Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

'Gringos' in Mexico: Cross-sectional and longitudinal effects of language school-promoted contact on intergroup bias.

By Anja Eller and Dominic Abrams

Abstract

Abstract: A longitudinal field study examined Pettigrew's (1998) intergroup contact theory and Gaertner et al.'s (2000) Common Ingroup Identity Model (CIIM). In Pettigrew's model, the contact-prejudice relation is mediated by changing behavior, ingroup reappraisal, generating affective ties, and learning about the outgroup. Pettigrew's integration of the three chief models of contact generalization into a time-sequence holds that contact first elicits decategorization, then salient categorization, and finally recategorization. In CIIM, these three levels of categorization-plus a fourth, dual identity-are thought to be mediators in the contact-prejudice relation. Results underline the crucial mediating role of behavior modification in Pettigrew's model and interpersonal and superordinate levels in CIIM. An attempt to partially integrate the two models is presented

Topics: BF
Publisher: Sage Publications
Year: 2003
OAI identifier: oai:kar.kent.ac.uk:4249

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2001). 22). Out of the shadows.
  2. (2000). 27). The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) at five years: What it means for the U.S. and Mexico [Online]. Available:
  3. (1933). A social distance scale. doi
  4. (2003). Abrams intergroup contact in language schools 2P 04eller (ds) 12/16/02
  5. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. doi
  6. (2007). at Ebsco Host on October 1,
  7. (2001). Attitudes towards ‘illegal’ immigration into the United States: California Proposition 187. doi
  8. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In doi
  9. (1996). California dreaming: Proposition 187 and the cultural psychology of racial and ethnic exclusion. doi
  10. (1997). Category and stereotype activation: Is prejudice inevitable? doi
  11. (1981). Cognitive and dyadic processes in intergroup contact. In
  12. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the ‘contact hypothesis’. In doi
  13. (1992). Cooperation and the reduction of intergroup bias: The role of reward structure and social orientation. doi
  14. (1985). Distant neighbors: A portrait of the Mexicans. doi
  15. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In doi
  16. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. doi
  17. (1997). How groups merge: The effects of merger integration patterns on anticipated commitment to the merged organization. doi
  18. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the Eller & Abrams intergroup contact in language schools
  19. (2000). Integrated threat theory and intercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United States. doi
  20. (2001). Intergroup contact in a divided society: Changing group beliefs in Northern Ireland. Paper presented at the EAESP Small Group Meeting on Social Identity: Motivational, Affective, and Cross-Cultural Aspects.
  21. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. doi
  22. (1997). Intergroup contact: Theoretical and empirical developments. In
  23. (2001). Is there any scapegoat around? Determinants of intergroup conflicts at different categorization levels. doi
  24. (1999). Maintaining the salience of subgroup and superordinate group identities during intergroup contact. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Experimental Social
  25. (1974). Mexico and the United States, 1821–1973: Conflict and coexistence. doi
  26. (2000). Moderators and mediators of prejudice reduction in multicultural education. In
  27. (2000). Pluralistic ignorance and political correctness: The case of affirmative action. doi
  28. (1967). Psychometric theory. doi
  29. (2002). Putting Pettigrew’s reformulated model to the test: The intergroup contact theory in transition. Unpublished PhD thesis,
  30. (1999). Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation. doi
  31. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. doi
  32. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. doi
  33. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. doi
  34. (1999). Subgroup differentiation as a response to an overly-inclusive group: A test of optimal distinctiveness theory. doi
  35. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. doi
  36. (1994). The changing face of Mexican Group Processes &
  37. (2000). The common ingroup identity model for reducing intergroup bias: Progress and challenges. doi
  38. (1987). The contact hypothesis in intergroup relations. doi
  39. (1996). The contact hypothesis: The role of a common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias among majority and minority group members. In doi
  40. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. doi
  41. (1996). The impact of the California civil rights initiative (CCRI) on university and professional school admissions and the implications for the California economy. doi
  42. (1986). The intergroup contact hypothesis reconsidered. In doi
  43. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. doi
  44. (1954). The nature of prejudice. doi
  45. (1947). The reduction of intergroup tensions. doi
  46. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. doi
  47. (2001). Toward reduction of prejudice: Intergroup context and social categorization. In doi
  48. (1996). When contact is not enough: Social identity and intergroup cooperation. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.