Intergroup contact and minority group empowerment: The perspective of Roma and non-Roma adolescents in Macedonia

Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 27, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 424-434

  Kamberi, Ermira ^a   Martinovic, Borja ^a   Verkuyten, Maykel ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

intergroup contact; minority group empowerment; prejudice; Roma; social justice

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SIMULATION; EMPOWERMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MINORITY GROUP; PREJUDICE; ROMANI (PEOPLE); SOCIAL JUSTICE; STATISTICAL MODEL; STEREOTYPY;

EID: 85020741771     PISSN: 10529284     EISSN: 10991298     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/casp.2320     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2. Barlow, F. K., Paolini, S., Pedersen, A., Hornsey, M. J., Radke, H. R., Harwood, J., … Sibley, C. G. (2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1629–1643.
3. Becker, J. C., Wright, S. C., Lubensky, M. E., & Zhou, S. (2013). Friend or ally whether cross-group contact undermines collective action depends on what advantaged group members say (or don't say). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(4), 442–455.
4. Çelebi, E., Verkuyten, M., Köse, T., & Maliepaard, M. (2014). Out-group trust and conflict understandings: The perspective of Turks and Kurds in Turkey. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 40, 64–75.
5. Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., Tredoux, C., Tropp, L., Clack, B., & Eaton, L. (2010). A paradox of integration? Interracial contact, prejudice reduction, and perceptions of racial discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 66(2), 401–416.
6. Dixon, J., & Levine, M. (Eds) (2012). Beyond prejudice: Extending the social psychology of conflict, inequality and social change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7. Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., Dovidio, J. F., & Hodson, G. (2005). Instrumental relations among groups: Group competition, conflict and prejudice. In J. F. Dovidio, P. S. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 227–243). Malden, BA: Blackwell.
8. European Commission (2011). An EU framework for national Roma integration strategies up to 2020. EC: Brussels.
9. European Commission (2015). The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Report 2015. Brussels: EC.
10. Gatti, R., Karacsony, S., Anan, K., Ferré, C., & Nieves, C. D. (2016). Being fair, faring better: Promoting equality of opportunity for marginalized Roma (pp. xiii-xv). Washington, DC: World Bank.
11. Jost, J. T. (2001). Outgroup favoritism and the theory of system justification: A paradigm for investigating the effects of socioeconomic success on stereotype content. In G. B. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 89–102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. 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.
13. Poore, A. G., Gagne, F., Barlow, K. M., Lydon, J. E., Taylor, D. M., & Wright, S. C. (2002). Contact and the personal/group discrimination discrepancy in an Inuit community. The Journal of Psychology, 136(4), 371–382.
14. Reicher, S. (2007). Rethinking the paradigm of prejudice. South African Journal of Psychology: Intergroup Contact: Special Issue, 37(4), 820–834.
15. Republic of Macedonia State Statistical Office (2005). Census of population, households, and dwellings 2002—Book XIII. Skopje: State Statistical Office.
16. Reynolds, K. J., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., Nolan, M. A., & Dolnik, L. (2000). Responses to powerlessness: Stereotyping as an instrument of social conflict. Group dynamics: Theory, research, and practice, 4(4), 275–290.
17. Rorke, B. (2015). Introduction. In B. Rorke, M. Matache, & E. Friedman (Eds.), A lost decade? Reflection on Roma Inclusion 2005–2015 (pp. 6–10). Budapest: Decade of Roma Inclusion Secretariat Foundation.
18. Saguy, T., & Dovidio, J. F. (2013). Insecure status relations shape preferences for the content of intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(8), 1030–1042.
19. Subašić, E., Reynolds, K. J., & Turner, J. C. (2008). The political solidarity model of social change: Dynamics of self-categorization in intergroup power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(4), 330–352.
20. Tausch, N., Saguy, T., & Bryson, J. (2015). How does intergroup contact affect social change? Its impact on collective action and individual mobility intentions among members of a disadvantaged group. Journal of Social Issues, 71(3), 536–553.
21. Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535.
22. Visintin, E. P., Green, E. G., Pereira, A., & Miteva, P. (2017). How positive and negative contact relate to attitudes towards Roma: Comparing majority and high-status minority perspectives. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 27(3), 240–252.
23. Wright, S. C., & Baray, G. (2012). Models of social change in social psychology: Collective action or prejudice reduction? Conflict or harmony? In J. Dixon, & M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond prejudice: Extending the social psychology of conflict, inequality and social change (pp. 225–247). New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. Wright, S. C., & Lubensky, M. E. (2009). The struggle for social equality: Collective action versus prejudice reduction. In S. Demoulin, J. P. Leyens, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). New York: Psychology Press.