The Journal of Social Psychology

ISSN: 0022-4545 (Print) 1940-1183 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

The benefit of contact for prejudice-prone

individuals: The type of stigmatized outgroup
matters

Rachel D. Maunder, Sinead C. Day & Fiona A. White

To cite this article: Rachel D. Maunder, Sinead C. Day & Fiona A. White (2019): The benefit of
contact for prejudice-prone individuals: The type of stigmatized outgroup matters, The Journal of
Social Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2019.1601608

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1601608

Published online: 17 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 27

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vsoc20
THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1601608

The benefit of contact for prejudice-prone individuals: The type of

stigmatized outgroup matters
a a a
Rachel D. Maunder , Sinead C. Day , and Fiona A. White
a
University of Sydney

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Intergroup contact reduces prejudice against a variety of social outgroups Received 2 September 2018
and seems to be particularly effective at reducing prejudice in individuals Accepted 12 March 2019
most prone to it—those high in right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and KEYWORDS
social dominance orientation (SDO). The present study examines the mod- Intergroup contact;
erating roles of RWA and SDO in the contact-prejudice relationship, target- prejudice; right-wing
ing dissident, dangerous, and derogated outgroups: lesbians and gay men, authoritarianism; social
people with schizophrenia, and Indigenous Australians, respectively. In dominance orientation
total, 234 participants self-reported contact and prejudice against these
outgroups and completed RWA and SDO scales. Contact predicted less
prejudice against lesbians and gay men and Indigenous Australians in
participants high in RWA and participants high in SDO. However, contact
only predicted less prejudice against people with schizophrenia in partici-
pants low in RWA or SDO. The results suggest that the ability for intergroup
contact to reduce prejudice in prejudice-prone individuals may depend on
the outgroup targeted, specifically the threat they pose and the level of
prejudice held against them.

There is a growing body of research suggesting that intolerant or prejudice-prone individuals—those

high in right-wing authoritarianism (RWA; Altemeyer, 1981) and social dominance orientation
(SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994)—show the greatest reductions in prejudice
from frequent, positive contact with outgroups (e.g., Dhont & Van Hiel, 2009; Hodson, 2008).
Individuals high in RWA wish to maintain traditional norms and social security, while individuals
high in SDO believe in and compete for ingroup superiority (Duckitt & Sibley, 2007). These
populations exhibit higher levels of prejudice against outgroups that threaten their distinct goals,
and thus, they are particularly in need of prejudice-reduction interventions. The present study
advances the current literature by investigating the interaction between situation (i.e., contact) and
individual difference variables (i.e., RWA and SDO) on prejudice across three different outgroups:
lesbians and gay men, people with schizophrenia, and Indigenous Australians. Specifically, we
examine whether the extent to which RWA and SDO moderate the relationship between prejudice
and contact differs depending on the threat posed by the target outgroup.

Intergroup contact and individual differences predict prejudice against outgroups

For more than half a century, researchers have successfully employed intergroup contact—positive
interactions between members of different groups—to reduce prejudice against a variety of stigma-
tized outgroups (Dovidio, Love, Schellhaas, & Hewstone, 2017), including lesbians and gay men
(White, Verrelli, Maunder, & Kervinen, 2018), people with schizophrenia (Maunder, White, &
Verrelli, 2018), and Indigenous Australians (Barlow, Louis, & Hewstone, 2009). Researchers have

CONTACT Fiona A. White fiona.white@sydney.edu.au Psychology, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Sydney
2006, Australia
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
2 R. D. MAUNDER ET AL.

also investigated the mechanisms responsible for the effect of contact on prejudice (e.g., anxiety,
empathy, outgroup knowledge; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008), and explored alternative forms of inter-
group contact to the traditional face-to-face contact (e.g., imagined, vicarious, electronic, extended;
Dovidio et al., 2017). However, exactly who benefits from contact has received less attention. What
characteristics make an individual more likely to demonstrate reduced prejudice after experiencing
contact?
It is becoming increasingly important to examine the role of individual differences in the contact-
prejudice relationship. For one, the relationship between prejudice and individual differences like
personality and political ideology is as strong, if not stronger, than the relationship between
situational factors and prejudice (Hodson, Costello, & MacInnis, 2013). Moreover, individual
differences can moderate the effect of the situation by shaping individuals’ perceptions of it
(Hodson & Dhont, 2015). Despite the importance of individual differences, tests of the effects of
intergroup contact typically omit or control for the characteristics of participants, including those
known to predispose individuals to higher levels of prejudice (Hodson, Harry, & Mitchell, 2009).
Therefore, the impact of contact on prejudice-prone individuals, arguably those most in need of
intervention, remains unclear. Intergroup contact could be equally or particularly effective for this
group; or, as Allport (1954) suspected, prejudice-prone individuals could be resistant to its effects.
More worryingly, intergroup contact could exacerbate prejudice in those already reporting highly
negative attitudes toward the outgroup.
Recently, research in this area has burgeoned, with researchers examining the moderating role of
numerous individual difference variables on the effect of contact on prejudice (e.g., need for closure,
ingroup identification; Kteily, Hodson, Dhont, & Ho, 2019). Of these, right-wing authoritarianism
and social dominance orientation have received the most attention and account for more variation in
prejudice than other individual difference variables (Duckitt & Sibley, 2007). RWA and SDO are
socio-political attitudes that are stable and enduring over time, result from different patterns of
socialization and personality traits, and structure individuals’ responses to their social world (Duckitt
& Sibley, 2007, 2010). RWA is related to an individual’s preference for traditional norms and
submission to authority figures. People high in RWA desire order, social cohesion, and conformity
to cope with the belief that the world is dangerous and threatening (Duckitt & Sibley, 2010). In
comparison, SDO is related to an individual’s proclivity for hierarchical intergroup relations.
Individuals high in SDO believe the world is competitive rather than cooperative and desire
dominance and power over other groups (Duckitt & Sibley, 2010).
Individuals high in RWA or SDO appear prone to high levels of prejudice against a range of social
groups (Duckitt & Sibley, 2007, 2010; Hodson & Dhont, 2015). However, due to their differing goals
and values, RWA and SDO do not equally predict prejudice against all outgroups (Duckitt & Sibley,
2007). Duckitt and Sibley’s (2007) dual-process model classifies outgroups as being dissident,
dangerous, or derogated based on the threat they are perceived to pose to the majority group.
Dissident outgroups threaten social norms and are inferior (e.g., feminists), so prejudice against
them is predicted by both RWA and SDO. Dangerous outgroups are physically dangerous or
challenge conventional norms and values (e.g., criminals), so prejudice against them is more strongly
predicted by RWA than SDO. Finally, derogated outgroups threaten the ingroup’s dominant
position in society or are inferior (e.g., the unemployed), so prejudice against them is more strongly
predicted by SDO than RWA. That is, RWA and SDO predict prejudice specifically against out-
groups that are perceived to threaten the goals important to individuals high on these variables.

Individual differences moderate the effect of intergroup contact on prejudice

Promisingly, prejudice-prone individuals—those most in need of prejudice-reduction interventions
—seem to respond well to intergroup contact. For example, Kteily et al. (2019) found that indivi-
duals both high and low in RWA or SDO reported less anti-Black bias when they had experienced
high quality contact. Similarly, Hodson et al. (2013) found a negative relationship between contact
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 3

and prejudice across a variety of outgroups for individuals high and low in RWA or SDO. Other
research suggests that the negative relationship between contact and prejudice is stronger for these
prejudice-prone individuals and is sometimes only apparent for these individuals in comparison to
less prejudice-prone people. Across two studies, Hodson (2008) demonstrated that White prison
inmates reported less anti-Black bias when they had experienced more frequent and higher quality
interracial contact, and this effect was more pronounced for inmates high, compared to low, in SDO.
Additionally, contact has been found to be negatively related to prejudice against lesbians and gay
men in individuals high in RWA, but not individuals low in RWA (Hodson et al., 2009), and
negatively related to racism for individuals high in RWA or SDO, but not individuals low in RWA or
SDO (Dhont & Van Hiel, 2009). Finally, Asbrock, Christ, Duckitt, and Sibley (2012) found that the
relationship between contact and prejudice against foreigners was stronger for individuals high in
RWA compared to individuals low in RWA, but also stronger in individuals low in SDO compared
to high in SDO.
According to Hodson (2011), the reason that contact is able to reduce prejudice in prejudice-
prone individuals is because contact decreases perceptions that the outgroup is threatening. Threat is
an important mediator of the effect of contact on prejudice: Contact decreases perceptions that the
outgroup is threatening, which in turn reduces prejudice against that outgroup (Pettigrew, Christ,
Wagner, & Stellmacher, 2007). Individuals who score highly on RWA or SDO are more likely to
perceive outgroups as threatening than individuals low in RWA or SDO, and they correspondingly
hold higher prejudice against outgroups (Cohrs & Ibler, 2009; Duckitt, 2006). Thus, it is thought that
intergroup contact reduces prejudice against outgroups in individuals high in RWA or SDO
specifically by reducing their high perceptions of threat (Hodson, 2011; Hodson et al., 2013;
Hodson & Dhont, 2015). Consistent with this, multiple researchers have found threat perceptions
to mediate the relationship between contact and prejudice for individuals high in RWA (e.g.,
Asbrock et al., 2012; Dhont & Van Hiel, 2011; Hodson et al., 2009).

The outgroup matters: dissident, dangerous, and derogated outgroups

If intergroup contact reduces prejudice because it reduces perceptions of the relevant threat in
prejudice-prone populations, and as individuals high in RWA or SDO respond to different types of
threat, then it is reasonable to expect that RWA and SDO will differentially moderate the prejudice-
contact relationship depending on the outgroup, and specifically, depending on the type of threat the
outgroup is perceived to pose. That is, in line with the dual-process model, individuals high in RWA
and individuals high in SDO should benefit from contact more than individuals low in RWA or SDO
when the outgroup is dissident, because contact counters beliefs that the outgroup is threatening to
the ingroup’s physical safety or social norms and that the outgroups threatens the social hierarchy.
Similarly, individuals high in RWA should benefit more from contact than individuals low in RWA
when the outgroup is dangerous, as contact challenges perceptions that the outgroup threatens
physical safety and social norms. As dangerous outgroups are not perceived to pose a threat to the
status quo, individuals high and low in SDO should benefit equally from contact. Finally, when the
outgroup is derogated, individuals high in SDO should benefit more from contact than individuals
low in SDO, as contact reduces perceptions that the outgroup threatens the ingroup’s position in
society. Derogated outgroups are not perceived to threaten the ingroups’ safety or traditional values,
so individuals high and low in RWA should benefit equally from contact.
Previous research examining the moderating roles of RWA and SDO on the effect of
contact on prejudice has either (1) only measured RWA or only measured SDO (e.g.,
Hodson, 2008); (2) neglected to control for the intercorrelation between RWA and SDO
when considering their independent effects (e.g., Dhont & Van Hiel, 2009); or (3) targeted
only dissident outgroups, which both RWA and SDO predict prejudice against (e.g., Asbrock
et al., 2012). The only study that has examined the interaction between contact and RWA and
SDO and measured prejudice against a variety of outgroups (e.g., lesbians and gay men,
4 R. D. MAUNDER ET AL.

immigrants, people with depression), did not attempt to classify these outgroups according to
the dual-process model, and did not investigate whether the moderation effect differed as
a function of outgroup category (Hodson et al., 2013). Thus, previous research has been unable
to explore the differential effects of RWA and SDO as a function of target outgroup in the
contact-prejudice relationship.

The present study

The aim of the present study was to replicate previous research finding that contact reduces
prejudice in prejudice-prone individuals, and to extend this research by examining whether RWA
and SDO differentially moderate the effect of intergroup contact on prejudice depending on the
threat posed by the target outgroup. To this end, we selected three outgroups against which contact
is known to reduce prejudice: lesbians and gay men, people with schizophrenia, and Indigenous
Australians. Lesbians and gay men are perceived to threaten conventional norms and values (i.e.,
marriage, raising children, gender roles) and are low in status (Whitley, 2001), suggesting that they
would be most appropriately classified as a dissident outgroup. Consistent with this, other studies
have found that lesbians and gay men load more highly on dissident factor dimensions than
dangerous and derogated factors (Hadarics & Kende, 2018), and prejudice against lesbians and
gay men positively correlates with both RWA and SDO (Hodson et al., 2013). People with schizo-
phrenia are often stereotyped as dangerous and unpredictable (Reavley & Jorm, 2011); more than
70% of people believe that members of this group are a danger to others (Crisp, Gelder, Rix, Meltzer,
& Rowlands, 2000). Thus, people with schizophrenia fit the definition of a dangerous outgroup.
Accordingly, other studies have found that RWA is positively related to prejudice against people
with schizophrenia (Fodor, 2006). Finally, many Australians believe that Indigenous Australians are
granted certain rights and privileges not available to other Australians (Pedersen, Dudgeon, Watt, &
Griffiths, 2006). Hence, this group is perceived to be in competition with the majority for resources,
making them a derogated outgroup. In support of this, prejudice against Indigenous Australians is
positively predicted by SDO (Heaven & Quintin, 2003).
To test our hypotheses, we adopted a powerful repeated-measures design in which participants
reported contact and prejudice in relation to each of the target groups. It was hypothesized that:

(1) The relationship between contact and prejudice against lesbians and gay men should be
moderated by RWA and SDO separately, such that the effect will be stronger for
individuals high in RWA and individuals high in SDO compared to individuals low in
RWA or SDO.
(2) The relationship between contact and prejudice against people with schizophrenia should be
moderated by RWA, such that the effect will be stronger for individuals high in RWA
compared to low in RWA.
(3) The relationship between contact and prejudice against Indigenous Australians should be
moderated by SDO, such that the effect will be stronger for individuals high in SDO
compared to low in SDO.

Method
Participants
In total, 234 undergraduate psychology students completed the study online in exchange for partial
course credit (64.1% female; Mage = 19.34 years, SD = 2.423). Participants belonging to the target
outgroups (i.e., non-heterosexuals [n = 29], people with a mental illness [n = 54], Indigenous
Australians [n = 1]) were excluded from analyses concerning that outgroup.
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 5

Materials1
Intergroup contact
Following Dhont and Van Hiel (2011), we assessed the number of homosexuals, people with mental
illness, and Aboriginal people known to participants (e.g., “how many [outgroup] do you know”; 0–
10+), the frequency of their interactions with each outgroup (e.g., “how frequently do you interact
with [outgroup]”; −2 = Never, +2 = Very frequently), and the quality of their interactions (3 items,
summed; e.g., “when you meet [outgroup], do you find the contact pleasant/cooperative/superficial”;
−2 = Not at all, +2 = Extremely). The three indices were multiplied to provide a single prior contact
score. Extreme positive scores indicated frequent, high-quality contact, and extreme negative scores
indicated frequent, low quality contact.

Prejudice
Prejudice against the outgroups were assessed using two items asking participants how positive and
negative their attitudes are toward the target outgroup, on a 1(Not at all positive/negative) to 7
(Extremely positive/negative) scale. The first item was reverse-scored then the items were summed,
with higher values reflecting more prejudice (Cronbach’s α = .873, .828, and .893, for lesbians and
gay men, schizophrenia, and Indigenous Australian, respectively).

RWA and SDO

The 18-item Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (e.g., “The ‘old-fashioned ways’ and the ‘old-
fashioned values’ still show the best way to live”; Altemeyer, 1996) and the 16-item Social
Dominance Orientation Scale (e.g., “To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on
other groups”; Pratto et al., 1994) were administered on a 1(Strongly disagree) to 7(Strongly agree)
scale. After the relevant items were reverse-scored, the items belonging to each scale were summed,
with higher scores indicating higher RWA or SDO (Cronbach’s α = .913 and .933, respectively).

Procedure
The University of Sydney’s Human Research Ethics Committee granted ethical approval for this
study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Australian National Statement on Ethical
Conduct in Human Research. All participants provided informed consent, then completed the scales
described above. The prior contact and prejudice items were asked together and repeated for every
outgroup, with the outgroups presented in a randomized order. Participants then completed the
RWA and SDO measures and provided demographic information. Finally, participants were fully
debriefed.

Results2
Preliminary analyses
Descriptive statistics and correlations between the measures for each target outgroup are displayed in
Table 13. Consistent with past research, prejudice against each of the outgroups was negatively
correlated with contact. RWA and SDO were, with one exception, negatively correlated with contact
and positively correlated with prejudice against each outgroup. Notably, RWA (M = 46.28,
SD = 16.03) and SDO (M = 36.18, SD = 15.19) were strongly positively correlated, r = .716.

Analysis plan
For each target outgroup, we tested a model in which the relationship between contact and prejudice
was moderated by RWA controlling for SDO, then by SDO controlling for RWA. To do so, we used
Model 1 of Hayes (2018) PROCESS macro for SPSS, with 10,000 bootstrap samples and 95%
6 R. D. MAUNDER ET AL.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations between contact, prejudice, RWA and SDO for each outgroup.
Lesbians and gay men (n = 205) People with schizophrenia (n = 180) Indigenous Australians (n = 233)
Contact Prejudice Contact Prejudice Contact Prejudice
Contact - −.384* - −.338* - −.250*
RWA −.413* .567* −.366* .333* −.165* .499*
SDO −.299* .465* −.342* .399* −.047 .461*
Mean (SD) 49.19 3.73 30.84 6.46 21.88 4.40
(66.41) (2.23) (54.94) (2.33) (45.78) (2.11)
RWA = right-wing authoritarianism; SDO = social dominance orientation.
*p < .01.

percentile bootstrap confidence intervals (CI). We treated all four variables as continuous in these
analyses. Following previous studies (e.g., Hodson et al., 2009), interactions were probed with simple
slopes regardless of their significance, with the conditional effect of contact on prejudice estimated
for participants high (+1SD) and low (−1SD) in RWA and SDO.

Lesbians and gay men

Controlling for RWA and SDO, contact was significantly negatively related to prejudice against
lesbians and gay men (b = −.012, SE = .002, t(199) = −4.803, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.017, −.007]). The
interaction between contact and RWA accounted for a significant amount of additional variance in
prejudice against lesbians and gay men (ΔR2 = .050, F(1, 199) = 16.825, p < .001). Contact had
a significant negative relationship with prejudice for participants high in RWA (b = −.021, SE = .004,
t(199) = −5.048, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.029, −0.013]), but not for participants low in RWA (b = −.003,
SE = .002, t(199) = −1.409, p = .160, 95% CI [−0.007, 0.001]). The interaction between contact and
SDO also accounted for a significant amount of additional variance in prejudice against lesbians and
gay men (ΔR2 = .035, F(1, 199) = 11.519, p = .001). Contact was significantly negatively related to
prejudice for participants high in SDO (b = −.019, SE = .004, t(199) = −4.387, p < .001, 95% CI
[−0.028, −0.011]) but not for participants low in SDO (b = −.003, SE = .002, t(199) = −1.253,
p = .212, 95% CI [−0.007, 0.002]). This is displayed in Figure 1.

People with schizophrenia

Controlling for RWA and SDO, contact was significantly negatively correlated with prejudice against
people with schizophrenia (b = −.010, SE = .005, t(174) = −2.127, p = .035, 95% CI [−0.019, −.001]). The

a) b)
10 10
Low RWA (-1 SD) Low SDO (-1 SD)
9 9
High RWA (+1 SD) High SDO (+1 SD)
8 8

7 7

6 6
Prejudice

Prejudice

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
Low Contact (-1 SD) High Contact (+1 SD) Low Contact (-1 SD) High Contact (+1 SD)

Figure 1. Interaction between contact and a) right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) controlling for social dominance orientation (SDO)
and b) SDO controlling for RWA, on prejudice against lesbians and gay men.
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 7

interaction between contact and RWA did not account for a significant amount of additional variance in
prejudice against people with schizophrenia (ΔR2 < .001, F(1, 174) = .005, p = .941). However, contact
was not significantly related to prejudice for participants high in RWA (b = −.010, SE = .007,
t(174) = −1.344, p = .181, 95% CI [−0.024, 0.005]), but was for participants low in RWA (b = −.009,
SE = .003, t(174) = −3.006, p = .003, 95% CI [−0.015, −0.003]). Similarly, the interaction between contact
and SDO did not account for a significant amount of additional variance in prejudice against people with
schizophrenia (ΔR2 < .001, F(1, 174) = .006, p = .939). Contact was not significantly related to prejudice
for participants high in SDO (b = −.010, SE = .009, t(174) = −1.070, p = .243, 95% CI [−0.027, 0.007]) but
was for participants low in SDO (b = −.009, SE = .003, t(174) = −2.850, p = .005, −0.016, −0.003]). This is
displayed in Figure 2.

Indigenous Australians
Again, controlling for RWA and SDO, contact was significantly negatively related to prejudice
against Indigenous Australians (b = −.010, SE = .003, t(226) = −3.694, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.016,
−0.005]). The interaction between contact and RWA did not account for a significant amount of
additional variance in prejudice against Indigenous Australians (ΔR2 = .003, F(1, 226) = 1.050,
p = .307). Confirming this, contact was significantly related to prejudice for participants high in
RWA (b = −.013, SE = .004, t(226) = −2.942, p = .004, 95% CI [−0.022, −0.004]) and for participants
low in RWA (b = −.007, SE = .003, t(226) = −2.143, p = .033, 95% CI [−0.014, −0.001]). The
interaction between contact and SDO also did not account for a significant amount of additional
variance in prejudice against Indigenous Australians (ΔR2 = .006, F(1, 226) = 1.935 p = .166).
However, contact was significantly negatively related to prejudice for participants high in SDO
(b = −.014, SE = .004, t(226) = −3.346, p = .001, 95% CI [−0.022, −0.006]), but not for participants
low in SDO (b = −.005, SE = .004, t(226) = −1.079, p = .282, 95% CI [−0.013, 0.004]). This is
displayed in Figure 3.

Discussion
The present study investigated the moderating roles of RWA and SDO in the contact-prejudice
relationship for dissident, dangerous, and derogated outgroups. We hypothesized that contact would

b)
a)

10 10
Low RWA (-1 SD) Low SDO (-1 SD)
9 9
High RWA (+1 SD) High SDO (+1 SD)
8 8

7 7
Prejudice
Prejudice

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2
Low Contact (-1 SD) High Contact (+1 SD) Low Contact (-1 SD) High Contact (+1 SD)

Figure 2. Interaction between contact and a) right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) controlling for social dominance orientation (SDO)
and b) SDO controlling for RWA, on prejudice against people with schizophrenia.
8 R. D. MAUNDER ET AL.

a) b)
10 10
Low RWA (-1 SD) Low SDO (-1 SD)
9 9
High RWA (+1 SD) High SDO (+1 SD)
8 8

7 7
Prejudice

Prejudice
6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2
Low Contact (-1 SD) High Contact (+1 SD) Low Contact (-1 SD) High Contact (+1 SD)

Figure 3. Interaction between contact and a) right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) controlling for social dominance orientation (SDO)
and b) SDO controlling for RWA, on prejudice against Indigenous Australians.

be negatively related to prejudice for individuals high, compared to low, in either RWA or SDO
when the outgroup was dissident (i.e., lesbians and gay men); for individuals high, compared to low,
in RWA when the outgroup was dangerous (i.e., schizophrenia); and for individuals high, compared
to low, in SDO when the outgroup was derogated (i.e., Indigenous Australians). Consistent with the
intergroup contact hypothesis, we found a negative relationship between contact and prejudice in
relation to all three of our target groups. Moreover, echoing previous research, we found that contact
was negatively related to prejudice against lesbians and gay men and Indigenous Australians in
prejudice-prone individuals. Supporting our hypotheses, contact was negatively related to prejudice
against lesbians and gay men for participants high but not low in RWA or SDO, and contact was
negatively related to prejudice against Indigenous Australians for participants both high and low in
RWA and for participants high in SDO but not for participants low in SDO. However, the opposite
appeared to be true for prejudice against people with schizophrenia. The negative relationship
between contact and prejudice against this group was only apparent in participants low, but not
high, in RWA or SDO. It should be noted that RWA and SDO only significantly interacted with
contact on prejudice against lesbians and gay men, and not on prejudice against people with
schizophrenia or Indigenous Australians. Consequently, these follow-up analyses should be inter-
preted with caution.
Previous research has suggested that contact is more effective at reducing prejudice in prejudice-
prone individuals compared to their less prejudiced counterparts (e.g., Dhont & Van Hiel, 2009; Hodson,
2008). The results of the present study corroborate these findings in relation to lesbians and gay men and
Indigenous Australians, against which contact was related to reduced prejudice for individuals high in
RWA or SDO. Also as in previous research, some of our results even suggest that intergroup contact may
only be effective for prejudice-prone individuals: the negative relationship between contact and prejudice
against lesbians and gay men was not significant for individuals low in RWA or SDO, and the negative
relationship between contact and prejudice against Indigenous Australians was not significant for
individuals low in SDO. These findings are promising, as they suggest that contact interventions will
be effective for the very individuals that are most in need of them.
That the negative relationship between contact and prejudice against homosexuals and
Indigenous Australians was apparent in individuals high in SDO deserves particular attention.
Currently, there is debate over whether contact with outgroups can reduce prejudice in individuals
high in SDO. Asbrock, Sibley, and Duckitt (2010), Asbrock, Gutenbrunner, and Wagner (2013)
assert that intergroup contact cannot alter the preference for ingroup dominance apparent in
individuals high in SDO, and that therefore prejudice cannot be reduced in this group.
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 9

Meanwhile, Kteily et al. (2019) argues that cooperative contact with the outgroup can reduce
perceptions of the outgroup as competitive and therefore reduce prejudice against that outgroup
in individuals high in SDO. The results of the present study support the latter conviction, but further
experimental research is still needed to understand the inconsistencies in the literature in regard
to SDO.
One result obtained in the present study, however, was not predicted: The relationship between
contact and prejudice against people with schizophrenia was only apparent in individuals low in
RWA or SDO. This unexpected finding contradicts claims that contact can reduce prejudice in
prejudice-prone individuals and adds merit to Allport’s (1954) concern that such populations might
not benefit from contact. A possible explanation for this finding is that individuals less prone to
prejudice benefit more from contact than individuals more prone to prejudice when the outgroup is
highly stigmatized—in the present study, participants reported higher mean prejudice against people
with schizophrenia than the other two target groups. Hodson et al. (2013, p. 75) similarly found
significantly stronger relationships between contact and prejudice for individuals low in RWA and
individuals low in SDO compared to individuals high in RWA or SDO against some “extremely
marginalised” outgroups, including people with depression, AIDs sufferers, the homeless, and drug
users. This suggests that the target outgroup might matter in two ways: First, due to the threat the
group is perceived to pose, and second, due to the level of prejudice held against the group.
Moreover, these two dimensions might also depend on the participants. Individual and cultural
beliefs determine the kind of threat outgroups are perceived to pose and the level of prejudice held
against them. Thus, although contact is related to reduced prejudice against lesbians and gay men for
prejudice-prone individuals in our Australian sample, prejudice-prone individuals in societies in
which prejudice against this group is higher might not respond positively to contact. To examine this
possibility further, researchers will need to identify or contrive pairs of dissident, dangerous, and
derogated outgroups comprised of one highly stigmatized group and one less stigmatized group.
The primary aim of this study was to determine whether the moderating roles of RWA and SDO
depend on the outgroup targeted and the threat perceived to be posed by that outgroup. As outlined
above, we found some evidence of this. RWA and SDO appeared to be important in explaining the
effect of contact on prejudice against lesbians and gay men, consistent with their classification as
a dissident outgroup that threatens social norms and is low in status. Similarly, SDO appeared to be
more important than RWA in explaining the effect of contact on prejudice against Indigenous
Australians, consistent with their classification as a low-status, derogated outgroup. However, the
effect of contact on prejudice against people with schizophrenia was significant for individuals low in
RWA and individuals low in SDO but not their more highly prejudiced counterparts. The latter is
inconsistent with our hypothesis that only RWA would moderate the effect of contact on prejudice
against this group, which we classified as being dangerous. However, it is possible that, as well as
being perceived as dangerous and therefore threatening to individuals high in RWA, people with
schizophrenia could also be perceived as low in status and therefore threatening to individuals high
in SDO. Although beliefs about people with schizophrenia primarily revolve around violence, people
with schizophrenia are also viewed as incompetent and unable to make financial and treatment-
related decisions (Parcesepe & Cabassa, 2013). Thus, prejudice against this outgroup could be
influenced by both RWA and SDO. One limitation of this study is that we did not ask participants
the type of threat they perceived each outgroup to pose. To further examine whether RWA and SDO
differently moderate the effect of contact on prejudice depending on the target outgroup, future
research should consider taking this step.

Limitations and future directions

We are reluctant to suggest that contact interventions aimed at reducing prejudice against lesbians
and gay men, people with schizophrenia, and Indigenous Australians should specifically target
prejudice-prone individuals. Firstly, the correlational design of the present study precludes causal
10 R. D. MAUNDER ET AL.

interferences about intergroup contact causing a reduction in prejudice for individuals high in RWA
or SDO. There is some experimental and longitudinal evidence that supports this interpretation (e.g.,
Asbrock et al., 2010; Asbrock, Gutenbrunner, & Wagner, 2013), but this research has only targeted
immigrants and ethnic minorities. Second, our results pertaining to prejudice against people with
schizophrenia suggest that contact may not be an effective means of reducing prejudice in prejudice-
prone individuals for some outgroups. Researchers may need to first examine the link between self-
reported contact and prejudice against an outgroup in the specific population of interest to
determine if an intervention will be effective for those most in need of it. Third, Dhont and Van
Hiel (2009) found prejudice-prone individuals to be more strongly influenced by negative contact
than less prejudice-prone individuals, suggesting an increase in prejudice in this population if
contact is not perceived as positive. Therefore, contact interventions with these individuals must
be carefully constructed to avoid worsening intergroup relations. One way to achieve this may be to
uncover mediators of the effect of contact on prejudice for prejudice-prone individuals and to target
these mediators during contact. For example, specifically addressing perceptions that the outgroup is
threatening by using counter-stereotypical exemplars.
Along with Hodson (2011), we view reduced threat perceptions as a key driver of the effect of
contact on prejudice in prejudice-prone individuals. Indeed, the sensitivity of individuals high in
RWA or SDO to different intergroup threats provided justification for the hypotheses in the present
study. However, we did not directly measure perceptions of threat and thus were unable to include
such variables as mediators. Other researchers have found the relationship between contact and
prejudice to be mediated by threat perceptions for individuals high in RWA (e.g., Asbrock et al.,
2012; Dhont & Van Hiel, 2011; Hodson et al., 2009), but we cannot be sure whether reduced threat
perceptions similarly account for reduced prejudice following contact in our prejudice-prone
participants. Future research should include such variables when examining how RWA and SDO
interact with contact on prejudice, especially if they examine different outgroups as we do here.
Doing so may help explain why each variable moderates the effect of contact on prejudice against
some outgroups but not others.
The present study also relied on a convenience sample of undergraduate psychology students that
exhibited low mean scores on the RWA and SDO measures. Thus, the participants we classified as
being high on these measures were only relatively high in comparison to the other participants.
Although we were able to find a difference in the relationship between contact and prejudice
between individuals low and high in RWA or SDO, the interactions between contact and these
variables were not significant for people with schizophrenia or Indigenous Australians. With a more
politically diverse sample of participants, these interactions may have been significant. We also found
an extremely high correlation between RWA and SDO. In some studies, these variables are not
significantly correlated (e.g., Duckitt & Sibley, 2007), whereas others find them to be highly
correlated (e.g., Asbrock et al., 2013), albeit not as highly as in the present study. Although it was
necessary to distinguish between the independent effects of RWA and SDO by including the other
variable as a covariate in the analyses (Asbrock et al., 2013), the strong relationship between RWA
and SDO may have constrained their independent associations with contact and prejudice.
Finally, the format of the present study—namely, the repeated-measured design and the use of real-
world target outgroups, against which degree of prejudice varies—prevented us from formally investi-
gating whether the independent moderating effects of RWA and SDO on the contact-prejudice relation-
ship was moderated by target outgroup. To explore this area more rigorously, future research should use
a diverse community sample in a between-subjects design. Future research could also consider other
individual difference variables as moderators of the effect of contact on prejudice. The present study
focused on RWA and SDO due to (1) the relatively large amount of theoretical and empirical research on
these variables, (2) the fact that these variables together account for more variation in prejudice than
others do (Duckitt & Sibley, 2007), and (3) as the dual-process model posits these variables to be related
to prejudice against different outgroups whereas other individual difference variables are not believed to
be sensitive to characteristics of the outgroup.
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 11

Conclusion
The results of the present study add nuance to the chorus of other research demonstrating that
intergroup contact predicts less prejudice in individuals more likely to hold negative attitudes toward
outgroups—in this case, individuals high in both RWA and SDO. We found this to be the case for
prejudice against lesbians and gay men and Indigenous Australians, but the opposite was true for
prejudice against people with schizophrenia, against which our participants held higher prejudice.
Thus, Allport’s (1954) concern that highly prejudiced individuals could respond poorly to contact
might hold for highly stigmatized outgroups. That is, individuals who are most in need of prejudice-
reduction interventions might not, following contact, report less prejudice against outgroups most in
need of having prejudice against them reduced. Further research is needed to investigate this. For the first
time, we also examined whether the moderating roles of RWA and SDO in the prejudice-contact
relationship might depend on the target outgroup. We found some support for this hypothesis, making
it an important avenue for future research.

Notes
1. Study materials are available at https://osf.io/3sxtz/
2. Data is available from the corresponding author.
3. As participants belonging to the target outgroup were excluded from analyses concerning that outgroup, Table
1 displays correlations individually for each outgroup involving only the relevant participants.

Data availability statement

The data described in this article are openly available in the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/7f8yb/

Open Scholarship

This article has earned the Center for Open science badges for Open Materials through Open Practices Disclosure.
The materials are openly accessible at https://osf.io/7f8yb/

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Rachel D. Maunder Rachel Maunder is a PhD candidate with an interest in strategies aimed at reducing public and
self-stigma against people with mental illness.
Sinead C. Day Sinead Day is a postgraduate student in clinical psychology with research interests in prejudice
reduction, gender and the intersections between social psychology and mental health.

Fiona A. White Professor Fiona White is recognised internationally for her expertise in the development and
evaluation of effective strategies to reduce prejudice and promote cooperative intergroup relations.

ORCID
Rachel D. Maunder http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8436-691X
Sinead C. Day http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7634-035X
Fiona A. White http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3040-7130
12 R. D. MAUNDER ET AL.

References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Asbrock, F., Christ, O., Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Differential effects of intergroup contact for authoritarians
and social dominators: A dual process model perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 477–490.
doi:10.1177/0146167211429747
Asbrock, F., Gutenbrunner, L., & Wagner, U. (2013). Unwilling, but not unaffected: Imagined contact effects for
authoritarians and social dominators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 404–412. doi:10.1002/
ejsp.1956
Asbrock, F., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2010). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation and the
dimensions of generalized prejudice: A longitudinal test. European Journal of Personality, 24, 324–340. doi:10.1002/
per.746
Barlow, F. K., Louis, W. R., & Hewstone, M. (2009). Rejected! Cognitions of rejection and intergroup anxiety as
mediators of the impact of cross-group friendships on prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 389–405.
doi:10.1348/014466608X387089
Cohrs, J. C., & Ibler, S. (2009). Authoritarianism, threat, and prejudice: An analysis of mediation and moderation.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 81–94. doi:10.1080/01973530802659638
Crisp, A. H., Gelder, M. G., Rix, S., Meltzer, H. I., & Rowlands, O. J. (2000). Stigmatisation of people with mental
illnesses. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 177(1), 4–7. doi:10.1192/bjp.177.1.4
Dhont, K., & Van Hiel, A. (2009). We must not be enemies: Interracial contact and the reduction of prejudice among
authoritarians. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 172–177. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.022
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 & Intergroup Relations, 14,
223–237. doi:10.1177/1368430210391121
Dovidio, J. F., Love, A., Schellhaas, F. M., & Hewstone, M. (2017). Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup
contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 606–620.
doi:10.1177/1368430217712052
Duckitt, J. (2006). Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup
attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 32, 684–696. doi:10.1177/0146167205284282
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007). Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of
generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21, 113–130. doi:10.1002/per.614
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivational model.
Journal of Personality, 78, 1861–1894. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x
Fodor, E. M. (2006). Right-wing authoritarianism and managerial assessment of a schizophrenic candidate. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 36, 953–978. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00051.x
Hadarics, M., & Kende, A. (2018). The dimensions of generalized prejudice within the dual-process model: The
mediating role of moral foundations. Current Psychology, 37(4), 731–739. doi:10.1007/s12144-016-9544-x
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based
approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Heaven, P. C., & Quintin, D. S. (2003). Personality factors predict racial prejudice. Personality and Individual
Differences, 34, 625–634. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00046-6
Hodson, G. (2008). Interracial prison contact: The pros for (socially dominant) cons. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 47, 325–351. doi:10.1348/014466607X231109
Hodson, G. (2011). Do ideologically intolerant people benefit from intergroup contact? Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 20, 154–159. doi:10.1177/0963721411409025
Hodson, G., Costello, K., & MacInnis, C. C. (2013). Is intergroup contact beneficial among intolerant people?
Exploring individual differences in the benefits of contact on attitudes. In G. Hodson & M. Hewstone (Eds.),
Advances in intergroup contact (pp. 63–94). London, UK: Psychology Press.
Hodson, G., & Dhont, K. (2015). The person-based nature of prejudice: Individual difference predictors of intergroup
negativity. European Review of Social Psychology, 26, 1–42. doi:10.1080/10463283.2015.1070018
Hodson, G., Harry, H., & Mitchell, A. (2009). Independent benefits of contact and friendship on attitudes toward
homosexuals among authoritarians and highly identified heterosexuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39,
509–525. doi:10.1002/ejsp.558
Kteily, N. S., Hodson, G., Dhont, K., & Ho, A. K. (2019). Predisposed to prejudice but responsive to intergroup
contact? Testing the unique benefits of intergroup contact across different types of individual differences. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22, 3–25. doi: 10.1177/1368430217716750
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 13

Maunder, R. D., White, F. A., & Verrelli, S. (2018). Modern avenues for intergroup contact: Using E-contact and
intergroup emotions to reduce stereotyping and social distancing against people with schizophrenia. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations. doi:10.1177/1368430218794873
Parcesepe, A. M., & Cabassa, L. J. (2013). Public stigma of mental illness in the United States: A systematic literature
review. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 40(5), 384–399.
doi:10.1007/s10488-012-0430-z
Pedersen, A., Dudgeon, P., Watt, S., & Griffiths, B. (2006). Attitudes toward Indigenous Australians: The issue of
“special treatment”. Australian Psychologist, 41, 85–94. doi:10.1080/00050060600585502
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. doi:10.1016/j.
ijintrel.2006.11.003
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, 922–934. doi:10.1002/ejsp.504
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable
predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.67.4.741
Reavley, N. J., & Jorm, A. F. (2011). Stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental disorders: Findings from an
Australian National Survey of Mental Health Literacy and Stigma. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry,
45, 1086–1093. doi:10.3109/00048674.2011.621061
White, F. A., Verrelli, S., Maunder, R. D., & Kervinen, A. (2018). Using electronic contact to reduce homonegative
attitudes, emotions, and behavioral intentions among heterosexual women and men: A contemporary extension of
the contact hypothesis. The Journal of Sex Research. doi:10.1080/00224499.2018.1491943
Whitley, B. E. (2001). Gender-role variables and attitudes toward homosexuality. Sex Roles, 45, 691–721. doi:10.1023/
A:1015640318045