Behavioural consequences of imagining intergroup contact with stigmatized outgroups

We investigated whether imagining contact with an outgroup member would change intergroup behaviour. Participants who had imagined a positive interaction with an outgroup member or an unspecified stranger were told that they were about to take part in a discussion task with an outgroup member. They were taken to a room and asked to set out two chairs ready for the discussion while the experimenter left, ostensibly to find the other participant. The distance between the two chairs was then measured. Undergraduate students who imagined talking to an obese individual (Experiment 1) or a Muslim individual (Experiment 2) placed the chairs significantly closer than those in the control condition. They also reported more positive feelings and beliefs regarding Muslims. These findings highlight an important practical application of imagined contact: preparing people for successful face-to-face contact.

Imagining intergroup contact reduces implicit prejudice

Recent research has demonstrated that imagining intergroup contact can be sufficient to reduce explicit prejudice directed towards out-groups. In this research, we examined the impact of contact-related mental imagery on implicit prejudice as measured by the implicit association test. We found that, relative to a control condition, young participants who imagined talking to an elderly stranger subsequently showed more positive implicit attitudes towards elderly people in general. In a second study, we demonstrated that, relative to a control condition, non-Muslim participants who imagined talking to a Muslim stranger subsequently showed more positive implicit attitudes towards Muslims in general. We discuss the implications of these findings for furthering the application of indirect contact strategies aimed at improving intergroup relations.

Considering Just-World Thinking in Counter-Terrorism Cases: Miscarriages of Justice in Northern Ireland

Recent literature has drawn a parallel between the discriminatory application of counterterrorism legislation to the Irish population in the United Kingdom during the Northern Ireland conflict and the targeting of Muslims after September 2001. Less attention has been paid to lessons that can be drawn from judicial decision making in terrorism-related cases stemming from the Northern Ireland conflict. This Article examines Northern Ireland Court of Appeal (“NICA”) jurisprudence on miscarriages of justice in cases regarding counterterrorism offenses. In particular, the Article focuses on cases referred after the 1998 peace agreements in Northern Ireland from the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“CCRC”), a relatively new entity that investigates potential wrongful convictions in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Although the NICA’s human rights jurisprudence has developed significantly in recent years, the study of CCRC-referred cases finds that judges have retained confidence in the integrity of the conflict-era counterterrorism system even while acknowledging abuses and procedural irregularities that occurred. This study partially contradicts contentions that judicial deference to the executive recedes in a post-conflict or post-emergency period. Despite a high rate of quashed convictions, the NICA’s decisions suggest that it seeks to limit a large number of referrals and demonstrate a judicial predisposition to defend the justness of the past system’s laws and procedure. This perspective is consistent with what social psychologists have studied as “just-world thinking,” in which objective observers, although motivated by a concern with justice, believe—as a result of cognitive bias—that individuals “got what they deserved.” The Article considers other potential interpretations of the jurisprudence and contends that conservative decision making is particularly dangerous in the politicized realm of counterterrorism and in light of the criminalization of members of suspect communities.

Visible Difference, Stigmatising Language(s) and the Distinctive Construction of Prejudices against Others in Leeds and Warsaw

The chapter argues that language and cultural communication matter in a transnational world and that the transmission of prejudices against minorities has to be closely analysed while contextualising national histories with minorities. Looking at two spatial sites (Leeds and Warsaw) and analysing interview material that was drawn from a larger study, the authors discuss the way local people address difference particularly through the axes of gendered ethnicity (Muslim men) and gendered class (male underclass). It explores how the same categories of difference are discursively produced in Poland and the UK/ England; to what degree they differ or overlap.