Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, COMMUNICATION ( (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 07 April 2020

Mediated Contact

Summary and Keywords

Mediated contact involves exposing audiences to people from other social groups (ethnic, religious, political, etc.) through media. It is an extension of intergroup contact theory, one of the most widely studied and successful prejudice reduction strategies in the social sciences. Mediated contact has effects on explicit and implicit attitudes, as well as physiological responses towards other groups. These effects generally serve to improve intergroup relations in terms of affective, cognitive, and normative outcomes. These outcomes can be understood in terms of a number of psychological processes, which here are synthesized into three thematic headers: Liking, identifying, and learning. Each of these themes taps into existing theoretical areas including parasocial relationships, social identification, and social cognition. Mediated contact has been shown to be effective across a wide variety of study methodologies and contexts, for a wide variety of participants, targeting a wide variety of social out-groups. Although the effects of mediated contact seem to be secondary to face-to-face experience, the fact that many people possess information about groups primarily through media make it an important area of study. While the current media landscape is often less positive and diverse than the ideals of mediated contact, research suggests that positive mediated contact can still have an impact on audiences in both the laboratory and the real world.

Keywords: mediated contact, vicarious contact, parasocial contact, intergroup contact theory, mass communication, media, attitudes, intergroup communication

Introduction and Historical Context

Mediated intergroup contact refers to when audiences from one group are exposed to another through media. The divide between in- and out-group can be along ethnic, religious, health, or political lines, to name just a few. Mediated contact is studied primarily for its ability to reduce prejudice towards the presented out-group and is an extension of the vast literature on the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954).

Research on integration projects (e.g., housing projects, Deutsch & Collins, 1951) suggested that integration tended to improve intergroup relations. Based on this type of evidence Allport (1954) formally proposed the contact hypothesis, which stated that face-to-face interaction with a member of another group will improve attitudes towards that group, especially when there is cooperation, a common goal, institutional support, and equal status between the individuals within the interaction. Hundreds of studies have contributed to a rich literature, which has by and large upheld this hypothesis (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).

One way in which this literature has expanded over time has been to examine and understand how intergroup contact operates through a variety of communication channels and contexts. The extended contact hypothesis suggested two forms of extended contact that would likely have similar effects to face-to-face contact (Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997). In their first three studies the authors focused on social networks and found that there was a prejudice-reducing effect of knowing that an in-group member was friends with someone from the out-group. In their fourth study, they had participants directly observe an interaction between an in-group and out-group member, and found that the more positive and friendly the interaction was, the more positive the participant’s intergroup attitudes became. This second form of extended contact went to form the theoretical and empirical basis for a number of studies on mediated contact.

Conceptualization, Distinctions, and Terminology

While mediated contact might simply be defined as exposure to media containing intergroup content, there are two problems that researchers need to be aware of when using this definition. First, this definition overlaps significantly with several other commonly used terms. Second, media is incredibly heterogeneous and varies on several important theoretical dimensions. In this section I discuss these issues, but also argue that this term and definition are still useful.

There is currently no clear and universal naming convention regarding intergroup depictions in media. As a result, many researchers who study mediated contact might refer to it using superordinate terms such as extended contact. Alternatively, researchers sometimes use terms such as parasocial or vicarious contact, which are more evocative of specific processes and mechanisms. It is therefore useful for any scholar interested in mediated contact to be aware of these terms and how they overlap with mediated contact, and so below I will attempt to both synthesize distinctions among terms and offer some theoretical mechanisms for conceptualizing mediated contact.

The parasocial contact hypothesis (Schiappa, Gregg, & Hewes, 2005), focused on how audience members can form parasocial friendships with out-group characters in media narratives. These parasocial friendships end up having many of the same psychological outcomes as having a real life friend for some viewers. In Schiappa and colleagues’ study (2005) they found that straight audience members who liked or felt similar to gay characters in shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy or Six Feet Under reported less prejudice towards homosexuals as a result. What might be said to differentiate parasocial contact from other terms is the focus on the out-group member. For example, in the original parasocial contact paper (Schiappa et al., 2005) researchers exposed participants to a transvestite standup comedian doing a one-man show. These findings also echo the large research literature on out-group exemplars that demonstrate positive effects of being exposed to admirable (e.g., Bodenhausen, Schwarz, Bless, & Wänke, 1995) and counterstereotypical (e.g., Power, Murphy, & Coover, 1996) members of out-groups. Rather than focus on the way these exemplars act within an intergroup interaction, these lines of research tend to be more focused on how audiences affectively and cognitively process the out-group member, in terms of priming beliefs (e.g., Power et al., 1996), increasing parasocial liking (e.g., Schiappa et al., 2005), and changing appraisals (e.g., Bodenhausen, Schwarz, Bless, & Wänke, 1995), schemas (e.g., Dixon & Azocar, 2007), and mental models (e.g., Mastro, Behm-Morawitz, & Ortiz, 2007).

On the other hand vicarious contact specifically refers to the observation of intergroup interactions. This is often operationalized using media to present the intergroup interaction. For example, some researchers have used videotaped interactions (e.g., Mazziotta, Mummendey, & Wright, 2011), television narratives (e.g., Joyce & Harwood, 2014), sports interactions (e.g., Goméz & Huici, 2008), radio programs (e.g., Paluck, 2009), and written stories (e.g., Cameron, Rutland, Brown, & Douch, 2006). However, vicarious contact research has also included the use of in-person observations of an intergroup interaction (e.g., Wright et al., 1997), which would not fit under the purview of mediated contact. Regardless, the most important element of vicarious contact is audience observation of an in-group member interacting with someone from the out-group.

Intergroup media that presents both in-group and out-group characters interacting provides for both the cognitive and affective effects of out-group exemplar exposure, as well as social cognitive effects, and evidence suggests it is more effective as a result. For example, one study experimentally compared intergroup versus out-group oriented mediated contact and found that while the out-group condition did have some effect on intergroup anxiety, the intergroup condition had both stronger and more diverse effects (Cernat, 2011). I would argue that the diversity of effects in the intergroup media condition suggests that mediated contact will be most effective when it can concurrently tap into a number of processes (e.g., liking, identifying, and learning) that I will discuss later in this chapter.

While we might reasonably continue to define mediated contact as exposure to media featuring other groups, the above research does suggest that this definition lacks some necessary nuance. As a result, mediated contact may group a number of phenomena together that operate very differently. One framework, The Contact Space (Harwood, 2010) suggests two defining dimensions of intergroup contact that help make theoretical sense of the heterogeneity of mediated contact experiences: Richness of the self–out-group experience and involvement of the self. Using these dimensions it is usually relatively straightforward to classify different forms of contact. For example, face-to-face contact is argued to be high in both richness and involvement. If the contact occurred over the telephone, involvement might stay high, but the richness of the experience would be lessened. Although not explicitly classified in the paper, we might imagine that a text-based chat would be lower in richness still and that the asynchronous communication might also reduce involvement. Harwood argues that the reason to consider the contact space is not because high values on the dimensions equals more efficacy, but rather because it implies different roles for anxiety, disclosure, learning, and social norms in the contact experience. This makes the contact space a useful theoretical tool for most types of contact. However, I would argue it is less so for mediated contact because media can be highly variable on both dimensions. The variability in the involvement dimension is slightly more obvious, namely that we might become more personally engaged in some media than others. For instance, a well-acted out-group character may make it easier to form a parasocial friendship which will make us more involved in that mediated contact than if we do not. The variability of richness is potentially less obvious if we think about television or movies as having relatively static channel traits (e.g., a noninteractive, visual medium). However, media now transcend these traditional limitations, allowing fans to join online forums, interact with the show-runners via social media, and so forth. All of these actions are likely to increase the richness (and potentially personal involvement) of the contact experience. As a result mediated contact might be considered both semantically and theoretically ambiguous as a term.

Still, I would argue that mediated contact is a useful term that helps us understand the impacts of both vicarious and parasocial contact in a broader sense. For example, looking across different types of mediated contact we can begin to form a stronger sense of how it interacts with other forms of contact. While there is no research directly comparing the effects size of mediated contact with other forms of contact (such as face-to-face), there are a number of studies that have considered past face-to-face contact as a moderator of mediated contacts effects. What has been demonstrated in numerous studies is the primacy of face-to-face contact over mediated contact. More specifically, mediated contacts effects are strongest when there has been limited face-to-face contact on the part of the audience member (e.g., Fujioka, 1999). While these studies do suggest that people are more likely to be influenced by directly experienced interactions than vicarious ones, it does not suggest that mediated contact is inferior.

Taken as a broad category, mediated contact has potential benefits over other types of contact experience. The first benefit is emotional. Research suggests that face-to-face contact experiences can be fraught with anxiety (Shelton & Richeson, 2005) and that this anxiety can undo the positive effects of contact (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). On the other hand, watching intergroup media is likely to be less anxiety provoking than a face-to-face interaction with a stranger. Intergroup media can in fact reduce anxiety and thereby increase desires for future interaction (Mazziotta et al., 2011). The second benefit of mediated contact over other forms of contact is logistic. Media is pervasive and is already the primary source of information about out-groups for many people (Mutz & Goldman, 2010). Therefore, mediated contact is more likely as a form of contact for many people, not to mention more financially viable if you want to affect the attitudes of a large number of people.

Another reason to use the term mediated contact is that it is both heuristic and operational. Researchers tend to operationalize extended, vicarious, and parasocial contact in terms of media. As a result, researchers have numerous media theories to draw on and integrate, which helps mediated contact research translate more easily into related areas of media scholarship.

Operationalizing Mediated Contact

Research on mediated contact didn’t begin in earnest until the late 1990s, but since then there have been numerous studies on it. As mentioned above, these studies have used numerous types of mediated intergroup interactions, but this is only the beginning of the diversity of research approaches. There have been surveys measuring the consumption of popular programming (e.g., Ortiz & Harwood, 2007), there have been experiments that either manipulated existing footage (e.g., Joyce & Harwood, 2014), or created their own specifically for the experiment (e.g., Harwood, Qadar, & Chen, 2016). These studies have employed a wide range of participant groups varying in age (children, college students, and adults) and nationality. The out-groups involved in these studies have also been highly variable including ethnic groups (e.g., African Americans, Ortiz & Harwood, 2007), sociopolitical groups (e.g., illegal immigrants, Joyce & Harwood, 2014), sexual orientations (e.g., Schiappa et al., 2005), and stigmatized groups (e.g., the mentally disabled; Cameron, Rutland, & Brown, 2007). Relatedly, there has been variety in terms of the types of intergroup conflict being tackled, up to and including active conflicts (e.g. Israel–Palestine, Cole et al., 2003) and postgenocidal reconstruction efforts (e.g., Rwanda, Paluck, 2009). These studies have addressed the impact of mediated contact on numerous dependent variables including both explicit and implicit intergroup attitudes, intergroup behaviors, intergroup emotions, and intergroup stereotypes. As is often the case with social scientific research, as this area of inquiry has progressed, researchers have begun to examine the mechanisms through which mediated contact effects these variables (also referred to as mediators), as well as variables that might increase or decrease its overall effects (also referred to as moderators). A recent review of the research on extended contact has chronicled a fairly complete list of these contexts and variables (Vezzali, Hewstone, Capozza, Giovannini, & Wölfer, 2014). Instead of repeating this recent review, in the sections below I will synthesize and present these dependent variables, mediators, and moderators in terms of three general processes that are likely occurring during mediated contact: liking, identifying, and learning.


In his original conceptualization of intergroup contact theory, Allport (1954) suggested that contact would work in part because as people got to know one another they would be able to dispel the stereotypes they held about those groups. However, meta-analytic research has found that what contact has the greatest impact on is not stereotypes, but rather feelings (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005). Indeed liking and friendship have become celebrated ideals in the contact literature in general (Davies, Tropp, Aron, Pettigrew, & Wright, 2011).

Moving to the research on mediated contact specifically, we find that much of the research has focused on a number of dependent variables that relate to how much we like the group. Perhaps the most pervasive measure is one of explicit attitudes about the group. For example, a study might use a feeling thermometer measure, in which participants are asked to evaluate on a scale how warm or cold they feel towards a group. Regardless of the exact measure both experimental (e.g., Joyce & Harwood, 2014) and correlational (e.g., Ortiz & Harwood, 2007) studies have shown that watching positive mediated intergroup interactions can improve people’s explicitly stated attitudes about an out-group. In addition to measuring positive feelings like warmth, research has also found that mediated contact can reduce explicit negative feelings such as anxiety (Mazziotta et al., 2011), which can get in the way of developing positive intergroup interactions and liking (Stephan & Stephan, 1985).

Other studies have observed similar effects on implicit attitudes as well (Castelli, Carraro, Pavan, Murelli, & Carraro, 2012; Weisbuch, Pauker, & Ambady, 2009). Implicit attitudes, often measured with reaction time measures such as the implicit associate task, are believed by some to represent people’s subconscious or automatic attitudes, suggesting that the effects of mediated contact on out-group liking are not simply the product of demand effects or merely momentarily salient beliefs, but also internalized. Other studies have demonstrated other ways in which the effects of mediated contact seem to be deeply internalized. For instance, in one study (West & Turner, 2014) participants encountered a confederate who they were told had schizophrenia. Participants who had previously seen mediated contact involving a schizophrenic individual not only had less elevated physiological responses leading into the face-to-face meeting, but also demonstrated more positive nonverbal behavior during the meeting.

Together, both explicit and implicit measures demonstrate that mediated contact can reduce negative feelings and foster positive feelings that result in out-group liking. In addition to these affective shifts, mediated contact is also associated with behavioral indicators of liking. For example, one study examining the utility of mediated contact as a reconciliation strategy found audience members were more likely to engage in friendly behaviors like sharing batteries after being exposed to mediated contact (Paluck, 2009). Other research has focused on how mediated contact can increase the desire for future interaction through the reduction of negative emotions like anxiety (Mazziotta et al., 2011). Evidence suggests that this desire goes beyond intentions. Mallett and Wilson (2010) followed up with their participants and found that those who had been exposed to mediated contact were more likely to have cross-group friendships later.

In recent years, researchers have begun focusing on the underlying mechanisms through which mediated contact improves intergroup liking, and have identified several, some of which parallel findings on face-to-face contact. For example, in face-to-face communication, empathy and perspective taking are major mediators of contact’s effects on intergroup attitudes (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). Recent research on has found that mediated contact similarly impacts perspective taking (Bilali & Vollhardt, 2013). Developing intimacy and friendship has also been tied to the long-term out-group liking effects of face-to-face contact (Davies et al., 2011). In essence, this parallels the reasoning behind the parasocial contact hypothesis (Schiappa et al., 2005), that if you can get individuals to form a parasocial bond with a character from another group, that will make you like the whole group more. One study, found that liking of the out-group character mediated the relationship between more positive mediated depictions leading to more positive attitudes towards the group as a whole (Joyce & Harwood, 2014). However, it should be noted that these effects were strongest when the out-group character was seen as typical of her group. The notions of typicality and group salience become very important as we begin to explore some of the other effects and underlying mechanisms of mediated contact.


Mediated contact has a complicated relationship with social identification. The social identity perspective (see Tajfel & Turner, 1986) represents a cluster of theories describing how and why individuals identify as members of groups and what the effects of this identification are. One overarching element of the theory is that when an individual’s identity is salient, it can change their perceptions, emotions, motivations, and behaviors. Many of these changes lead to outcomes such as stereotyping and prejudice. For example, reducing anxiety though mediated contact has been shown in turn to reduce stereotyping (Cernat, 2011) and increase intentions for future interaction (Mazziotta et al., 2011). In their review of extended contact Vezzali and colleagues (2014) make the argument that contact which is observed vicariously, rather than experienced face-to-face, may make these social identities even more salient due to the impact of seeing both sides of the in-group/out-group dichotomy at the same time. Whatever the case, the ways in which identification is tied to mediated contact are multifaceted.

The first way in which identification plays a role is as a precondition or moderator of mediated contact’s effects. One study experimentally manipulated the positivity of the mediated contact and found that identification with the in-group character in the narrative moderated the effect of mediated contact on out-group attitudes (Joyce & Harwood, 2014). Specifically, when identification with the in-group member was high, the negative depictions had a stronger negative impact on out-group attitudes. Essentially, for audiences who see more of themselves in the characters, the narrative becomes more meaningful, and more influential as a result. Interestingly, the opposite can be said of disidentification. In one study that examined the positive depictions of Harry Potter characters interacting with stigmatized groups, both identification with the main character (Harry, who had positive interactions with stigmatized characters) and disidentification with the main villain (Voldemort) were predictive of more positive attitudes towards those stigmatized groups (Vezzali, Stathi, Giovannini, Capozza, & Trifiletti, 2015). In addition to whether individuals identify with a specific in-group member, we might also consider how they identify with that in-group identity. For example, one study found that mediated contact only produced behavioral outcomes for individuals who were strongly identified with their in-group (Cameron et al., 2007), suggesting that intergroup stimuli are more persuasive the more we think of ourselves as group members.

Identification can also be an outcome of mediated contact. For example, some studies (e.g., Cameron et al., 2006), have found that mediated contact can increase inclusion of the other in the self (IOS). This measure presents participants with a series of overlapping Venn diagrams that allow them to describe how subsumed as an individual they are by another category or person. The IOS has been adapted and used by a number of researchers as a measure of identification. As a result the findings of this research suggest that mediated contact might not only be stronger the more salient group identity is to the audience, but also change the way the audience relates and identifies with those groups. An interesting byproduct of this process can be found in mediated contact research examining secondary transfer effects. Secondary transfer effects refer to a phenomenon in which changing attitudes towards a target group also change attitudes towards other groups. For example, in one mediated contact study the target out-group was illegal/undocumented immigrants (Joyce & Harwood, 2014). The researchers found that through improving intergroup attitudes towards illegal immigrants they also changed attitudes towards a variety of ethnic (e.g., African or Latino Americans) and sociopolitical (e.g., refugees or the homeless) groups. Ultimately what these secondary transfer effects may represent is decreased ethnocentrism or a fundamental restructuring of how we think about our social identities in comparison to other possible social identities.


In addition to affective effects, mediated contact has been shown to have cognitive effects as well. For example, mediated contact has been shown to alter beliefs, such as negative out-group stereotypes (Cameron et al., 2006; Cernat, 2011; Vezzali, Stathi, & Giovannini, 2012). These types of cognitive effects, as well as many of the affective and behavioral effects described above, can be understood as part of an intergroup learning process that occurs as result of exposure to mediated contact.

Social cognitive theory has been leveraged to describe how audiences learn vicariously through media (Bandura, 2001) and is one of the most commonly employed theories to explain the effects of mediated contact. There are numerous components to this theory, some of which are particularly useful in explaining mediated contact.

Social cognitive theory suggests that vicarious learning occurs when individuals observe an action that is paired with either a reward or a punishment. Observed actions with valued rewards are more likely to be emulated by audiences. Mediated contact featuring a highly likeable out-group member or pleasant intergroup experience frame intergroup relations as rewarding, which should result in learning more positive attitudes and behaviors. Additionally, social cognitive theory suggests that individuals are more likely to learn vicariously when the observed action/consequence happens to someone with whom they identify. This is predicated on the belief that the people who are most like us are likely to experience things similarly to us. These elements of social cognitive theory help explain why in-group identification is an important moderator of mediated contact’s effects, as discussed above.

Social cognitive theory also suggests a process of abstract modeling, in which individuals believe that a specific action/consequence is likely to generalize to other similar contexts and situations. There is evidence that abstract modeling is important in explaining how intergroup contact, which occurs between two individuals, can generalize to attitudes about two groups. In the intergroup contact literature there is a great deal of evidence suggesting that the perceived typicality of the out-group members involved in intergroup contact is an important moderator of contact’s effects (Brown & Hewstone, 2005). This has also been found in research on mediated contact, in which liking of the out-group character in the narrative predicted positive feelings towards the group most strongly when that character was seen as typical of their group (Joyce & Harwood, 2014). Although the terms typicality and generalizability are often used here, what is being described is the process of abstract modeling. Abstract modeling might also be useful in explaining secondary transfer effects, when changing attitudes about a single target group generalized to change attitudes about other conceptually related groups.

In addition to teaching us about other groups, mediated contact has the potential to teach us about social norms as well. Observational learning through media has a special way of indicating consensus, and indeed, mediated contact has been shown to have an effect on norms in a way that face-to-face contact does not (De Tezanos-Pinto, Bratt, & Brown, 2010). Seeing consensus in media about how our or another group is supposed to behave or feel will lead to the construction or confirmation of what is normal. In one study (Cameron, Rutland, Hossain, & Petley, 2011), children exposed to stories about intercultural friendships between White and Indian British children were more likely to report positive out-group norms regarding White/Indian relationships. These perceptions of out-group norms mediated the effect of mediated contact on intergroup attitudes. Additionally, this study found some evidence on shifting perceptions of in-group norms as well, although only amongst the older children.

Taken together, these lines of research suggest that mediated contact can be instructive to audiences. These learning effects also link back to the effects of mediated contact on liking and identification as well. Observing intergroup interactions can teach us about other groups in a way that dispels negative stereotypes and may ultimately contribute to out-group liking. Observing positive interactions can reduce social uncertainty in a way that may reduce anxiety and teach us positive scripts for future interactions. Identifying with characters may increase our ability to learn valuable takeaway messages, and may even influence social identification and ethnocentrism.

Mediated Contact in the Media Landscape

All of this evidence suggests that mediated contact is a powerful prejudice reduction tool, one that can improve intergroup attitudes and emotions, disrupt negative stereotypes, and foster more positive behavior. However, that “can” reflects an important caveat, namely that the content of the mediated intergroup contact seems to matter. For example, one study experimentally added a collective action plot line to some intergroup media and found that while it increased attitudes and behavioral intentions towards collective action, it had negative effects on intergroup attitudes and tolerance (Bilali, Vollhardt, & Rarick, 2017). More generally, the positive intergroup effects of mediated contact appear to be in proportion to the positivity of the depicted interaction. For example, one study presented participants with three experimentally manipulated depictions of mediated intergroup contact and found that the positive condition (operationalized in terms of less conflict and more friendly interactions) resulted in more positive out-group attitudes than the mixed representations, which in turn resulted in more positive out-group attitudes than the negative depiction (Joyce & Harwood, 2014). Interestingly, however, the negative depiction did not result in more negative attitudes than the control condition, suggesting that the current media and intergroup landscape, or baseline, is a relatively negative one. This is supported by a great deal of research suggesting that minority groups are often underrepresented and/or represented in negative ways (Mastro & Atwell Seate, 2012). The current media landscape contains both positive and negative minority portrayals that can have positive impacts in some genres (e.g., sitcoms) and negative impacts in others (e.g., dramas, Busselle & Crandall, 2002). Given that it might seem hard to know what the real world impact of mediated contact is.

I would argue that there are positive intergroup effects on the whole. First, real effects of mediated contact have been demonstrated in the real world, and not just in laboratory experiments. Scholars continue to use and evaluate mediated contact as a tool to improve intergroup relations in some of the most challenging intergroup conflicts imaginable (e.g., postgenocide Rwanda, Paluck, 2009). Second, there are a number of positive shows such as Sesame Street that have been shown to have significant and enduring positive effects for their audiences (Bogatz & Ball, 1971), suggesting that there is a role for positive intergroup media in the existing media landscape. Both of these suggest that positive mediated contact can have an impact despite an ambiguous and sometimes negative baseline.

Additionally, a number of scholars have suggested that media representations of minority groups will change over time. Clark (1969) suggested that representations of minority groups would begin with nonrepresentation and progress from objects of ridicule, to holding limited roles, to more integrated, balanced, and respected representations. While it is an open question as to the speed and uniformity of this trajectory and the extent to which this will also encompass intergroup interactions, intergroup representations seem to be more positive now than they were 50 years ago. This may suggest that the nonlaboratory effects of mediated contact will continue to get more positive over time.

Further Readings

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford: Addison-Wesley.Find this resource:

Harwood, J. (2010). The contact space: A novel framework for intergroup contact research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 147–177.Find this resource:

Joyce, N., & Harwood, J. (2014). Improving intergroup attitudes through televised vicarious intergroup contact: Social cognitive processing of ingroup and outgroup information. Communication Research, 41(5), 627–643.Find this resource:

Paluck, E. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 574–587.Find this resource:

Park, S. (2012). Mediated intergroup contact: Concept explication, synthesis, and application. Mass Communication and Society, 15, 136–159.Find this resource:

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.Find this resource:

Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B., & Hewes, D. E. (2005). The parasocial contact hypothesis. Communication Monographs, 72, 92–115.Find this resource:

Vezzali, L., Hewstone, M., Capozza, D., Giovannini, D., & Wölfer, R. (2014). Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology, 25, 314–389.Find this resource:

Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73–90.Find this resource:


Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford: Addison-Wesley.Find this resource:

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3, 265–299.Find this resource:

Bilali, R., & Vollhardt, J. R. (2013). Priming effects of a reconciliation radio drama on historical perspective-taking in the aftermath of mass violence in Rwanda. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 144–151.Find this resource:

Bilali, R., Vollhardt, J. R., & Rarick, J. D. (2017). Modeling collective action through media to promote social change and positive intergroup relations in violent conflicts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 200–211.Find this resource:

Bodenhausen, G. V., Schwarz, N., Bless, H., & Wänke, M. (1995). Effects of atypical exemplars on racial beliefs: Enlightened racism or generalized appraisals? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 48–63.Find this resource:

Bogatz, G. A., & Ball, S. (1971). A summary of the major findings in “The second year of Sesame Street: a continuing evaluation.” ERIC Clearinghouse.Find this resource:

Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255–343.Find this resource:

Busselle, R., & Crandall, H. (2002). Television viewing and perceptions about race differences in socioeconomic success. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 256–282.Find this resource:

Cameron, L., Rutland, A., & Brown, R. (2007). Promoting children’s positive intergroup attitudes towards stigmatised groups: Extended contact and multiple classification skills training. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 454–466.Find this resource:

Cameron, L., Rutland, A., Brown, R., & Douch, R. (2006). Changing children’s intergroup attitudes toward refugees: Testing different models of extended contact. Child Development, 77, 1208–1219.Find this resource:

Cameron, L., Rutland, A., Hossain, R., & Petley, R. (2011). When and why does extended contact work? The role of high quality direct contact and group norms in the development of positive ethnic intergroup attitudes amongst children. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 193–206.Find this resource:

Castelli, L., Carraro, L., Pavan, G., Murelli, E., & Carraro, A. (2012). The power of the unsaid: The influence of nonverbal cues on implicit attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 1376–1393.Find this resource:

Cernat, V. (2011). Extended contact effects: Is exposure to positive outgroup exemplars sufficient or is interaction with ingroup members necessary? The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 737–753.Find this resource:

Clark, C. C. (1969). Television and social control: Some observations on the portrayals of ethnic minorities. Television Quarterly, 9, 18–22.Find this resource:

Cole, C. F., Arafat, C., Tidhar, C., Tafesh, W. Z., Fox, N. A., Killen, M., . . . Yung, F. (2003). The educational impact of Rechov Sumsum/Shara’a Simsim: A Sesame Street television series to promote respect and understanding among children living in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(5), 409–422.Find this resource:

De Tezanos-Pinto, P., Bratt, C., & Brown, R. (2010). What will the others think? In-group norms as a mediator of the effects of intergroup contact. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 507–523.Find this resource:

Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 332–351.Find this resource:

Deutsch, M., & Collins, M. (1951). Interracial housing: A psychological evaluation of a social experiment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Find this resource:

Dixon, T. L., & Azocar, C. L. (2007). Priming crime and activating Blackness: Understanding the psychological impact of the overrepresentation of Blacks as lawbreakers on television news. Journal of Communication, 57(2), 229–253.Find this resource:

Fujioka, Y. (1999). Television portrayals and African American stereotypes: Examination of contact effects when direct contact is lacking. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 52–75.Find this resource:

Gómez, A., & Huici, C. (2008). Vicarious intergroup contact and the role of authorities in prejudice reduction. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11, 103–114.Find this resource:

Harwood, J. (2010). The contact space: A novel framework for intergroup contact research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 147–177.Find this resource:

Harwood, J., Qadar, F., & Chen, C. (2016). Harmonious contact: Stories about intergroup musical collaboration improve intergroup attitudes. Journal of Communication, 66, 937–959.Find this resource:

Joyce, N., & Harwood, J. (2014). Improving intergroup attitudes through televised vicarious intergroup contact: Social cognitive processing of ingroup and outgroup information. Communication Research, 41(5), 627–643.Find this resource:

Mallett, R. K., & Wilson, T. D. (2010). Increasing positive intergroup contact. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 382–387.Find this resource:

Mastro, D., & Atwell Seate, A. (2012). Group membership in race-related media processes and effects. In H. Giles (Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 357–369). New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

Mastro, D., Behm-Morawitz, E., & Ortiz, M. (2007). The cultivation of social perceptions of Latinos: A mental models approach. Media Psychology, 9(2), 347–365.Find this resource:

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, 255–274.Find this resource:

Mutz, D. C., & Goldman, S. K. (2010). Mass media. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 241–258). London: SAGE.Find this resource:

Ortiz, M., & Harwood, J. (2007). A social cognitive theory approach to the effects of mediated intergroup contact on intergroup attitudes. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 51, 615–631.Find this resource:

Paluck, E. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 574–587.Find this resource:

Park, S. (2012). Mediated intergroup contact: Concept explication, synthesis, and application. Mass Communication and Society, 15, 136–159.Find this resource:

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.Find this resource:

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.Find this resource:

Power, J. G., Murphy, S. T., & Coover, G. (1996). Priming prejudice: How stereotypes and counter-stereotypes influence attribution of responsibility and credibility among ingroups and outgroups. Human Communication Research, 23(1), 36–58.Find this resource:

Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B., & Hewes, D. E. (2005). The parasocial contact hypothesis. Communication Monographs, 72, 92–115.Find this resource:

Shelton, J., & Richeson, J. A. (2005). Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 91–107.Find this resource:

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41(3), 157–175.Find this resource:

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. C. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.Find this resource:

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, 1145–1158.Find this resource:

Vezzali, L., Hewstone, M., Capozza, D., Giovannini, D., & Wölfer, R. (2014). Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology, 25, 314–389.Find this resource:

Vezzali, L., Stathi, S., & Giovannini, D. (2012). Indirect contact through book reading: Improving adolescents’ attitudes and behavioral intentions toward immigrants. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 148–162.Find this resource:

Vezzali, L., Stathi, S., Giovannini, D., Capozza, D., & Trifiletti, E. (2015). The greatest magic of Harry Potter: Reducing prejudice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(2), 105–121.Find this resource:

Weisbuch, M., Pauker, K., & Ambady, N. (2009). The subtle transmission of race bias via televised nonverbal behavior. Science, 326, 1711–1714.Find this resource:

West, K., & Turner, R. N. (2014). Using extended contact to improve physiological responses and behavior toward people with schizophrenia. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 57–64.Find this resource:

Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73–90.Find this resource: