), 王昌成1, 石宽宽2, 阿巴拜克热·哈力克3, 李林鹏4 1. 华中师范大学心理学院, 武汉 430079
2. 喀什大学教育科学学院, 新疆 喀什 844006
3. 新疆实验中学, 乌鲁木齐 830049
4. 固原市彭阳县第三中学, 宁夏 彭阳 756500
收稿日期:2018-03-12出版日期:2019-11-25发布日期:2019-09-24通讯作者:黄飞E-mail:huangfei@mail.ccnu.edu.cn基金资助:* 2018年度国家民委民族研究后期资助项目：族际接触对族际关系的影响及机制研究(2018-GMH-002)Do more contacts bring stronger contact intention? It depends on valence and efficacy
HUANG Fei1(), WANG Changcheng1, SHI Kuankuan2, HALIKE Ababaikere3, LI Linpeng4 1. School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China
2. School of Education, Kashi University, Kashi 844006, China
3. Xinjiang Experimental Middle School, Urumqi 830049, China
4. PengYang No.3 Middle School, PengYang 756500, China
Received:2018-03-12Online:2019-11-25Published:2019-09-24Contact:HUANG Fei E-mail:huangfei@mail.ccnu.edu.cn摘要/Abstract
摘要： 在我国族际背景中, 检验两种效价族际接触的效应及其机制。研究1从内地和新疆抽取有过族际互动经验的维吾尔族和汉族大学生(内地、新疆的汉族、维吾尔族样本量分别为448、791, 375、901), 研究2从宁夏抽取回族和汉族中学生(回族565, 汉族957)。两个研究共在6个样本上检验积极和消极族际接触对族际接触意愿的效应, 并检验族际自我效能的中介作用。结果表明, 积极族际接触明显多于消极族际接触; 积极族际接触越多族际接触意愿越高, 消极族际接触越多族际接触意愿越低, 积极族际接触的促进效应大于消极族际接触的阻碍效应; 族际自我效能部分中介积极族际接触对族际接触意愿的效应, 能更有效的中介消极族际接触的效应; 两种效价族际接触的效应在多数群体和少数群体间总体上没有预期的差异。研究结果对于了解我国族际接触的现状和效应、丰富群际接触研究证据有理论意义, 对于加强各民族交往交流交融具有实践意义。
图/表 8
表1维、汉四个样本上的描述统计
| 民族 | 变量 | 内地样本 | 新疆样本 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | ||
| 汉族 | 族际接触意愿 | 5.64 | 1.51 | 6.08 | 1.66 |
| 族际自我效能 | 5.26 | 1.03 | 5.74 | 1.04 | |
| 积极族际接触 | 2.99 | 0.73 | 3.34 | 0.77 | |
| 消极族际接触 | 1.64 | 0.42 | 1.68 | 0.54 | |
| 维吾尔族 | 族际接触意愿 | 6.53 | 1.50 | 6.53 | 1.61 |
| 族际自我效能 | 6.13 | 0.98 | 6.05 | 1.01 | |
| 积极族际接触 | 4.10 | 0.65 | 3.80 | 0.72 | |
| 消极族际接触 | 1.71 | 0.57 | 1.54 | 0.58 | |
表1维、汉四个样本上的描述统计
| 民族 | 变量 | 内地样本 | 新疆样本 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | ||
| 汉族 | 族际接触意愿 | 5.64 | 1.51 | 6.08 | 1.66 |
| 族际自我效能 | 5.26 | 1.03 | 5.74 | 1.04 | |
| 积极族际接触 | 2.99 | 0.73 | 3.34 | 0.77 | |
| 消极族际接触 | 1.64 | 0.42 | 1.68 | 0.54 | |
| 维吾尔族 | 族际接触意愿 | 6.53 | 1.50 | 6.53 | 1.61 |
| 族际自我效能 | 6.13 | 0.98 | 6.05 | 1.01 | |
| 积极族际接触 | 4.10 | 0.65 | 3.80 | 0.72 | |
| 消极族际接触 | 1.71 | 0.57 | 1.54 | 0.58 | |
表2四个样本上的相关矩阵
| 地域 | 民族 | 汉族样本 | 维吾尔族样本 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
| 内地样本 | 1族际接触意愿 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
| 2族际自我效能 | 0.51*** | 1.00 | 0.45*** | 1.00 | |||||
| 3积极族际接触 | 0.44*** | 0.38*** | 1.00 | 0.51*** | 0.37*** | 1.00 | |||
| 4消极族际接触 | -0.14** | -0.16*** | 0.03 | 1.00 | -0.17** | -0.29*** | -0.13* | 1.00 | |
| 新疆样本 | 1族际接触意愿 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
| 2族际自我效能 | 0.62*** | 1.00 | 0.49*** | 1.00 | |||||
| 3积极族际接触 | 0.64*** | 0.55*** | 1.00 | 0.57*** | 0.49*** | 1.00 | |||
| 4消极族际接触 | -0.38*** | -0.47*** | -0.24*** | 1.00 | -0.23*** | -0.37*** | -0.15*** | 1.00 | |
表2四个样本上的相关矩阵
| 地域 | 民族 | 汉族样本 | 维吾尔族样本 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
| 内地样本 | 1族际接触意愿 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
| 2族际自我效能 | 0.51*** | 1.00 | 0.45*** | 1.00 | |||||
| 3积极族际接触 | 0.44*** | 0.38*** | 1.00 | 0.51*** | 0.37*** | 1.00 | |||
| 4消极族际接触 | -0.14** | -0.16*** | 0.03 | 1.00 | -0.17** | -0.29*** | -0.13* | 1.00 | |
| 新疆样本 | 1族际接触意愿 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
| 2族际自我效能 | 0.62*** | 1.00 | 0.49*** | 1.00 | |||||
| 3积极族际接触 | 0.64*** | 0.55*** | 1.00 | 0.57*** | 0.49*** | 1.00 | |||
| 4消极族际接触 | -0.38*** | -0.47*** | -0.24*** | 1.00 | -0.23*** | -0.37*** | -0.15*** | 1.00 | |
图1中介效应路径图(PC积极族际接触, NC消极族际接触, EFF族际自我效能, INT族际接触意愿。虚线表示路径不显著。路径分析基于相关矩阵, 饱和模型, 呈现的是标准化结果)
图1中介效应路径图(PC积极族际接触, NC消极族际接触, EFF族际自我效能, INT族际接触意愿。虚线表示路径不显著。路径分析基于相关矩阵, 饱和模型, 呈现的是标准化结果)表3基于维汉族际的效应分解表
| 样本 | 积极接触 | 消极接触 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 直接效应 | 间接效应 | 总效应 | 中介率/% | 直接效应 | 间接效应 | 总效应 | 中介率/% | |
| 内地汉族 | 0.29 [0.20, 0.37] | 0.15 [0.11, 0.19] | 0.44 [0.36, 0.52] | 34 | -0.09 [-0.17, -0.01] | -0.07 [-0.10, -0.03] | -0.16 [-0.24, -0.07] | 43 |
| 新疆汉族 | 0.43 [0.36, 0.49] | 0.15 [0.12, 0.18] | 0.58 [0.53, 0.63] | 26 | -0.13 [-0.18, -0.07] | -0.12 [-0.15, -0.09] | -0.24 [-0.30, -0.19] | 49 |
| 内地维吾尔族 | 0.39 [0.29, 0.49] | 0.10 [0.05, 0.16] | 0.49 [0.40, 0.58] | 20 | -0.03 [-0.11, 0.05] | -0.07 [-0.11, -0.04] | -0.11 [-0.19, -0.02] | 69 |
| 新疆维吾尔族 | 0.43 [0.37, 0.49] | 0.11 [0.08, 0.15] | 0.54 [0.49, 0.59] | 21 | -0.08 [-0.13, -0.02] | -0.08 [-0.11, -0.05] | -0.15 [-0.21, -0.10] | 50 |
| 加权平均 | 0.40 | 0.13 | 0.53 | 24 | -0.09 | -0.09 | -0.18 | 51 |
表3基于维汉族际的效应分解表
| 样本 | 积极接触 | 消极接触 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 直接效应 | 间接效应 | 总效应 | 中介率/% | 直接效应 | 间接效应 | 总效应 | 中介率/% | |
| 内地汉族 | 0.29 [0.20, 0.37] | 0.15 [0.11, 0.19] | 0.44 [0.36, 0.52] | 34 | -0.09 [-0.17, -0.01] | -0.07 [-0.10, -0.03] | -0.16 [-0.24, -0.07] | 43 |
| 新疆汉族 | 0.43 [0.36, 0.49] | 0.15 [0.12, 0.18] | 0.58 [0.53, 0.63] | 26 | -0.13 [-0.18, -0.07] | -0.12 [-0.15, -0.09] | -0.24 [-0.30, -0.19] | 49 |
| 内地维吾尔族 | 0.39 [0.29, 0.49] | 0.10 [0.05, 0.16] | 0.49 [0.40, 0.58] | 20 | -0.03 [-0.11, 0.05] | -0.07 [-0.11, -0.04] | -0.11 [-0.19, -0.02] | 69 |
| 新疆维吾尔族 | 0.43 [0.37, 0.49] | 0.11 [0.08, 0.15] | 0.54 [0.49, 0.59] | 21 | -0.08 [-0.13, -0.02] | -0.08 [-0.11, -0.05] | -0.15 [-0.21, -0.10] | 50 |
| 加权平均 | 0.40 | 0.13 | 0.53 | 24 | -0.09 | -0.09 | -0.18 | 51 |
表4基于回汉中学生样本的描述统计和相关分析
| 变量 | 汉族样本 | 回族样本 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| 1族际接触意愿 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
| 2族际自我效能 | 0.50*** | 1.00 | 0.58*** | 1.00 | ||||
| 3积极族际接触 | 0.55*** | 0.45*** | 1.00 | 0.63*** | 0.57*** | 1.00 | ||
| 4消极族际接触 | -0.20*** | -0.27*** | -0.13*** | 1.00 | -0.22*** | -0.33*** | -0.18*** | 1.00 |
| M | 5.99 | 5.38 | 3.49 | 2.00 | 6.15 | 5.54 | 3.63 | 1.95 |
| SD | 1.75 | 1.26 | 0.82 | 0.69 | 1.83 | 1.22 | 0.88 | 0.68 |
表4基于回汉中学生样本的描述统计和相关分析
| 变量 | 汉族样本 | 回族样本 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| 1族际接触意愿 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
| 2族际自我效能 | 0.50*** | 1.00 | 0.58*** | 1.00 | ||||
| 3积极族际接触 | 0.55*** | 0.45*** | 1.00 | 0.63*** | 0.57*** | 1.00 | ||
| 4消极族际接触 | -0.20*** | -0.27*** | -0.13*** | 1.00 | -0.22*** | -0.33*** | -0.18*** | 1.00 |
| M | 5.99 | 5.38 | 3.49 | 2.00 | 6.15 | 5.54 | 3.63 | 1.95 |
| SD | 1.75 | 1.26 | 0.82 | 0.69 | 1.83 | 1.22 | 0.88 | 0.68 |
图2回汉中学生样本上的中介路径图
图2回汉中学生样本上的中介路径图表5基于回汉族际的效应分解表
| 样本 | 积极接触 | 消极接触 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 直接效应 | 间接效应 | 总效应 | 中介率/% | 直接效应 | 间接效应 | 总效应 | 中介率/% | |
| 宁夏汉族 | 0.40 [0.34, 0.45] | 0.13 [0.10, 0.16] | 0.53 [0.48, 0.58] | 24 | -0.07 [-0.12, -0.01] | -0.07 [-0.09, -0.04] | -0.13 [-0.19, -0.08] | 49 |
| 宁夏回族 | 0.43 [0.35, 0.51] | 0.17 [0.12, 0.22] | 0.60 [0.54, 0.66] | 28 | -0.04 [-0.10, 0.02] | -0.08 [-0.10, -0.05] | -0.12 [-0.18, -0.05] | 65 |
| 加权平均 | 0.41 | 0.14 | 0.56 | 26 | -0.06 | -0.07 | -0.13 | 58 |
表5基于回汉族际的效应分解表
| 样本 | 积极接触 | 消极接触 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 直接效应 | 间接效应 | 总效应 | 中介率/% | 直接效应 | 间接效应 | 总效应 | 中介率/% | |
| 宁夏汉族 | 0.40 [0.34, 0.45] | 0.13 [0.10, 0.16] | 0.53 [0.48, 0.58] | 24 | -0.07 [-0.12, -0.01] | -0.07 [-0.09, -0.04] | -0.13 [-0.19, -0.08] | 49 |
| 宁夏回族 | 0.43 [0.35, 0.51] | 0.17 [0.12, 0.22] | 0.60 [0.54, 0.66] | 28 | -0.04 [-0.10, 0.02] | -0.08 [-0.10, -0.05] | -0.12 [-0.18, -0.05] | 65 |
| 加权平均 | 0.41 | 0.14 | 0.56 | 26 | -0.06 | -0.07 | -0.13 | 58 |
表6结果总结表
| 假设 | 维汉族际 | 回汉族际 | 综合 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 内-汉 | 内-维 | 新-汉 | 新-维 | 汉族 | 回族 | ||
| 积极和消极族际接触差异(d) | 1.61+* | 2.60+* | 1.60+* | 2.29+* | 1.31+* | 1.39+* | 1.75+* |
| 积极族际接触与族际接触意愿(r) | 0.44+* | 0.51+* | 0.64+* | 0.57+* | 0.55+* | 0.63+* | 0.57+* |
| 消极族际接触与族际接触意愿(r) | -0.14+* | -0.17+* | -0.38+* | -0.23+* | -0.20+* | -0.22+* | -0.24+* |
| 效价不对称性检验(Dr) | 0.32+* | 0.37+* | 0.34+* | 0.39+* | 0.39+* | 0.48+* | 0.38+* |
| 族际自我效能对积极族际接触的中介 | 0.15+* | 0.10+* | 0.15+* | 0.11+* | 0.13+* | 0.17+* | 0.13+* |
| 族际自我效能对消极族际接触的中介 | -0.07+* | -0.07+* | -0.12+* | -0.08+* | -0.07+* | -0.08+* | -0.08+* |
| 积极族际接触效应的族群差异(Dr) | -0.09- | 0.11+* | -0.12-* | -0.02- | |||
| 消极族际接触效应的族群差异(Dr) | 0.04+ | -0.16-* | 0.02+ | -0.04- | |||
表6结果总结表
| 假设 | 维汉族际 | 回汉族际 | 综合 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 内-汉 | 内-维 | 新-汉 | 新-维 | 汉族 | 回族 | ||
| 积极和消极族际接触差异(d) | 1.61+* | 2.60+* | 1.60+* | 2.29+* | 1.31+* | 1.39+* | 1.75+* |
| 积极族际接触与族际接触意愿(r) | 0.44+* | 0.51+* | 0.64+* | 0.57+* | 0.55+* | 0.63+* | 0.57+* |
| 消极族际接触与族际接触意愿(r) | -0.14+* | -0.17+* | -0.38+* | -0.23+* | -0.20+* | -0.22+* | -0.24+* |
| 效价不对称性检验(Dr) | 0.32+* | 0.37+* | 0.34+* | 0.39+* | 0.39+* | 0.48+* | 0.38+* |
| 族际自我效能对积极族际接触的中介 | 0.15+* | 0.10+* | 0.15+* | 0.11+* | 0.13+* | 0.17+* | 0.13+* |
| 族际自我效能对消极族际接触的中介 | -0.07+* | -0.07+* | -0.12+* | -0.08+* | -0.07+* | -0.08+* | -0.08+* |
| 积极族际接触效应的族群差异(Dr) | -0.09- | 0.11+* | -0.12-* | -0.02- | |||
| 消极族际接触效应的族群差异(Dr) | 0.04+ | -0.16-* | 0.02+ | -0.04- | |||
参考文献 54
| [1] | Aberson, C. L . (2015). Positive intergroup contact, negative intergroup contact, and threat as predictors of cognitive and affective dimensions of prejudice. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 18(6), 743-760. |
| [2] | Ayers, J. W., Hofstetter, C. R., Schnakenberg, K., & Kolody, B . (2009). Is immigration a racial issue? Anglo attitudes on immigration policies in a border county. Social Science Quarterly, 90(3), 593-610. |
| [3] | Bandura, A.(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. |
| [4] | Barlow, F. K., Paolini, S., Pedersen, A., Hornsey, M. J., Radke, H. R., Harwood, J., .. Sibley, C. G . (2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1629-1643. |
| [5] | Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D . (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370. |
| [6] | Bekhuis, H., Ruiter, S., & Coenders, M . (2013). Xenophobia among youngsters: The effect of inter-ethnic contact. European Sociological Review, 29(2), 229-242. |
| [7] | Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., .. Leyens, J. P . (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 843-856. |
| [8] | Cernat, V.(2010). Intergroup contact in Romania: When minority size is positively related to intergroup conflict. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 20(1), 15-29. |
| [9] | Crisp, R. J., & Husnu, S. (2011). Attributional processes underlying imagined contact effects. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 275-287. |
| [10] | Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C . (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(7), 697-711. |
| [11] | Feddes, A. R., Noack, P., & Rutland, A . (2009). Direct and extended friendship effects on minority and majority children’s interethnic attitudes: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 80(2), 377-390. |
| [12] | Gao, C. H., Dang, B. B., & Wan, M. G . (2013). A comparative study of stereotypes between Han and minority college students. Journal of Northwest Normal University (Social Sciences), 50(4), 106-110. |
| [13] | [ 高承海, 党宝宝, 万明钢 . (2013). 汉族与少数民族的民族刻板印象之比较. 西北师范大学学报(社会科学版), 50(4), 106-110.] |
| [14] | Gómez, A., Tropp, L. R., & Fernández, S . (2011). When extended contact opens the door to future contact: Testing the effects of extended contact on attitudes and intergroup expectancies in majority and minority groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 161-173. |
| [15] | Gougeon, B. C . (2015). Parasocial and parasocial vicarious contact effects on Euro Canadians’ views of aboriginal peoples (Unpublished Master dissertation). Laurentian University, Ontario. |
| [16] | Graf, S., Paolini, S. (2017). Investigating positive and negative intergroup contact: Rectifying a long-standing literature bias. In S. Vezzali & S. Stathi (Eds.), Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 92-113). New York, NY: Routledge. |
| [17] | Graf, S., Paolini, S., & Rubin, M . (2014). Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6), 536-547. |
| [18] | Hayward, L. E., Tropp, L. R., Hornsey, M. J., & Barlow, F. K . (2017). Toward a comprehensive understanding of intergroup contact: Descriptions and mediators of positive and negative contact among majority and minority groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 347-364. |
| [19] | Hayward, L. E., Tropp, L. R., Hornsey, M. J., & Barlow, F. K . (2018). How negative contact and positive contact with Whites predict collective action among racial and ethnic minorities. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(1), 1-20. |
| [20] | Huang, F., Wang, C. C, Shi, K. K, & Halike, A. (2018). The construction and validation of multi-dimensional interethnic contact scale in Uyghur-Han interethnic context. Psychology, Techniques and Applications, 6(5), 291-309. |
| [21] | [ 黄飞, 王昌成, 石宽宽, 阿巴拜克热·哈力克. (2018). 多维族际接触量表的建构与检验——以维汉族际为例. 心理技术与应用, 6(5), 291-309.] |
| [22] | Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., M?h?nen, T. A., & Liebkind, K . (2012). Identity and attitudinal reactions to perceptions of inter- group interactions among ethnic migrants: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(2), 312-329. |
| [23] | Kanas, A., Scheepers, P., & Sterkens, C . (2015). Interreligious contact, perceived group threat, and perceived discrimination. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78(2), 102-126. |
| [24] | Kauff, M., Asbrock, F., Wagner, U., Pettigrew, T. F., Hewstone, M., .. Christ, O . (2017). (Bad) feelings about meeting them? Episodic and chronic intergroup emotions associated with positive and negative intergroup contact as predictors of intergroup behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1449. |
| [25] | Laurence, J., Bentley, L. (2018). Countervailing contact: Community ethnic diversity, anti-immigrant attitudes and mediating pathways of positive and negative inter-ethnic contact in European societies. Social Science Research, 69, 83-110. |
| [26] | Li, S. S., Long, C. Q., Chen, Q. F., & Li, H . (2010). Intergroup contact theory: Theory for refining intergroup relationship. Advances in Psychological Science, 18(5), 831-839. |
| [27] | [ 李森森, 龙长权, 陈庆飞, 李红 . (2010). 群际接触理论——一种改善群际关系的理论. 心理科学进展, 18(5), 831-839.] |
| [28] | Liu, Y., Sun, X. L., Li, H., & Long, C. Q . (2014). Own-race effect of Uygur college students in face recognition: The influence of inter-group contact experience. Journal of Psychological Science, 37(3), 683-688. |
| [29] | [ 刘阳, 孙秀玲, 李红, 龙长权 . (2014). 维族大学生面孔识别的本族效应:群际接触的影响. 心理科学, 37(3), 683-688.] |
| [30] | M?h?nen, T. A., & Jasinskaja-Lahti, I. (2016). Ramifications of positive and negative contact experiences among remigrants from Russia to Finland. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(2), 247-255. |
| [31] | Mazziotta, A., Mummendey, A., & Wright, S. C . (2011). Vicarious intergroup contact effects: Applying social- cognitive theory to intergroup contact research. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 255-274. |
| [32] | Mazziotta, A., Rohmann, A., Wright, S. C., Tezanos-Pinto, D., & Lutterbach, S . (2015). (How) does positive and negative extended cross-group contact predict direct cross-group contact and intergroup attitudes? European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(5), 653-667. |
| [33] | Paolini, S., Harwood, J., & Rubin, M . (2010). Negative intergroup contact makes group memberships salient: Explaining why intergroup conflict endures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1723-1738. |
| [34] | Paolini, S., & McIntyre, K. (2019). Bad is stronger than good for stigmatized, but not admired outgroups: Meta-analytical tests of intergroup valence asymmetry in individual-to- group generalization experiments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(1), 3-47. |
| [35] | Pettigrew, T. F . (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 187-199. |
| [36] | Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R . (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783. |
| [37] | Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R . (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922-934. |
| [38] | Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact New York: Psychology Press The dynamics of intergroup contact. New York: Psychology Press. |
| [39] | Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O . (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271-280. |
| [40] | Ron, Y., Solomon, J., Halperin, E., & Saguy, T . (2017). Willingness to engage in intergroup contact: A multilevel approach. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23(3), 210-218. |
| [41] | Techakesari, P., Barlow, F. K., Hornsey, M. J., Sung, B., Thai, M., & Chak, J. L. Y. (2015). An investigation of positive and negative contact as predictors of intergroup attitudes in the United States, Hongkong, and Thailand. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(3), 454-468. |
| [42] | Ten Berge, J. B., Lancee, B., & Jaspers, E . (2017). Can interethnic friends buffer for the prejudice increasing effect of negative interethnic contact? A longitudinal study of adolescents in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 33(3), 423-435. |
| [43] | Thomsen, J. P. F., & Rafiqi, A. (2016). The contact-prejudice relationship among ethnic minorities: Examining personal discrimination as a boundary condition. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(10), 1886-1904. |
| [44] | Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F . (2005). Differential relationships between intergroup contact and affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(8), 1145-1158. |
| [45] | Vedder, P., Wenink, E., & van Geel, M . (2017). Intergroup contact and prejudice between Dutch majority and Muslim minority youth in the Netherlands. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23(4), 477-485. |
| [46] | Vezzali, L., Hewstone, M., Capozza, D., Giovannini, D., & W?lfer, R . (2014). Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology, 25(1), 314-389. |
| [47] | Visintin, E. P., Green, E. G. T., Pereira, A., & Miteva, P . (2017). How positive and negative contact relate to attitudes towards Roma: Comparing majority and high‐status minority perspectives. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 27(3), 240-252. |
| [48] | Wright, S. C., Aron, A., Mclaughlin, T., & Ropp, S. A . (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73-90. |
| [49] | Xin, Z. Q . (2018). Psychological issues inside social governance. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(1), 1-13. |
| [50] | [ 辛自强 . (2018). 社会治理中的心理学问题. 心理科学进展, 26(1), 1-13.] |
| [51] | Yao, L., Yu, H. T., Duan, H. J., & Qiao, Q. C . (2015). The effect of imagined intergroup contact on implicit attitudes and explicit attitudes. Journal of Psychological Science, 38(5), 1074-1080. |
| [52] | [ 尧丽, 于海涛, 段海军, 乔亲才 . (2015). 想象接触对大学生内隐态度和外显态度的影响. 心理科学, 38(5), 1074-1080. |
| [53] | Zhou, H., & Long, L. R . (2004). Statistical remedies for common method biases. Advances in Psychological Science, 12(6), 942-950. |
| [54] | [ 周浩, 龙立荣 . (2004). 共同方法偏差的统计检验与控制方法. 心理科学进展, 12(6), 942-950.] |
相关文章 15
| [1] | 熊承清, 许佳颖, 马丹阳, 刘永芳. 囚徒困境博弈中对手面部表情对合作行为的影响及其作用机制[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(8): 919-932. |
| [2] | 张环, 王欣, 刘一贝, 曹贤才, 吴捷. 成员关系对协作提取成绩的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(5): 481-493. |
| [3] | 佐斌, 刘晨, 温芳芳, 谭潇, 谢志杰. 性别化名字对个体印象评价及人际交往的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(4): 387-399. |
| [4] | 崔芳, 杨佳苗, 古若雷, 刘洁. 右侧颞顶联合区及道德加工脑网络的功能连接预测社会性框架效应：来自静息态功能磁共振的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(1): 55-66. |
| [5] | 吴奇, 钟春艳, 谢锦源. 拿破仑情结的进化：相对身高劣势和求偶动机对男性冒险行为的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(1): 95-110. |
| [6] | 陈思静, 徐烨超. “仁者”还是“智者”：第三方惩罚对惩罚者声誉的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(12): 1436-1451. |
| [7] | 罗一君, 牛更枫, 陈红. 生命早期环境不可预测性对过度进食的影响:基于生命史理论[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(10): 1224-1236. |
| [8] | 耿晓伟, 刘丹, 牛燕华. 分析思维降低情感预测影响偏差[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(10): 1168-1177. |
| [9] | 温芳芳, 马书瀚, 叶含雪, 齐玥, 佐斌. “涟漪效应”与“心理台风眼效应”：不同程度COVID-19疫情地区民众风险认知与焦虑的双视角检验[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(9): 1087-1104. |
| [10] | 郭人豪, 王婷, 张积家. 多元语言文化对个体情境下与社会情境下认知转换功能的差异性影响——来自锡伯族的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(9): 1071-1086. |
| [11] | 宋仕婕, 佐斌, 温芳芳, 谭潇. 群体认同对群际敏感效应及其行为表现的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(8): 993-1003. |
| [12] | 曹贤才, 王大华, 王岩. 情节模拟对预期伴侣反应性及依恋安全感的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(8): 982-992. |
| [13] | 王琳, 陈增祥, 何云. 传承动机对金融冒险行为的影响:未来自我连续性的中介[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(8): 1004-1016. |
| [14] | 赵玉杰, 高扬, 周欣悦. 天气和空气污染对诚信行为的影响：一项校园丢钱包的现场实验[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(7): 909-920. |
| [15] | 张环, 侯双, 王海曼, 廉宇煊, 杨海波. 他人在场条件下的社会分享型提取诱发遗忘[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(6): 716-729. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4559
