“They are all the same”: Low perceived typicality and outgroup disapproval as buffers of intergroup threat in mass media

“d

LRa

b

c

a

ARRA

KITMTP

1

IwnoItg

T

0h

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37 (2013) 146– 158

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

j ourna l ho me pag e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / i j in t re l

They are all the same”: Low perceived typicality and outgroupisapproval as buffers of intergroup threat in mass media�

oes Meeussena,∗, Karen Phaleta, Joke Meeusb, Kaat Van Ackera, Annie Montreuil c,ichard Bourhisc

University of Leuven, BelgiumPontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, ChileUniversité de Québec à Montréal, Canada

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 21 November 2011eceived in revised form 21 May 2012ccepted 29 May 2012

eywords:ntergroup contacthreatedia

ypicalityrejudice

a b s t r a c t

Three studies examined whether the perceived typicality of a threatening outgroup actor inmedia messages alters threat effects on attitudes toward the entire outgroup; and whetheroutgroup (dis)approval of the actor influences perceived typicality. Study 1 measured Dutchmajority attitudes toward Moroccans before and after the Van Gogh murder by a Moroccan-Dutch Muslim. Low perceived typicality of the murderer mitigated less favorable attitudestoward Moroccans after the murder. Study 2 used a newspaper report involving a Moroccanperpetrator to manipulate (dis)approval by other Moroccans. Controlling for prior attitudestoward Moroccans, outgroup disapproval effectively reduced the perceived typicality of theperpetrator as a Moroccan. Study 3 manipulated threat to Psychology students’ identity byan Economy student’s insulting behavior and (dis)approval by other Economy students ina campus magazine interview. Outgroup disapproval reduced the perceived typicality ofthe insulting student and buffered threat effects on Psychology students’ attitudes towardEconomy students. We conclude that outgroup disapproval buffers threat effects of nega-tive outgroup behavior in mass media on outgroup attitudes through reducing perceivedtypicality.

© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Media routinely highlight minority group membership in relation to negative events, such as crime and social problems.n Flemish-Belgian newspapers, for instance, immigrant minorities are commonly represented as threatening the culture,

elfare, and safety of the majority group (Van Acker, Mesquita, Vanbeselaere, & Phalet, in preparation). Similarly, Dutchewspapers most often associate ethnic minorities with negative themes such as crime and societal problems, and lessften with positive or neutral themes such as culture, employment, and education (Lubbers, Scheepers, & Wester, 1998).
ntergroup threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000) states that when particular outgroups are perceived as a source ofhreat to one’s own group, people will develop negative psychological and behavioral reactions toward this threateningroup. Accordingly, negative attitudes toward devalued groups in society, such as immigrant, ethnic, or religious minorities,
� The contribution of the 4th author was supported by a Ph.D. fellowship of the Research Foundation- Flanders (FWO).∗ Corresponding author at: Center for Social and Cultural Psychology, Department of Psychology, Tiensestraat 102, bus 3727, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium.

el.: +32 16325886; fax: +32 16325923.E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Meeussen).

147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.05.002

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.05.002

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01471767

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

mailto:[email protected]

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.05.002

L. Meeussen et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37 (2013) 146– 158 147

are often informed by threatening media messages about crime, violence, or social problems involving members of thesegroups (Boomgaarden & Vliegenthart, 2007; Vergeer, Lubbers, & Scheepers, 2000).

A recent example of the role of media in intergroup threat is the Amsterdam street murder of Van Gogh, a controversialDutch journalist who was accused of blasphemy and stabbed to death by a Moroccan-Dutch Muslim. The murder attractedmuch national and international media attention and caused further strain on the already tenuous intercultural relationsbetween majority and Muslim minority populations in the Netherlands (d’Haenens & Bink, 2007; Roggeband & Vliegenthart,2007). Importantly, Dutch media presented different views of the murder and its repercussions on both sides of the Dutch-Muslim divide (d’Haenens & Bink, 2007; Hulshof et al., 2008). In the months following the murder, a predominant frame ofthe murder as a clash of Muslim and Dutch values was challenged by alternative frames of the murder as an extremist actand a violation of religious values.

Media debates in the aftermath of the Van Gogh murder inspired our main research question: when do people go alongwith threatening media messages, generalizing the wrongful doings of an individual actor to the outgroup as a whole, andwhen do they resist threat? Since previous research on media and public attitudes does not address the latter question, ourfirst research aim is to explore what makes some people less susceptible to threat in mass media. Drawing on intergroupcontact research, we propose the perceived typicality of an outgroup actor as a crucial moderator of generalized attitudes(Hewstone & Brown, 1986). In the context of threat in mass media, our focus is on the perceived typicality of outgroupperpetrators. If a perpetrator is seen as a typical outgroup member, his offensive act is defined as normative outgroupbehavior. As a consequence, threat perceptions and negative evaluations can be expected to generalize to other outgroupmembers. So far, empirical support for the role of perceived typicality is restricted to research on positive intergroup contact,in which it has been shown that positive contact experiences with a more typical outgroup member more readily generalizeto other outgroup members (see Brown & Hewstone, 2005 for a review). Extending these findings to negative contexts, weargue that generalized threat effects of negative media messages will depend on the perceived typicality of the perpetrator asan outgroup member. Thus, we expect that people will be less susceptible to threat and hence endorse less negative attitudeswhen they see an outgroup actor as a less typical outgroup member. Conversely, high perceived typicality is expected toreinforce threat and to result in more negative attitudes toward the group as a whole: “They are all the same” (Hypothesis1).

An additional research aim is to show that perceived typicality can be situationally influenced by presenting otheroutgroup members who approve versus disapprove of an outgroup perpetrator’s behavior. When disapproving outgroupmembers portray the actor as an anti-normative or deviant member, we expect that perceived typicality will be reduced. Incontrast, outgroup approval of the negative behavior will enhance perceived typicality and hence the generalization of nega-tive feelings from the actor to the outgroup as a whole. Specifically, we expect that outgroup members who disapprove of anaggressive actor effectively reduce perceived typicality (Hypothesis 2) – and hence intergroup threat (Hypothesis 3). Impor-tantly, this expectation challenges an alternate view of perceived typicality as predetermined by prior intergroup attitudes,so that typicality would only represent part in a self-reinforcing process in which prejudice produces more prejudice.

1.1. Threat in mass media

Realistic group conflict theory argues that threat to ingroup resources or economic interests gives rise to negative outgroupattitudes (Levine & Campbell, 1972). Social identity theory adds that people are motivated to achieve and protect a positivesocial identity, so that negative attitudes may also arise from perceived threat at the symbolic level of ingroup values oridentity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Incorporating realistic group conflict theory and social identity theory, intergroup threattheory argues that more negative attitudes will ensue when people perceive an outgroup as posing a threat to ingroupresources or values (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). The negative impact of situationally induced or perceived group threaton intergroup attitudes is well established (e.g., Meeus, Duriez, Vanbeselaere, Phalet, & Kuppens, 2009; Stephan & Renfro,2002; Stephan & Stephan, 2000; Stephan, Renfro, Esses, Stephan, & Martin, 2005). Perceived threat to the national identitypredicted more hostile majority attitudes toward Muslim minorities (Sniderman, Hagendoorn, & Prior, 2004; Van Acker &Vanbeselaere, 2011). In another study it was found that perceived economic competition with foreign workers increased thesupport of economic discrimination by native Israeli citizens (Semyonov, Raijman, & Yom-Tov, 2002). Our research extendsattitudinal effects of group threat (for a meta-analysis: Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006) to threat in media messages.

Ethnic minority organizations have repeatedly voiced their concern that biased media portrayals of their communitiesreinforce negative public attitudes toward minorities (d’Haenens & Bink, 2007; Lubbers et al., 1998). The role of media inintergroup relations has been understudied from an intergroup relations perspective due to a predominant research focus ondirect and positive interpersonal contact with outgroup members (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). More recently, the attitudinalimpact of positive intergroup contact has been extended to indirect contact with devalued outgroup members (e.g., Crisp& Turner, 2009; Pettigrew, Christ, Wagner, & Stellmacher, 2007; Stathi & Crisp, 2008; Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, &Ropp, 1997). Along those lines, mass media can be seen as an influential source of indirect contact, as they communicateintergroup events to minority and majority audiences on a daily basis (Schiappa, Gregg, & Hewes, 2005; Wright et al., 1997).
Importantly, as media messages involving members of minority groups are biased toward negative events or problems,mass media constitute a chronic source of intergroup threat (e.g., Van Acker et al., in preparation; Lubbers et al., 1998). Forinstance, more frequent exposure to ethnic crime reports in newspapers was longitudinally related to readers’ increasedperception of threat by ethnic minorities (Vergeer et al., 2000). Similarly, the extent of news coverage of immigration-related

1

tma

1

vpasasft(

tpmVS

wbaTseo–S

2

otDwhmipooma2ra

vbamgtab

48 L. Meeussen et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37 (2013) 146– 158

opics longitudinally increased electoral support for anti-immigrant parties (Boomgaarden & Vliegenthart, 2007). Moreover,ore negative intergroup attitudes were experimentally induced by making people read a threatening media message about

real or a fictive minority group (Maio, Esses, & Bell, 1994; Meeus et al., 2009; Stephan et al., 2005).

.2. Perceived typicality

News media do not usually report on minority groups in general. Instead, they define interpersonal events, such asiolence or crime, at the group level by mentioning the minority group membership of the actor. From a social identityerspective, making minority group membership psychologically salient induces a shift from interpersonal to intergroupppraisals of the situation (Tajfel, 1978). For instance, Van Oudenhoven, Groenewoud, & Hewstone (1996) showed that Dutchtudents held more positive attitudes toward a Turkish confederate after a positive contact experience, but that these positivettitudes only generalized to Turks as a group when the confederate’s Turkish identity was made salient. Although groupalience is omnipresent in media messages about negative behavior of outgroup members, we contend that generalizationrom negative person perceptions to negative perceptions of the entire outgroup will crucially depend on the perceivedypicality of these outgroup members. Thus, we propose an extension of the social identity approach of intergroup contactBrown & Hewstone, 2005) to threat in mass media as an indirect and negative form of contact.

Intergroup contact theory posits that positive contact experiences with outgroup members lead to more positive attitudesoward the entire outgroup (Brown & Hewstone, 2005). Moreover, perceived typicality has been proposed as a moderator ofositive attitude change. Since the positive behavior of a more typical outgroup member is seen as more predictive of otherembers’ behavior, it will more readily generalize to the whole group than the behavior of an atypical member (Brown,ivian, & Hewstone, 1999; Brown, Eller, Leeds, & Stace, 2007; Rothbart & Lewis, 1988; Stathi, Crisp, & Hogg, 2011; Wilder,imon, & Faith, 1996; Wilder, 1984).

The present research extends the moderating role of perceived typicality to a negative intergroup context. In particular,hen media report negative behavior by an outgroup actor, we predict that generalization to other outgroup members will

e less likely when the outgroup actor is seen as less representative of his group. Therefore, if people can be made to perceiven outgroup actor as atypical, they should be better able to resist generalized threat effects of negative media messages.o test these expectations, one longitudinal study of the Van Gogh murder (Study 1) was followed up by two experimentaltudies. While Studies 1 and 3 provide longitudinal and experimental evidence of the role of perceived typicality in theffect of threatening media messages on attitudes toward the targeted group (Hypothesis 1), Studies 2 and 3 demonstrate thatutgroup members who disapprove (vs. approve) of an aggressive actor effectively reduce perceived typicality (Hypothesis 2)

and hence intergroup threat (Hypothesis 3). Studies 1 and 2 focus on attitudes toward Moroccan minority members, whiletudy 3 shifts focus to a less hostile intergroup context (i.e. Psychology students’ attitudes toward Economics students).

. Study 1

To address our main research aim, Study 1 examines the attitudinal impact of threatening media messages as a functionf the perceived typicality of the outgroup perpetrator in a longitudinal study. Specifically, we examine majority attitudesoward Moroccan Muslims before and after the highly mediatized Van Gogh murder in October 2004 by Bouyeri, a Moroccan-utch Muslim. Van Gogh was known for his controversial film ‘Submission’ and public jokes targeting Muslims and Islam,hich he accounted for in terms of his principled stance supporting freedom of speech and rejecting oppression. Bouyeri fromis side, justified the murder as a religious act in defense of his faith and against blasphemy. From a majority perspective, theurder was framed as a collision of incompatible Dutch and Muslim values. The Moroccan Dutch community, a major Muslim

mmigrant group, is the most devalued minority in Dutch society as evident from pervasive ethnic discrimination and publicrejudice (Hagendoorn, 1995). Recently, Dutch public attitudes toward Islam and Muslims have become increasingly andvertly hostile (Verkuyten & Zaremba, 2005). Extensive media coverage of the Van Gogh murder further fueled the belieff a real and present Muslim threat within Dutch society. Accordingly, in the months after the Van Gogh murder, Dutchedia coverage of Muslims and Islam became even more negative (d’Haenens & Bink, 2007) and opinion surveys showed

general downturn in Dutch public attitudes toward Muslims and Moroccans (Coenders, Lubbers, Scheepers, & Verkuyten,008; Gijsberts & Lubbers, 2009; Korteweg, 2005). During this period, anti-discrimination offices in the Netherlands alsoeported more frequent complaints of discrimination against Dutch Muslims, including verbal threats and insults as well ascts of vandalism and violence (European Monitoring Centre on Racism & Xenophobia, 2006).

Against this background, our first hypothesis posits that perceived typicality will influence generalization from the indi-idual murderer to the Moroccan community as a whole. More specifically, we predict that attitudes toward Moroccans willecome more negative when the murderer is perceived as a typical Moroccan. In contrast, when he is perceived as atypical,ttitudes may not be affected. Participants were Social Sciences students. Since they are at the low-prejudice end of the
ajority population distribution (Mayda, 2006), they should be rather likely to perceive low typicality and hence to resist
eneralization from an individual Moroccan actor to the minority group as a whole. Low-typicality perceivers might evenend toward positive discrimination in order to counterbalance what they would see as negatively biased media messagesnd public attitudes. In case of positive discrimination, their attitudes would polarize in the opposite direction, and henceecome less negative over time.


2.1. Method

Procedure. One week before the Van Gogh murder in October 2004, students completed a questionnaire on their attitudestoward different ethnic minority groups in the Netherlands, including Moroccans. Four months later in February 2005, thesame students were asked to describe the Van Gogh murder and its consequences in their own words. All participants wereable to recall the event in some detail. Next, they rated their appraisals of the murder, including the perceived typicality of themurderer. The time lag of four months after the murder corresponds to a peak of heightened media coverage of related issuesand ensures participants’ exposure to the full range of public incidents and debates in Dutch media. In a separate session,the same attitude measures toward Moroccans and other minority groups as in the first wave were repeated. Repeatedmeasures were presented as part of separate studies by different professors in the Fall and Spring terms. Participation wasvoluntary and students were debriefed at the end of the study.

Participants. Forty-seven Social Science students at the Universities of Utrecht and Nijmegen completed all three question-naires. Four participants were excluded from analyses because one of their parents had an Islamic cultural background. Theremaining 43 participants were all Dutch majority members, born in the Netherlands with Dutch as their native language.Mean age was 18.70 (SD = 1.37) and 37 participants (86.05%) were women.

Measures. Majority attitudes toward the Moroccan Dutch minority were assessed before (time 1) and after the murder(time 2). Attitudinal measures were ingroup identity threat, i.e., the perception that Dutch identity is threatened by thepresence of Moroccans,1 and outgroup evaluation, i.e., positive or negative feelings toward Moroccans.

Ingroup identity threat was assessed by the question: “To what extent do you feel your group identity as native Dutchis threatened by the presence of Moroccans in the Netherlands?” Participants answered on a 7-point Likert scale from 1(not at all) to 7 (very much). Baseline levels of ingroup identity threat before the murder were just under the scale midpoint(M = 3.19, SD = 1.55).

Group evaluations of Moroccans were measured on a feeling thermometer (Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993; Montreuil,Bourhis, & Vanbeselaere, 2004) from 0 (extremely unfavorable) to 100 (extremely favorable). Our baseline measure of outgroupevaluation preceding the murder confirmed that Moroccans were generally devalued relative to the Dutch majority group.Their average evaluation was close to the scale midpoint (M = 46.86, SD = 16.44).2

The same participants were asked to recall the murder and to judge the typicality of the murderer by answering thequestion “How representative do you think Mohammed Bouyeri is as a Dutch Moroccan?” on a 7-point scale from 1 (not atall) to 7 (very much). The average perceived typicality of the murderer was low (M = 2.44, SD = 1.24).

2.2. Results

Our first hypothesis about differential attitudinal trends as a function of perceived typicality was tested by way ofrepeated measures ANOVA with attitudes toward Moroccans as dependent variables (i.e., ingroup identity threat and out-group evaluation), time (before and after the murder) as a within-subject factor, and perceived typicality as a continuousmoderator.3

Ingroup identity threat. A main effect of time, F(1, 41) = 7.52, p = .009, �2 = .16, was qualified by a significant time by per-ceived typicality interaction, F(1, 41) = 4.54, p = .039, �2 = .10. Generally, participants felt less threatened by Moroccans afterthe murder (Mtime2 = 2.65) than before (Mtime1 = 3.19). To show the simple effects for low and medium typicality perceivers(see Fig. 1), we performed a median split on perceived typicality (Mdn = 2.00). For participants who perceived the murdereras a more typical Moroccan, an upward trend in their threat levels before (Mtime1 = 3.00) and after the murder (Mtime2 = 3.20)failed to reach significance. In contrast, participants who perceived the murderer as less typical showed a significant decreaseof ingroup identity threat by Moroccans after the murder (Mtime2 = 2.36) as compared with baseline levels before the murder(Mtime1 = 3.29), t(27) = 2.89, p = .007. These diverging trends cannot be explained by individual differences in prior attitudestoward Moroccans, since low and medium typicality perceivers did not differ in their baseline levels of identity threat beforethe murder.

Outgroup evaluation. A main effect of time, F(1, 41) = 10.19, p = .003, �2 = .20, was again qualified by a significant time by
perceived typicality interaction, F(1, 41) = 6.32, p = .016, �2 = .13. Participants evaluated Moroccans more favorably after themurder (Mtime2 = 52.56) than before (Mtime1 = 46.86). As can be seen in Fig. 2, paired t-tests after a median split on perceivedtypicality showed a near significant trend toward more negative evaluations of Moroccans after (Mtime2 = 45.33) than before
1 Ingroup identity threat is commonly conceived as a mediator of negative attitude change in intergroup conflict situations (Brown, 2010). As our researchfocus is on perceived typicality as a moderator of intergroup threat in mass-media, however, ingroup identity threat and outgroup evaluation are treatedhere as related yet distinct indicators of intergroup attitudes in the broadest sense of cognitive, affective or evaluative orientations in intergroup relations.

2 As evaluative bias results from both ingroup and outgroup evaluations, we also tested whether threat in media messages affects ingroup evaluations(Verkuyten & Zaremba, 2005). There was no change in ingroup evaluations of native Dutch before and after the Van Gogh murder in Study 1. Neither wasthere a significant difference in ingroup evaluations of Psychology students between threat and control conditions in Study 3 (analyses available from firstauthor). Therefore, intergroup evaluative biases are reported for the outgroup only throughout the paper.

3 As ingroup identification may affect the perceived typicality of an outgroup member (Doosje et al., 2007), the analyses of perceived typicality in the threestudies were replicated while controlling for ingroup identification. As there were no significant effects of ingroup identification on perceived typicality,the latter analyses were not reported (analyses available from first author).


tvtis

2

hielettt

Fig. 1. Study 1: Ingroup identity threat by Moroccans before and after the Van Gogh murder as a function of perceived typicality: observed means.

he murder (Mtime1 = 50.00) for those who perceived the murderer as a more typical Moroccan, t(14) = 1.83, p = .089. Con-ersely, Dutch students who did not perceive the murderer as a typical Moroccan evaluated Moroccans more favorably afterhe murder (Mtime2 = 56.43) than before (Mtime1 = 45.18), t(27) = −2.95, p = .007. These results cannot be explained by stablendividual differences in students’ attitudes toward Moroccans, since medium and low typicality perceivers did not yet differignificantly in their evaluations of Moroccans before the murder.

.3. Discussion

Extending the role of perceived typicality in positive intergroup contact research to negative contact situations, weypothesized that low perceived typicality of a negative outgroup member would enable majority members to resist threat

n mass media. In support of our first hypothesis, the perceived typicality of the murderer as a Moroccan moderated differ-ntial trends in majority attitudes toward Moroccans after the murder. Dutch Social Science students perceived medium toow typicality, with average levels of perceived typicality falling below the midpoint of the scale (M = 2.44, Mdn = 2.00). As
xpected, the attitudinal change after the murder was moderated by perceived typicality of the murderer. While mediumypicality perceivers reported mostly stable or slightly more negative attitudes toward Moroccans after the murder, the atti-udes of low typicality perceivers shifted in the opposite direction and became less negative after the murder. We concludehat low typicality perceivers resisted the generalization of threat from the murderer to the minority group as a whole. Since
Fig. 2. Study 1: Evaluations of Moroccans before and after the Van Gogh murder as a function of perceived typicality: observed means.


medium typicality perceivers in our sample scored just below the scale midpoint on average, it is not so surprising that anegative attitudinal trend after the murder fell short of significance. Note that the perceived typicality of the murderer couldnot be measured before the murder, which precludes a fully cross-lagged longitudinal design. Low and medium typicalityperceivers did not differ in prior attitudes, however, which renders the reverse causation of perceived typicality by priorattitudes unlikely.

Diverging attitudinal trends in response to threat in mass-media were replicated for ingroup identity threat and foroutgroup evaluation as parallel measures of majority attitudes toward Moroccans. Different trends qualify the existinglongitudinal evidence of a general negative trend in Dutch intergroup attitudes following the Van Gogh murder (cf. supra);and highlight the internal division of the Dutch majority group in the aftermath of Van Gogh. Interestingly, we find a generalpositive change in students’ attitudes toward Moroccans after the murder. Why did so many participants move away froma generally negative trend in Dutch public attitudes toward Moroccans? Since Social Science students are a less prejudicedsample of the population, one possible explanation might be that they were vicariously ashamed of the avalanche of intolerantor racist behavior by other Dutch majority members following the murder (Johns, Schmader, & Lickel, 2005). Low overalllevels of prejudice among Social Science students cannot explain, however, why attitudinal trends diverged between lowand medium typicality perceivers after the murder. Indeed, low and medium typicality perceivers did not differ in their priorattitudes toward Moroccans, as measured by their baseline levels of identity threat and outgroup evaluation.

Overall, the findings are in line with a situational explanation of different attitudinal trends which conceives of media asan indirect form of intergroup contact. In the months following the murder, the Dutch public was exposed to an extraor-dinary quantity of indirect contact with Moroccan outgroup members through television, newspapers, and on the Internet.Specifically, Dutch media solicited comments on the murder and its societal consequences from approving as well as dis-approving Moroccans in street interviews, talk shows, and opinion pages. In the months following the murder, therefore,Dutch majority audiences were exposed to conflicting frames of the murder. In particular, disapproving minority voicespublicly challenged a predominant frame of the murder as a clash of group values; and exposed the murderer as an extrem-ist actor who violated group values (e.g., ‘It is a sin to kill a sinner’, NRC Handelsblad, 3 November 2004). We reason thatmedia exposure to public disapproval by other minority members provides a plausible situational explanation of low per-ceived typicality among (some) majority members. To put this reasoning to a test, our second study extrapolates real mediamessages of Moroccan disapproval of the murder to an experimental setting.

3. Study 2

A second research aim in the present study was to demonstrate that perceived typicality in the context of threat inmass-media can be situationally reduced. Accordingly, Study 2 manipulates outgroup (dis)approval of the perpetrator asa situational determinant of perceived typicality. Perceptions of typicality have been reliably related to prejudice: moreprejudiced persons see negative outgroup members as more, and positive members as less, representative of devaluedoutgroups (Hewstone & Hamberger, 2000). Shifting our research focus to less researched situational sources of typicalityperceptions, we ask the question how media messages affect the generalization of threat from a negative outgroup actorto the outgroup as a whole. In particular, in light of Dutch media debates following the Van Gogh murder, we focus onoutgroup disapproval in public media as a situational explanation of low perceived typicality. Hence our question: canoutgroup disapproval effectively disconnect the public image of their group from the tar of a negative member? In otherwords, will majority members who are exposed to disapproving minority voices in mass media perceive a negative minorityactor as less representative of his group? To address this question, we used a fictitious newspaper report of a violent incidentinvolving a minority offender; and we experimentally manipulated minority approval or disapproval of his violent behavior.

Typicality is a function of the comparison of information about an individual member with the group prototype. In orderto reduce the perceived typicality of a negative member, therefore, the group prototype has to be disconnected from thatmember. From a social identity perspective, people are motivated to protect a positive image of their group. To this end, theywould be willing to show their disapproval of a negative member and thereby challenge his membership status. Indeed,individual perpetrators cause most disapproval from fellow group members, because their negative behavior poses a threatto the positive group image (Abrams, Marques, Brown, & Dougill, 2002; Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1998). In line with this‘black sheep’ effect, Doosje, Zebel, Scheermeijer, and Mathyi (2007) found that minority members more often blamed theindividual perpetrator of a terrorist attack, whereas majority members attributed more responsibility to the minority groupas a whole. Minority members were thus protecting a positive image of the minority group by redefining group boundariesand excluding the perpetrator. Study 2 exploits a less researched side of the black sheep effect. It examines how disapprovalby other outgroup members (excluding a negative member as ‘black sheep’) affects the perceived typicality of the outgroupmember by the majority group.

In addition, Study 2 replicates the role of perceived typicality in a more frequent and less extreme case of threat in massmedia. Plausibly, perceived typicality will be higher in more common cases than in the extreme case of a terrorist assault.To induce threat, we presented majority Belgian Psychology students with a fictitious newspaper report of a nightclub
fight involving a Moroccan Belgian perpetrator. The Moroccan minority group in Belgium is similarly disadvantaged anddevalued as an immigrant minority group in Flanders-Belgium and in the Netherlands (Billiet & Swyngedouw, 2009; VanAcker et al., in preparation). Like Dutch Social Science students, Belgian psychology students are at the low-prejudice endof the population distribution (Meeus et al., 2009; Montreuil et al., 2004). Participants were randomly assigned to Outgroup

1

Adcp

3

tBnMwpMAtotd

sta

1tS(

3

dieigwpt

3

ottltmrntta

4

e


pproval versus Disapproval conditions. Taking a situational approach to typicality perceptions, our second hypothesis pre-icts lower perceived typicality of the Moroccan perpetrator in the Outgroup Disapproval condition relative to the Approvalondition. Moreover, outgroup (dis)approval should affect perceived typicality after controlling for individual differences inrior attitudes toward Moroccans.

.1. Method

Procedure. All participants completed a questionnaire assessing their attitudes toward specific minority groups, includinghe Moroccan minority. Next, they read the fictitious newspaper report describing a fight between a Moroccan and a nativeelgian adolescent in a nightclub. In this report, the Moroccan Belgian adolescent was flirting with a Belgian girl when theative Belgian adolescent intervened and made a racist remark; the men got into a fight; the Belgian got stabbed by theoroccan adolescent; and ended up in hospital. As part of the same newspaper story, another Moroccan Belgian adolescentas asked to comment on the fight. In the Outgroup Disapproval condition, the other Moroccan adolescent blamed theerpetrator and exposed his aggression as a violation of group norms: “We get a lot of racist remarks. But I don’t understandohammed’s aggressive reaction. It’s people like him who create a negative image of Moroccans”. Conversely, in the Outgrouppproval condition, the other Moroccan showed sympathy for the perpetrator and viewed his aggression as a normal reaction

o the racist offense: “We get a lot of racist remarks. I understand Mohammed’s reaction. As a Moroccan, you cannot let peopleffend you like that”. Participants were randomly assigned to both conditions. After reading the report, all participants ratedhe perceived typicality of the offender as a Moroccan minority member. At the end of the study, they were thanked andebriefed.

Participants. Participants were 67 Psychology students at the University of Leuven who volunteered to take part in thetudy in exchange for course credits. Thirty-three participants were randomly assigned to the Outgroup Disapproval condi-ion and 34 to the Outgroup Approval condition. All participants were Belgian majority members, born in Flanders-Belgiumnd native Dutch speakers. Their mean age was 18.13 (SD = 0.69) and 60 participants (89.55%) were women.

Measures. The same measures of ingroup identity threat by Moroccans and outgroup evaluation of Moroccans as in Study were used to assess students’ attitudes toward Moroccans. Average levels of ingroup identity threat as a native Belgian byhe presence of Moroccan Belgians (M = 4.40, SD = 0.79) and average outgroup evaluation of Moroccan Belgians (M = 51.59,D = 17.15) were close to the scale midpoint. So was the average perceived typicality of the perpetrator as a MoroccanM = 3.89, SD = 1.14).

.2. Results

To test our second hypothesis, we conducted an ANCOVA with perceived typicality as a dependent measure, outgroupisapproval (vs. approval) as a dichotomous predictor, and prior attitudes toward Moroccans (i.e., baseline measures of

ngroup identity threat and outgroup evaluation) as continuous covariates (R2 = .35). The analysis resulted in a significantffect of outgroup disapproval (vs. approval) on perceived typicality, F(1, 65) = 12.59, p = .001, �2 = .17. When the Moroccannterviewee disapproved of the offender’s aggressive behavior, the latter was seen as less typical of the Moroccan minorityroup (M = 3.52) than when the interviewee approved of the behavior (M = 4.24). In addition, more negative prior attitudesere correlated to higher perceived typicality; yet only prior ingroup identity threat by Moroccans significantly predictederceived typicality, F(1, 65) = 7.05, p = .006, �2 = .12. The more students perceived ingroup identity threat by Moroccans prioro reading the newspaper story, the more they were inclined to perceive the offender in the story as a typical Moroccan.

.3. Discussion

In view of the pivotal role of perceived typicality in explaining diverging attitudinal trends in Study 1, Study 2 was carriedut to explore under which conditions majority members perceive low typicality and hence may refrain from blaminghe outgroup as a whole for a single outgroup members’ behavior. Looking beyond individual differences in prior attitudesoward Moroccans, the study examined the role of outgroup disapproval as a situational source of low perceived typicality. Inine with our second hypothesis, findings reveal that experimentally induced outgroup disapproval versus approval lowershe perceived typicality of a negative outgroup member. We argued that outgroup disapproval disconnects the negative

ember from his group by presenting him as an anti-normative deviant. Importantly, the effect of outgroup disapprovalemained significant after controlling for prior attitudes toward Moroccans. Against the background of group salience inegative media messages involving minority actors, this finding suggest that media are potentially a chronic source ofhreat in intergroup relations. Our experimental findings also point at outgroup disapproval as an effective tool to protecthe public image of minority groups in negative media messages: media may disconnect a negative member from his groupnd thus protect the group image by featuring other outgroup members who disapprove of his negative behavior.

. Study 3

Combining the research aims of Studies 1 and 2, Study 3 set out to demonstrate that outgroup disapproval buffers threatffects on intergroup attitudes through reducing perceived typicality. In addition, we aimed at extending the analysis of


perceived typicality and outgroup disapproval to a less hostile intergroup context, where pre-existing intergroup attitudesare less negative. Specifically, the threatening message in this study was a fictive interview with an Economics studentwho insulted Psychology students in a popular campus magazine. The interview was followed by a comment from anotherEconomics student who either disapproved or approved of the insulting interviewee. As in the previous studies, we hypoth-esized that low typicality perceivers would show less negative attitudes toward Economics students after threat (Hypothesis1); and that the perceived typicality of the insulting student would be reduced when other Economics students disapprovedof the threatening message (Hypothesis 2). Combining both hypotheses, we expected that disapproval from other Economicsstudents would buffer generalized threat effects on Psychology students’ attitudes toward Economics students; and that theattitudinal effects of outgroup disapproval would be mediated by lower perceived typicality (Hypothesis 3).

4.1. Method

Procedure. Participants in the threat condition read a fictive interview with an Economics student in a campus magazinewhere the interviewee derogated Psychology students: “I do not see Psychology as a science. On top of that, career options withinPsychology are really limited. In times of economic crisis, you need to find solutions for real problems, instead of talking to peopleabout how they feel. I can do that in a bar too (laughs).” As in Study 2, the interview was followed by comments from otherEconomics students. In the Outgroup Disapproves condition, the demeaning message about psychologists was presented asgoing against the group norm: “Few Economics students seem to agree. Jens: ‘I do not agree with him. Psychology is not easy.And with their diploma, they can help many people too, just in a different way.”’ In the Outgroup Approves condition, the samemessage was portrayed as being in line with the group norm: “Many Economics students seem to agree. Jens: ‘I agree withhim. Studying Economics is a lot harder than Psychology. And I too believe we will accomplish more with our diploma”’. Outgroupdisapproval (vs. approval) dissociates the insulting interviewee from other Economics students through the communicationof an outgroup norm which values (vs. devalues) psychology as a science and a profession. After reading the campus magazineinterview, participants indicated how typical they thought the insulting interviewee was as an Economics student. Finally,they reported their attitudes toward Economics students.

To obtain a baseline measure of Psychology students’ attitudes toward Economics students, participants in the controlcondition completed the same attitude measures prior to reading the interview. After reading the interview (half of themwith outgroup disapproval, half of them with outgroup approval), they also rated the typicality of the offending intervieweeas an Economics student. In this way, we are able to control for prior intergroup attitudes in a between-subjects design.This design was preferred over an alternate within-subjects design in order to avoid reactivity issues with repeated attitudemeasures immediately preceding and following the manipulation. The control condition thus had a double purpose: to testthreat effects of the insulting interview on intergroup attitudes against baseline attitudes in the control condition; and totest the effect of outgroup disapproval on perceived typicality while controlling for prior intergroup attitudes.

Participants. Participants were 402 Psychology students at the University of Leuven who volunteered to take part inexchange for course credit. Participants were randomly assigned to the three conditions. One-hundred and seventy-fourparticipants were assigned to the Outgroup Approves condition, 146 to the Outgroup Disapproves condition, and 82 to thecontrol condition. Their mean age was 20.08 (SD = 3.01) and 356 participants (88.56%) were women.

Measures. The same measures of ingroup identity threat and outgroup evaluation were applied to Economics studentsas the threatening outgroup. Average levels of ingroup identity threat by Economics students were rather low (M = 2.73,SD = 1.53) and average evaluations of Economics students as a group were moderately positive (M = 62.32, SD = 17.10). At thesame time, the average perceived typicality of the negative interviewee as an Economics student was rather high (M = 4.61,SD = 1.40).

Plan of analysis. To test the hypothesized effect of perceived typicality on negative attitudes toward Economics studentsafter threat (Hypothesis 1), we performed two linear regression analyses with perceived typicality as a continuous predictorand respectively ingroup identity threat and outgroup evaluation as dependent variables. In addition, we test if outgroupdisapproval reduces perceived typicality (Hypothesis 2) by way of an ANOVA with perceived typicality as a dependent variableand outgroup reaction (disapproval vs. approval) as a between-subjects variable. In order to control for prior attitudes towardEconomics students, we tested the same model within the control condition with prior attitudes toward Economics students(i.e., our baseline measures of ingroup identity threat and outgroup evaluation in the control condition) as a covariate. Finally,to demonstrate the buffer effect of outgroup disapproval on intergroup attitudes through reduced typicality (Hypothesis 3),we ran two ANOVA models with respectively ingroup identity threat and outgroup evaluation as dependent measuresand with condition (Outgroup Disapproves, Outgroup Approves, control condition) as a between-subjects factor. Linearregression analyses and bootstrapping methods, as outlined by Preacher and Hayes (2004), were used to test whetherperceived typicality mediates experimental threat effects on intergroup attitudes.

4.2. Results

Perceived typicality and intergroup attitudes. In line with our first hypothesis and replicating the longitudinal findingsfrom Study 1, linear regression analyses revealed that higher perceived typicality was related to higher levels of ingroupidentity threat by Economics students after reading the derogatory interview ( ̌ = .32, t(315) = 6.06, p < .001). Similarly, higher


pp

ptaoUs

aAbtid

s�ts(

Fig. 3. Study 3: Ingroup identity threat by Economics students as a function of threat and outgroup disagreement or agreement: observed means.

erceived typicality marginally predicted less favorable outgroup evaluations of Economics students ( ̌ = −.10, t(319) = −1.85, = .065).

Outgroup disapproval and perceived typicality. As expected by the second hypothesis, a one-way ANOVA revealed thatarticipants saw the insulting student as less representative of Economics students in the Outgroup Disapproves (M = 4.00)han in the Outgroup Approves condition (M = 5.28), F(1, 319) = 82.92, p < .001, �2 = .21. Moreover, when controlling for priorttitudes by way of ANCOVA in the control condition, the insulting student was still seen as less representative when theutgroup disapproved (M = 4.23) than when the outgroup approved of the insults (M = 5.02), F(1, 81) = 7.01, p = .01, �2 = .08.nlike in Study 2, there were no significant effects of (relatively favorable) prior attitudes on perceived typicality in this

tudy.Outgroup disapproval and ingroup identity threat. With regard to the third hypothesis about a buffer effect of outgroup dis-

pproval, ANOVA revealed significant differences in threat levels between the conditions (F(2, 395) = 18.09, p < .001, �2 = .08).s shown in Fig. 3, students who had been exposed to the derogatory interview perceived more ingroup identity threaty Economics students than those in the control condition (M = 1.98) (who reported their attitudes prior to reading thehreatening interview), both when the outgroup approved (M = 3.19, t(230) = 6.12, p < .001) or disapproved of the insultingnterviewee (M = 2.68, t(246) = 3.85, p < .001). In addition, ingroup identity threat was lower when other Economics studentsisapproved than when they approved (t(314) = 2.86; p = .004).

Outgroup disapproval and outgroup evaluation. Again in line with the third hypothesis, ANOVA showed similar thoughlightly smaller differences between conditions in participants’ evaluation of Economics students, F(2, 399) = 4.83, p < .008,2
= .02. As can be seen in Fig. 4, students who read the derogatory interview evaluated Economics students less favorablyhan those in the control condition (M = 66.65), who evaluated Economics students before receiving the threatening mes-age. Threat effects on outgroup evaluations were significant when other Economics students approved of the intervieweeM = 59.51), t(232) = −3.00, p = .003, and nearly significant when others disapproved (M = 62.67), t(248) = −1.77, p = .078. A
Fig. 4. Study 3: Evaluations of Economics students as a function of threat and outgroup disagreement or agreement: observed means.


Table 1Linear regression analyses examining the mediating role of Perceived typicality (M) in the relation between Outgroup (dis)approval (X) and Ingroup identitythreat (Y1) or Outgroup evaluation (Y2).

Effect B t p

Outgroup (dis)approval on Perceived typicality (M on X) −0.46 −9.11 .000Perceived typicality on Ingroup identity threat (Y1 on M) 0.32 6.06 .000Outgroup (dis)approval on Ingroup identity threat (Y1 on X) 0.16 2.86 .004Outgroup (dis)approval on Ingroup identity threat with Perceived typicality (Y1 on X with M) −0.2 0.25 .779Perceived typicality on Ingroup identity threat with Outgroup (dis)approval (Y1 on M with X) 0.32 5.27 .000

Perceived typicality on Outgroup evaluation (Y2 on M) −0.10 −1.85 .065
Outgroup (dis)approval on Outgroup evaluation (Y2 on X) 0.10 1.70 .090Outgroup (dis)approval on Outgroup evaluation with Perceived typicality (Y2 on X with M) 0.06 0.97 .335Perceived typicality on Outgroup evaluation with Outgroup (dis)approval (Y2 on M with X) 0.08 −1.21 .228
near significant difference between both threat conditions was in the expected direction, so that outgroup evaluations wereslightly more favorable in the Outgroup Disapproves than in the Outgroup Approves condition, t(318) = −1.70, p = .090. Insum, outgroup evaluations were least favorable when other students sided with the offending student; they were mostfavorable in the absence of threat; and the experimental threat effect was attenuated when other students rebuked theoffense.

Does perceived typicality mediate disapproval-attitude associations? Finally, we tested whether the attitudinal effects ofoutgroup disapproval were mediated by perceived typicality (see Table 1). Linear regression analyses showed that outgroupdisapproval reduced perceived typicality ( ̌ = −0.46, t(319) = −9.11, p < .001), which in turn increased ingroup identity threat( ̌ = .32, t(315) = 6.06, p < .001). Furthermore, the effect of outgroup disapproval on identity threat ( ̌ = −.16, t(315) = 2.86,p = .004) ceased to be significant when perceived typicality was added to the regression equation. Using bootstrappingmethods to test whether the experimental effect on ingroup identity threat through perceived typicality is significantlydifferent from zero, the indirect effect was estimated to be 0.33 with a 99% confidence interval between 0.05 and 0.71. Weconclude that perceived typicality mediates the associations between outgroup (dis)approval and ingroup identity threat.

Similarly, perceived typicality marginally predicted less positive outgroup evaluations ( ̌ = −.10, t(319) = −1.85, p = .065).In addition, a marginally significant effect of outgroup disapproval on outgroup evaluation ( ̌ = .10, t(319) = 1.70, p = .09)disappeared when perceived typicality was added to the regression equation. The indirect experimental effect on outgroupevaluation through perceived typicality failed to reach significance (i.e., bootstrapping estimate was −1.03 with a 99%confidence interval from −3.89 to 1.97). Thus, we could not establish significant mediation of the association betweenoutgroup (dis)approval and outgroup evaluations.

4.3. Discussion

Study 3 combines findings from both previous studies and extends the proposed situational approach of perceivedtypicality and threat in mass media to a self-relevant yet relatively benign intergroup context with no history of prejudice.In line with our first hypothesis and replicating Study 1, low typicality perceivers reported lower levels of ingroup identitythreat by Economics students as well as somewhat more favorable outgroup evaluations after reading the threateninginterview compared to high typicality perceivers.

Furthermore, in accordance with the second hypothesis and findings in Study 2, outgroup disapproval effectively reducedthe perceived typicality of the interviewee as a negative outgroup member. Specifically, the interviewee was perceived asless representative of the outgroup when other Economics students disapproved (vs. approved) of the negative message.Moreover, the situational impact of outgroup disapproval on participants’ typicality perceptions held after controlling fortheir prior attitudes toward Economics students.

Most importantly, the experimental findings confirm our third hypothesis which states that outgroup disapproval willbuffer threat in mass media through reducing perceived typicality. While the negative interview sufficed to induce threat ina relatively benign intergroup context, outgroup disapproval had the expected attenuating impact, resulting in less negativeintergroup attitudes under threat. Thus, Psychology students who had been exposed to disapproval among Economicsstudents following the threatening message were less likely to infer a negative outgroup norm than those in the approvalcondition and hence, were better able to resist generalized threat effects on their attitudes toward Economics students.Finally, perceived typicality significantly mediated the buffer effect of outgroup disapproval on ingroup identity threat,while a similar indirect effect on outgroup evaluation failed to reach significance. We conclude that disapproving outgroupvoices can constrain generalized threat effects of negative media messages by dissociating negative outgroup members fromthe public image of their group.

5. Conclusions

In today’s multicultural societies, mass media communicate to minority and majority audiences about intergroup eventson a daily basis. Especially in times of intergroup tension and conflict, media messages are an influential source of public

1

imirua

meMti

emieawatoaveodhdbtmb

PriopHdtd

tmg

A

o

R

A

B

B


nformation and opinion formation about minorities. To the extent that media are routinely connecting negative events toinority group membership, minority group salience points at media messages as a potentially chronic source of threat

n intergroup relations. Against this background, our research asks the question how to steer away from well-establishedecursive cycles of threat in media engendering more threat through generalization. In particular, we asked the hithertonder-researched question when do people go along with threat in media messages and develop less favorable intergroupttitudes; and when will they resist threat and maintain or reaffirm more favorable attitudes.

Our first research aim was to establish low typicality perceptions as a buffer against generalized threat effects of negativeedia messages involving an outgroup actor. To address this aim, we demonstrated the role of perceived typicality in

xplaining diverging attitudinal effects of threatening media messages on the Van Gogh murder by a Moroccan Dutchuslim. In line with our first hypothesis, converging longitudinal (Study 1) and experimental evidence (Study 3) shows

hat attitudes toward the outgroup following media exposure are less negative or more positive when an aggressive actors perceived as a less typical outgroup member than when the actor is perceived as more typical.

Our second research aim was to demonstrate that low perceived typicality can be situationally induced through mediaxposure to outgroup disapproval. We reasoned that media may protect the image of a group by showing other groupembers who disapprove of an offender who is identified as a fellow group member. Disapproval by other group members

mplies that the behavior violates outgroup norms, thus representing the actor as a deviant or atypical group member. In twoxperiments (Studies 2 and 3) we successfully manipulated outgroup disapproval versus approval of a negative member as

situational buffer against perceived typicality and generalized threat in mass media. In line with the second hypothesis,e found that perceived typicality could be situationally reduced when other outgroup members publicly disapproved of

negative outgroup actor (in Studies 2 and 3). Moreover, outgroup disapproval mitigated generalized negative attitudeshrough reducing perceived typicality (in Study 3). As expected, majority audiences are less inclined to infer a negativeutgroup norm and hence, less susceptible to generalized threat, when public disapproval exposes a negative member asn anti-normative deviant. Taken together, our findings reveal disapproving minority voices as a powerful tool to break theicious circle of mutually reinforcing perceptions of typicality and threat. Our research adds to intergroup contact research byxtending the role of prototypicality to negative outgroup members in the context of intergroup threat. We add to researchn intergroup threat by focusing on the conditions that enable resistance to threat. More precisely, we identified outgroupisapproval as a situational moderator of well-established threat effects on intergroup attitudes. Finally, the findings alsoave wider implications for the role of media in today’s socially and culturally diverse societies. We showed that outgroupisapproval of a negative member can put the break on recursive processes of pre-existing threat engendering more threaty over-generalizing from negative behavior of a single or a few minority actors. To undercut generalized threat effects,herefore, media would be well advised to include pluralistic minority voices when covering negative events involving

inority actors. This practice may even overrule the impact of pre-existing attitudes – so that prejudiced persons would seead behavior as more typical: “they are all the same”.

There are also limitations, however, which should be addressed in future research. Participants in all three studies weresychology or Social Sciences students, who generally display more tolerant attitudes toward immigrants and who may welleact against public prejudice by positively discriminating (see Study 1). Therefore, the present findings should be replicatedn more attitudinally heterogeneous or more highly prejudiced segments of the population. Possibly, the same manipulationf outgroup disapproval of a negative member may more strongly affect highly prejudiced persons, in line with similarerson-situation interaction effects in positive intergroup contact research with heterogeneous samples (e.g., Dhont & Vaniel, 2011). Furthermore, attitudinal measures should ideally be complemented with more behavioral, affective or implicitependent measures of intergroup relations. Also, future experimental research should strengthen our findings by extendinghe manipulation of outgroup approval and measures of perceived typicality to the low threat condition in a fully crossedesign.

Keeping in mind remaining questions and limitations, our studies demonstrate that media have real impact on the degreeo which audiences will generalize threat from negative messages involving one or a few minority actors. In light of our

ain finding that outgroup disapproval attenuates threat through reducing perceived typicality, mass-media can de-escalateroup conflict following negative incidents by exposing their audiences to pluralistic minority (and majority) voices.

cknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Norbert Vanbeselaere, for his support in designing the studies and his valuable commentsn the manuscript.

eferences

brams, D., Marques, J., Brown, N., & Dougill, M. (2002). Anti-norm and pro-norm deviance in the bank and on the campus: Two experiments on subjectivegroup dynamics. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5, 163–182.

illiet, J., & Swyngedouw, M. (2009). (Etno-cultural minorities and the Flemish voters. An analysis on the basis of postelectoral surveys1991–1995–1999–2003–2007) Etnische minderheden en de Vlaamse kiezers. Een analyse op basis van de postelectorale verkiezingsonderzoeken1991–1995–1999–2003–2007. Belgium: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Sociologisch Onderzoek. [D/2009/1191/1].

oomgaarden, H. G., & Vliegenthart, R. (2007). Explaining the rise of anti-immigrant parties: The role of news media content. Electoral Studies, 26,404–417.


Brown, R. (2010). Prejudice: Its social psychology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Brown, R., Eller, A., Leeds, S., & Stace, K. (2007). Intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37,

692–703.Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255–343.Brown, B., Vivian, J., & Hewstone, M. (1999). Changing attitudes through intergroup contact: The effects of group membership salience. European Journal of

Social Psychology, 29, 741–764.Coenders, M., Lubbers, M., Scheepers, P., & Verkuyten, M. (2008). More than two decades of changing ethnic attitudes in the Netherlands. Journal of Social

Issues, 64, 269–285.Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions? Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. American

Psychologist, 64, 231–240.d’Haenens, L., & Bink, S. (2007). Islam in the Dutch press: With special attention to the Algemeen Dagblad. Media, Culture & Society, 29, 35–149.Dhont, K., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Direct contact and authoritarianism as moderators between extended contact and reduced prejudice: Lower threat and

greater trust as mediators. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14, 223–237.Doosje, B., Zebel, S., Scheermeijer, M., & Mathyi, P. (2007). Attributions of responsibility for terrorist attacks: The role of group membership and identification.

International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 1, 127–141.Esses, V. M., Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Values, stereotypes, and emotions as determinants of intergroup attitudes. In D. M. Mackie, & D. L. Hamilton

(Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 137–166). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. (2006). Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia. Retrieved October 4, 2010

from http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/Manifestations EN.pdf.Gijsberts, M., & Lubbers, M. (2009). Wederzijdse beeldvorming. In M. Gijsberts en, & J. Dagevos (Eds.), Jaarrapport Integratie 2009 (pp. 254–290). Den Haag:

SCP.Hagendoorn, L. (1995). Intergroup biases in multiple group systems: The perception of ethnic hierarchies. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 199–228.Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. J. (1986). Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Hewstone, M., & Hamberger, J. (2000). Perceived variability and stereotype change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 103–124.Hulshof, P., de Kleuver, J., Lugtmeijer, E., & Pach, J. (2008). Maatschappelijke Onrust – Leerzame voorbeelden, historie, literatuur en meer. DSP Groep: Onderzoek,

advies, en management.Johns, M., Schmader, T., & Lickel, B. (2005). Ashamed to be an American? The role of identification in predicting vicarious shame for anti-Arab prejudice

after 9-11. Self and Identity, 4, 331–348.Korteweg, A. C. (2005). De moord op Theo van Gogh: Gender, religie en de strijd over de integratie van migranten in Nederland [The murder on Theo Van

Gogh: Gender, religion, and the struggle over integration of migrants in the Netherlands]. Migrantenstudies, 4, 241–254.Levine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Lubbers, M., Scheepers, P., & Wester, F. (1998). Ethnic minorities in Dutch newspapers 1990–5: Patterns of criminalization and problematization. Interna-

tional Communication Gazette, 60, 415–431.Maio, G. R., Esses, V. M., & Bell, D. W. (1994). The formation of attitudes toward new immigrant groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1762–1776.Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J.-P. (1998). The “black sheep” effect: Extremity of judgments towards in-group members as a function of group

identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–16.Mayda, A. M. (2006). Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. The Review of Economics and

Statistics, 88, 510–530.Meeus, J., Duriez, B., Vanbeselaere, N., Phalet, K., & Kuppens, P. (2009). Examining dispositional and situational effects on outgroup attitudes. European

Journal of Personality, 23, 307–328.Montreuil, A., Bourhis, R. Y., & Vanbeselaere, N. (2004). Perceived threat and host community acculturation orientations towards immigrants: Comparing

Flemings in Belgium and Francophones in Québec. Canadian Ethnic Studies/Études ethniques au Canada, 26, 113–135.Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J. (2007). Direct and indirect intergroup contact effects on prejudice: A normative interpretation.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 411–425.Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods,

Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731.Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review,

10, 336–353.Rothbart, M., & Lewis, S. (1988). Inferring category attributes from exemplar attributes: Geometric shapes and social categories. Attitudes and Social Cognition,

55, 861–872.Roggeband, C., & Vliegenthart, R. (2007). Divergent framing: The public debate on migration in the Dutch parliament and media, 1995–2004. West European

Politics, 30, 524–548.Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B., & Hewes, D. E. (2005). The parasocial contact hypothesis. Communication Monographs, 72, 92–115.Semyonov, M., Raijman, R., & Yom-Tov, A. (2002). Labor market competition, perceived threat, and endorsement of economic discrimination against foreign

workers in Israel. Social Problems, 49, 416–431.Sniderman, P. M., Hagendoorn, L., & Prior, M. (2004). Predisposing factors and situational triggers: Exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. American

Political Science Review, 98, 35–49.Stathi, S., & Crisp, R. J. (2008). Imagining intergroup contact promotes projection to outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 943–957.Stathi, S., Crisp, R. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2011). Imagining intergroup contact enables member-to-group generalization. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and

Practice, 15, 275–284.Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role of threat in intergroup relations. In M. Mackie, & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions.

Differentiated reactions to social groups (pp. 191–207). New York: Psychology Press.Stephan, W. G., Renfro, C. L., Esses, M. V., Stephan, C. W., & Martin, T. (2005). The effects of feeling threatened on attitudes towards immigrants. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 1–19.Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–46).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press.Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel, & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations.

Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Van Acker, K., Mesquita, B., Vanbeselaere, N., & Phalet, K. (in preparation). Do “They” threaten “Us” or do “We” disrespect “Them”? The role of collective

representations in attitudes towards immigrants.Van Acker, K., & Vanbeselaere, N. (2011). Bringing together acculturation theory and intergroup contact theory: Predictors of Flemings’ expectations of

Turks’ acculturation behavior. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 334–345.
Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Groenewoud, J. T., & Hewstone, M. (1996). Cooperation, ethnic salience and generalization of interethnic attitudes. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 26, 649–661.Vergeer, M., Lubbers, M., & Scheepers, P. (2000). Exposure to newspapers and attitudes toward ethnic minorities: A longitudinal analysis. The Howard

Journal of Communications, 11, 127–143.Verkuyten, M., & Zaremba, K. (2005). Interethnic relations in a changing political context. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 375–386.

http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/Manifestations_EN.pdf

1

W

W

W

Z


ilder, D. A. (1984). Intergroup contact: The typical member and the exception to the rule. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20,177–194.

ilder, D. A., Simon, A. F., & Faith, M. (1996). Enhancing the impact of counterstereotypic information: Dispositional attributions for deviance. InterpersonalRelations and Group Processes, 2, 276–287.

right, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and Prejudice. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73–90.

ondaar doden is een zonde [It is a sin to kill a killer]. (2004, November 3). NRC Handelsblad. Retrieved August 9, 2010, from http://www.nrc.nl.

http://www.nrc.nl/

Documents

“They are all the same”: Low perceived typicality and outgroup disapproval as buffers of intergroup threat in mass media