognition, many
prejudice reduction interventions might reinforce the status quo even though they
aim to achieve the opposite outcome. Second, it is critical to attempt and provide
solutions to such contradiction. The little work that begins to provide solutions
clearly points to the importance of having members of advantaged groups be willing
to address differences during contact, and more importantly, be critical of their
own power position. This can maintain pressures for social change by disadvantaged
group members while providing an avenue for communication and exchange with
advantaged group members. In addition, to the extent that recognizing both
commonality and group-based differences and inequality helps people extend
principles or morality across group lines, advantaged group members may become
motivated to advance change themselves. Future research can focus on how to
1111
2
3
4
5111
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111
4
5
6
7
8111
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
41111
The irony of harmony 67
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 67
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
bring members of both advantaged and disadvantaged groups to be able to address
such topics in a way that would promote sensitivity to inequality, while not
undermining potential harmony between the groups.
References
Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice.New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.
Banfield, J.C., & Dovidio, J.F. (2013). Whites’ perceptions of discrimination against Blacks:
The influence of common identity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 833–41.
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.008
Becker, J.C., Wright, S.C., Lubensky, M.E., & Zhou, S. (2013). Friend or ally: Whether
cross-group contact undermines collective action depends on what advantaged group
members say (or don’t say). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 442–55. doi:
10.1177/0146167213477155
Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255–343. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5
Cakal, H., Hewstone, M., Schwär, G., & Heath, A. (2011). An investigation of the social
identity model of collective action and the ‘sedative’ effect of intergroup contact among
Black and White students in South Africa. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 606–27.
doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02075.x
Chow, R.M., Lowery, B.S., & Hogan, C.M. (2013). Appeasement: Whites’ strategic
support for affirmative action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 332–45. doi:
10.1177/0146167212475224
Cohen-Chen, S., van Zomeren, M., & Halperin, E. (2015). Hope(lessness) and collective
(in)action in intractable intergroup conflict. In E. Halperin & K. Sharvit (Eds), The social
psychology of intractable conflicts: Celebrating the legacy of Daniel Bar-Tal,vol. I. (pp. 89–101).
(Peace Psychology Book Series; Vol 27). Springer. 10.1007/978–3-319–17861–5–7
Demoulin, S., Leyens, J.P., & Dovidio, J.F. (Eds) (2009). Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact
of divergent social realities. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A
reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 697–711. doi:
10.1037/0003–066X.60.7.697
Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2007). Intergroup contact and attitudes toward
the principle and practice of racial equality. Psychological Science, 18, 867–72. doi:
10.1111/j.1467–9280.2007.01993.x
Dixon, J., Levine, M., Reicher, S., & Durrheim, K. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Are negative
evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 411–25. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X11002214
Dixon, J., Tropp, L.R., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C.G. (2010). ‘Let them eat harmony’:
Prejudice reduction and the political attitudes of historically disadvantaged groups.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 76–80. doi: 10.1177/0963721410363366
Dovidio, J.F., & Gaertner, S.L. (2010). Intergroup bias. In S. T. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G.
Lindzey (Eds), Handbook of social psychology (Vol 2, pp. 1084–121). New York, NY: Wiley.
Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L., & Kawakami, K. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past,
present, and the future. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 5–21. doi:
10.1177/1368430203006001009
Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S., & Saguy, T. (2015). Color-blindness and commonality: Included
but invisible? American Behavioral Scientist, 59, 1518–38. doi: 10.1177/0002764215580591
68 Tamar Saguy et al.
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 68
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L., Validzic, A., Matoka, K., Johnson, B., & Frazier, S. (1997).
Extending the benefits of recategorization: Evaluations, self-disclosure, and helping. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 401–20. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1997.1327
Durrheim, K., & Dixon, J.A. (2004). Attitudes in the fiber of everyday life: The discourse
of racial evaluation and the lived experience of desegregation. American Psychologist, 59,
626–36. doi: 10.1037/0003–066X.59.7.626
Ellison, C.G., & Powers, D.A. (1994). The contact hypothesis and racial attitudes among
Black Americans. Social Science Quarterly, 75, 385–400.
Forbes, H. (1997). Ethnic conflict: Commerce, culture and the contact hypothesis. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Gaertner, S.L., & Dovidio, J.F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity
model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Glasford, D.E., & Dovidio, J.F. (2011). E pluribus unum: Dual identity and minority group
members’ motivation to engage in contact, as well as social change. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 47, 1021–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.021
Gaertner, S.L., & Dovidio, J.F. (2012). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup
identity model. In P.A.M Van Lange, A.W Kruglanski, & E.T. Higgins (Eds), Handbook
of theories of social psychology (Vol 2, pp. 439–57). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hasan-Aslih, S., Pliskin, R., van Zomeren, M., Halperin, E., & Saguy, T. (in press). A darker
side of hope: Harmony-based hope ironically decreases collective action intentions among
the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology.
Hayes, B., & Dowds, L. (2006). Social contact, cultural marginality, or economic self-interest?
Attitudes towards immigrants in Northern Ireland. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,
32, 455–76. doi: 10.1080/13691830600554890
Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Voci, A., Hamberger, J., & Niens, U. (2006). Intergroup contact,
forgiveness and experience of ‘The Troubles’ in Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Issues,
62, 99–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–4560.2006.00441.x
Jackman, M.R., & Crane, M. (1986). ‘Some of my best friends are blacks’: Interracial
friendship and Whites’ racial attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 459–86. doi:
10.1086/268998
Knowles, E.D., Lowery, B.S., Chow, R. M., & Unzueta, M. M. (2014). Deny, distance,
or dismantle? How White Americans manage a privileged identity. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 9, 594–609. doi: 10.1177/1745691614554658
Kunst, J. R., Thomsen, L., Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2015). ‘We are in this together’:
Common group identity predicts majority members’ active acculturation efforts to
integrate immigrants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1438–53. doi:
10.1177/0146167215599349
Lickel, B., Schmader, T., & Barquissau, M. (2004). The evocation of moral emotions in
intergroup contexts: The distinction between collective guilt and collective shame. In
N. Branscombe & B. Doosje (Eds), Collective guilt: International perspectives (pp. 35–55).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McCoy, S.K., & Major, B. (2007). Priming meritocracy and the psychological justification
of inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 341–51.– doi: 10.1016/j.
jesp.2006.04.009
Nier, J.A., Gaertner, S.L., Dovidio, J.F., Banker, B.S., Ward, C.M., & Rust, M.C. (2001).
Changing interracial evaluations and behavior: The effects of a common group identity.
Group Processes and Intergroup Relations,4, 299–316. doi: 10.1177/1368430201004004001
Paluck, E.L., & Green, D.P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and
assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–67. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607
1111
2
3
4
5111
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111
4
5
6
7
8111
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
41111
The irony of harmony 69
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 69
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85.–
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65
Pettigrew, T.F., & Tropp, L.R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–83.– doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.90.5.751
Pettigrew, T.F., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2007). Who opposes immigration? Comparing
German with North American findings. Du Bois Review, 4, 19–39.
Reicher, S. (1986). Contact, action and racialization: Some British evidence. In M. Hewstone
& R. Brown (Eds), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 152–68). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Ridgeway, C.L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 6, 88–106. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602–01
Rosenthal, H.E.S., & Crisp, R.J. (2006). Reducing stereotype threat by blurring intergroup
boundaries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 501–11. doi: 10.1177/0146167
205281009
Saguy, T., & Chernyak-Hai, L. (2012). Intergroup contact can undermine disadvantaged
group members’ attributions to discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
48, 714–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.01.003
Saguy, T., & Kteily, N. (2014). Power, negotiations, and the anticipation of intergroup
encounters. European Review of Social Psychology, 25, 107–41. doi: 10.1080/10463283.
2014.957579
Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J.F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup
contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20, 114–21. doi:
10.1111/j.1467–9280.2008.02261.x
Saguy, T., Tropp, L.R., & Hawi, D.R. (2013). The role of group power in intergroup contact.
In G. Hodson & M. Hewstone (Eds), Advances in intergroup contact (pp. 113–32). New
York, NY: Psychology Press.
Sengupta, N.K., & Sibley, C.G. (2013). Perpetuating one’s own disadvantage: Intergroup
contact enables the ideological legitimation of inequality. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 39, 1391–403. doi: 10.1177/0146167213497593
Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B.J., Hood, W., & Sherif, C.W. (1961). Intergroup conflict
and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman, OK: The University Book
Exchange.
Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological
analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319–31. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.4.319
Sobol, D., Shchori-Eyal, N., & Saguy, T. (in preparation). Harmony in close-relationships
contributes to the persistence of gender inequality.
Stürmer, S., & Simon, B. (2004). The role of collective identification in social movement
participation: A panel study in the context of the German gay movement. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 263–77. doi: 10.1177/0146167203256690
Tausch, N., Saguy, T., & Bryson, J. (2015). How does intergroup contact affect social change?:
Examining collective action and individual mobility intentions among members of a
disadvantaged groups. Journal of Social Issue, 71, 536–53. doi: 10.1111/josi.12127
Tropp, L.R., Hawi, D., Van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2012). Cross-ethnic friendship, perceived
discrimination, and their effects on ethnic activism over time: A longitudinal investigation
of three ethnic minority groups. British Journal of Social Psychology,51, 257–72. doi:
10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02050.x
Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
70 Tamar Saguy et al.
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 70
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Ufkes, E. G., Calcagno, J., Glasford, D. E., & Dovidio, J. F. (2016). Understanding how
common identity undermines collective action among disadvantaged group members.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,63, 26–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.11.006
Ufkes, E. G., Dovidio, J. F., & Tel, G. (2015). Identity and collective action among European
Kurds. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 176–86. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12084
Van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., & Leach, C.W. (2008). Exploring psychological mechanisms
of collective action: Does relevance of group identity influence how people cope with
collective disadvantage? British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 353–72. doi: 10.1348/
014466607X231091
van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A.H., & Leach, C.W. (2004). Put your money where
your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and
group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,87, 649–64. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.87.5.649
Vezzali, L., Andrighetto, L., & Saguy, T. (2016). When intergroup contact can backfire: The content
of intergroup encounters and desire for equality. Under review.
Wright, S.C. (2001). Strategic collective action: Social psychology and social change. In R.
Brown & S.L. Gaertner (Eds), Intergroup processes: Blackwell handbook of social psychology (Vol
4, pp. 409–30). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Wright, S., & Lubensky, M. (2009). The struggle for social equality: Collective action vs.
prejudice reduction. In S. Demoulin, J.P. Leyens, & J.F. Dovidio (Eds), Intergroup
misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
Zúñiga, X., Nagda, B.R.A., & Sevig, T.D. (2002). Intergroup dialogues: An educational
model for cultivating engagement across differences. Equity and Excellence in Education,
35, 7–17. doi: 10.1080/713845248
1111
2
3
4
5111
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
3111
4
5
6
7
8111
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
41111
The irony of harmony 71
6955 INTERGROUP CONTACT A2_156x234mm 23/09/2016 06:04 Page 71
1ST PROOFS: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION