Suchergebnisse

This study tests hypotheses derived from extremity-complexity and stage theories of stereotyping which predict that frequency of contact with a minority group leads to knowledge which then leads to positive group evaluations. We also test hypotheses from learning theories of behavior which predict that evaluations of contact with minority groups determine group evaluations. The hypotheses are tested for direct personal contact and vicarious contact via television. We administered questionnaires to white college students to measure the contact variables and stereotypes of Native Americans. Results show strong support for the learning hypotheses, but not for extremity-complexity theories of stereotyping. Evaluations of first contact as pleasant or unpleasant, frequency of contact, and evaluations of TV portrayals as negative or positive predict stereotyping. Implications for stereotyping theories are discussed.

Recent studies hold out political mobilization as the possible solution to low and declining voter turnout. This research explores the effects of face-to-face mobilization efforts that, in the course of 7 months, reached more than 4,500 registered voters in a Florida State House primary race. Controlling for their past voting history, the mobilization effort did increase turnout by about 10% of the electorate. However, the effects were dependent on the timing of the contact, as more distant efforts to mobilize had a much weaker effect on turnout. The combination of distant contact aimed at an infrequent voter was especially ineffective in improving turnout. The results suggest that implementing more face-to-face mobilization efforts would increase turnout but that the window of opportunity for such efforts is limited.

The research presented in this paper explored the relationship between personal contact, viewing media portrayals of people with disabilities, and audience's reactions to them. Viewers of positive portrayals of the disabled on television programs and in the movies were more likely to perceive discrimination and less likely to say they had negative emotions when encountering people with disabilities, but more often said they were uncomfortable with them. Having a close friend or relative with a disability was generally unrelated to perceptions of discrimination, but was associated with less frequently having negative emotions and more often feeling uncomfortable with disabilities.

This study examined the impact of social contacts ("It's who you know, not what you know") on job getting. Workers were interviewed to discover the source of information about their most recent job. Results show that social contacts were the most frequently used resources during the job‐getting process and that these personal contacts were used more often in some occupational environments than in others.

The intergroup contact hypothesis states that interactions between individuals belonging to different groups will influence the attitudes & behavior between members of these different groups. The two dominant measures of intergroup contact are context (ie, size of a minority group within a specified geographic area) & individual behavior (ie, personal contact between members of the majority & minority groups). The contextual & behavioral measures of contact produce divergent findings. The contextual contact literature finds that whites residing in areas with high concentrations of minority populations have significantly more negative attitudes toward minorities & minority-based public policies than whites residing in areas with low concentrations of minority populations. The behavioral contact literature finds that intergroup contacting among majority & minority populations significantly reduces prejudicial attitudes & opinions about minorities & minority-based policies. In this article, we examine both contextual & behavioral measures of the contact hypothesis as they influence white attitudes toward immigrant populations (ie, Hispanics) & white policy positions toward immigration policies. We offer & test an explanation for the literature's divergent findings. 2 Tables, 1 Figure, 46 References. Adapted from the source document.