This journal wants to propose whether contact reduce prejudice or prejudice reduce contact, by using longitudinal test approach. The authors derived from this research are based on their hypothesis via academically and socially because majority and minority of the ethnic members in the western countries were receiving widespread attention.
Often, governments of these countries have to reduce tension and conflicts among various groups so much so that they have to establish different headquarters (e.g., the establishment of the Social Exclusion Unit) to assist in resolving repercussion conflicts, by implementing policies that are workable for the conflict group.
Likewise, even social psychology also became a witness for the development models of intergroup contacts, follow-up upon Allport's (1954) contact hypothesis. Hypothesis one: effective group contact if both parties have an equal status footing and if involves cooperation that allows for close relationships development. Hypothesis two: Prejudice is often defined as negative beliefs emotions or behavioural intentions regarding another person based on that person's membership in a social group.
In this research, there are more than a thousand participating, coming from three different European countries and used three methods (sampling, materials and procedures and measures) to test their hypothesis. Sampling comprised of 512 members of ethnic minorities and 1143 members of ethnic majorities, a total of 1655 participants. Researchers used two-part questionnaire. Furthermore, anxiety, intergroup friendship and prejudice were used as measures.
Practically, the results were presented in six main sections.
Preliminary analyses checks for selective attrition by comparing matched and unmatched participants on all variables; effect sizes. Consequently, there was little influence on the systematic findings. Hence, majority members have higher quality but less quantity of contact than minority members. Contact measures, prejudice measures, and intergroup anxiety are seen as potential mediator. Contact was negatively related to both prejudice and anxiety, whereas anxiety was positively related to prejudice.
Cross lagged effects acquires the basic model of longitudinal effects and tested using multiple kinds of defense mechanism. Hypothetically, both contact quantity and quality with outgroup friends helped to reduce prejudice longitudinally but prejudice effects were stronger or either equal to contact effects.
Differences between minority and majority groups expected contact effects to be stronger for members of the majority than the minority. The result is interaction between quantity of contact and status displayed importance when inferring negative emotions. Weaker consistency and zero effects found on minority members.
Moderation of longitudinal contact effects by normal-functioning showed important interactions with contact quality for prejudice measure, social distance and negative emotions in majority members compared to minority members. Quality led to reduced negative emotions under high typicality while no effect seen under low typicality. Expectedly, typicality still influences the effectiveness of contact with outgroup friends.
Mediation of longitudinal contact effects by intergroup anxiety accentuate only on intergroup anxiety and referring to some researchers work for reference. Firstly, the both routes from contact to anxiety and from anxiety to prejudice. Secondly, the effect of friendship contact on prejudice via anxiety indirectly. Theoretically, constitutes a very strict test and limits the possibilities of detecting mediation effects from the very beginning.
Lastly, there was no evidence found for contact effects on social distance. Computing the effects of anxiety on negative emotions for minority members, gains more interaction between intergroup anxiety and group status. Ideally, reduced anxiety results to reduce negative emotions for majority members. Whilst, not applicable for minority members. Particularly, it depends on group status with regards to effect of anxiety on emotions.
Their discussion comprises of their findings supported with existing research. They were able to support for longitudinal mediation and moderation effects. In addition, Contact effects were strengthened if outgroup friends were seen as being typical of their group.
Therefore, members of the majority portrayed stronger contact effects than the members of the minority. Also, quality and quantity of friendship contact has influence on different measures of prejudice; desire for social distance and portrays negative intergroup emotions. In contrast, quality stands out because effect sizes were lower for quantity.
Outgroup members might be termed as 'friends' due to the amount of shared activities. The difference between this study and existing studies was that contact effects were generally smaller in magnitude.
Moreover, the vast of the surveys being of cross-sectional designs, the longitudinal studies allow a form of analysis with additional control which is not possible with cross sectional studies and correspondents deliberately chose secondary school students were three obvious reasons for inequality.
However, it would be useful for related future studies. Gradually, intergroup anxiety on negative emotions reduces. Eventually, minority members may lose their anxiety when interacting with the majority, but they may still possess a negative feeling towards them. It is impossible to improve intergroup relations through intergroup contact for such minority members.
Perhaps, special care should be given to the way in which out-group contact is perceived and analyzed by pupils with an ethnic minority background. On a theoretical level, their findings are both a confirmation and an extension of recent meta-analytic findings.
More work should be done on moderation and mediation, preferably with longitudinal designs, in order to improve and support existing models of intergroup contact and friendship. It depicted that small longitudinal effects cannot give support that intergroup anxiety acts as a mediator.
Implications such as more work needs to be done on moderation and mediation by using more longitudinal designs because mediation is only a casual network (a hypothesis) not statistically proven. Their research revealed biasness in using three European countries for their studies instead of other ethnics because one would get different results based on their personalities attributes and their perception towards others.
The use of questionnaire as their method to find out their hypothesis might not be accurate because it doesn't show the behavior but merely opinions. As a result, these are some flaws leading towards the research results which also indicate a successful research.
In conclusion, the role of intergroup anxiety as a mediator is not proven whereas others were. To conclude, contact does reduce prejudice and prejudice does reduce contact.