Do they dislike us as much as we think? Positive contact as a potential rectifier of meta-attitude inaccuracy in conflictual intergroup settings

Intergroup meta-attitude inaccuracy—the extent to which perceptions of outgroup views towards the ingroup diverge from what outgroup members actually think—fuels intergroup hostility, yet research on its precursors is scarce. Through four correlational studies, we examined whether and how intergroup contact predicts meta-attitude (in)accuracy in three conflict contexts: Black–White British in the United Kingdom (UK), Turks–Kurds in Turkey, and Catholics–Protestants in Northern Ireland. Regardless of context or status, all groups perceived themselves to be evaluated more negatively by the outgroup than they really were. Positive contact predicted increased meta-attitude accuracy (through increased shared reality) which was, in turn, associated with more positive outgroup attitudes. The role of negative contact and affective mediators (such as intergroup anxiety and fear) was not consistent and depended on group and context. The use of positive intergroup contact as a potential rectifier of overestimated negative meta-attitudes in conflict contexts is discussed.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
Published
2025-02-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302251315063
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Social and Intergroup Psychology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.20
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Do they dislike us as much as we think? Positive contact as a potential rectifier of meta-attitude inaccuracy in conflictual intergroup settings

Sofia Stathi, Ipek Guvensoy, Sabahat Çiğdem Bağci, Rhiannon N. Turner
1 citations
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
Social and Intergroup Psychology
4.20
article

Do they dislike us as much as we think? Positive contact as a potential rectifier of meta-attitude inaccuracy in conflictual intergroup settings

Sofia Stathi, Ipek Guvensoy, Sabahat Çiğdem Bağci, Rhiannon N. Turner
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Intergroup meta-attitude inaccuracy—the extent to which perceptions of outgroup views towards the ingroup diverge from what outgroup members actually think—fuels intergroup hostility, yet research on its precursors is scarce. Through four correlational studies, we examined whether and how intergroup contact predicts meta-attitude (in)accuracy in three conflict contexts: Black–White British in the United Kingdom (UK), Turks–Kurds in Turkey, and Catholics–Protestants in Northern Ireland. Regardless of context or status, all groups perceived themselves to be evaluated more negatively by the outgroup than they really were. Positive contact predicted increased meta-attitude accuracy (through increased shared reality) which was, in turn, associated with more positive outgroup attitudes. The role of negative contact and affective mediators (such as intergroup anxiety and fear) was not consistent and depended on group and context. The use of positive intergroup contact as a potential rectifier of overestimated negative meta-attitudes in conflict contexts is discussed.

Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsVol. 28(5)
Sabancı Üniversitesi (TR), University of Greenwich (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Social and Intergroup Psychology
4.20
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Do they dislike us as much as we think? Positive contact as a potential rectifier of meta-attitude inaccuracy in conflictual intergroup settings — Sofia Stathi, Ipek Guvensoy, et al. · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS