1
Extended Contact Effects as a Function of Closeness of Relationship with Ingroup Contacts
Nicole Tausch
1
, Miles Hewstone
2
, Katharina Schmid
2
, Joanne Hughes
3
and Ed Cairns
4
1
University of St. Andrews
2
University of Oxford
3
Queen’s University Belfast
4
University of Ulster
Citation:
Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., Schmid, K., Hughes, J., & Cairns, E. (2011). Extended contact effects
as a function of closeness of relationship with ingroup contacts. Group Processes and Intergroup
Relations, 14, 239-254. [Special Issue Prejudice Reduction through Extended and other Indirect
Forms of Contact].
Author Note
Nicole Tausch, School of Psychology, University of St. Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland; Miles
Hewstone and Katharina Schmid, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of
Oxford, Oxford, England; Joanne Hughes, School of Education, Queen’s University, Belfast,
Northern Ireland; and Ed Cairns, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland. This
manuscript was prepared while Nicole Tausch was a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow. This
research was supported by a grant from the Community Relations Unit, Northern Ireland,
awarded to Miles Hewstone, Ed Cairns, and Joanne Hughes. It should be noted that the current
data set was also used as part of an analysis reported in Christ, O., Hewstone, M., Tausch, N.,
Voci., A., Wagner, U., Hughes, J., & Cairns, E. (in press). Direct contact as a moderator of
extended contact effects: Cross-sectional and longitudinal impact on attitudes and attitude
strength, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
2
Abstract
Using survey data from Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland (N = 428), the authors
examined the effects of extended contact via different types of ingroup contacts (neighbours,
work colleagues, friends, and family members) and tested whether closeness to ingroup contacts
moderated the effects of extended contact on outgroup trust. Results demonstrated that extended
contact effects varied as a function of the relationship to ingroup contacts, and that extended
contact interacted with closeness ratings in predicting outgroup trust. Consistent with
hypotheses, extended contacts via more intimate ingroup relationships (i.e., friends and family)
were overall more strongly related to outgroup trust than extended contacts via less intimate
ingroup relations (i.e., neighbours and work colleagues). Moreover, within each level of intimacy
extended contact was related to outgroup trust only at high, and not at low, levels of rated
closeness to ingroup contacts. The theoretical contributions, limitations and practical
implications of these findings are discussed.
3
Extended Contact Effects as a Function of Closeness of Relationship with Ingroup Contacts
Since Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe and Ropp’s (1997) introduction of the extended
contact hypothesis our understanding of the effects of experiencing intergroup contact
vicariously via other ingroup members has grown considerably. We now know much about the
consequences of extended contact (e.g., Christ, Hewstone, Tausch, Voci, Wagner, Cairns, &
Hughes, in press; Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns, & Voci, 2004; Wright et al., 1997), the processes
that mediate extended contact effects (Cameron, Rutland, Brown, Douch, 2006; De Tezanos-
Pinto, Bratt, & Brown, 2010; Turner, Hewstone, Voci, & Vonofakou, 2008), and about the
conditions that moderate its effects (Christ et al., in press; Paolini, Hewstone, & Cairns, 2007).
One question that has, however, not yet been explored is whether the nature of the relationship to
the ingroup members through which extended contact is experienced matters. We address this
issue in the present paper.
In fact, the vast majority of extended contact research has focused on the effects of
ingroup friends having outgroup contact (e.g., Christ et al., in press; Paolini et al. 2004, 2007;
Turner et al., 2007, 2008; but see Cameron & Rutland, 2006; Cameron et al., 2006; and
Liebkind & McAlister, 1999, for exceptions). Many more types of extended contact that involve
ingroup members at varying degrees of centrality in individuals’ social networks are, however,
conceivable. The present research aims to fill this gap in the literature by, first, comparing the
effects of a variety of extended contacts that range from relatively low (neighbours, work
colleagues) to high (friends and family) levels of intimacy with the ingroup members who have
contact with outgroup members and, second, by examining the moderating role of rated
closeness to ingroup contacts in determining the outcomes of a variety of forms of extended
4
contact. Before outlining the theoretical rationale and hypotheses of the present research, we
briefly review the relevant literature on closeness in social relationships.
Closeness in Social Relationships
Closeness in social relationships has often been understood as what distinguishes
relationship categories (e.g., close friend vs. parent vs. stranger), but can also be defined in terms
of specific cognitive, emotional, and behavioural elements, such as interdependence (both in
terms of mutual influence and outcomes), interconnectedness of emotion and behaviour, and
intimacy (the disclosure of important self-relevant feelings and information; see Berscheid,
Snyder, & Omoto, 1989; Clark & Reis, 1988; Kelley et al., 1983). In an attempt to integrate
different perspectives, Aron, Aron, Tudor, and Nelson (1991) conceptualized interpersonal
closeness as ‘inclusion of the other in the self’ (see also Aron & Aron, 1986; Aron et al., 2004).
In support of their idea, they presented evidence from a series of experiments that demonstrated
that close others (e.g., friends, parents, spouses) as opposed to more distant others (e.g., one’s
mother’s friend, TV personalities, strangers) function cognitively like the self; they receive
similar benefits as the self in money allocation tasks regardless of whether they will know about
the self’s decision; they are processed more like the self than are non-close others; and their traits
are confused with traits associated with the self.
To assess closeness as inclusion of the other in the self, Aron, Aron, and Smollan (1992)
introduced the Inclusion of the Other in the Self (IOS) measure, which assesses the closeness of
the relationship between the self and the other person using a pictorial scale. Aron et al. (1992)
demonstrated that the IOS is a broad index of relationship closeness which is strongly related to a
number of other relationship closeness measures (e.g., the Relationship Closeness Inventory;
Berscheid et al., 1989). They also demonstrated that the IOS measure has considerable predictive
5
validity, predicting relationship commitment, marital satisfaction and relationship maintenance,
intimacy and attraction between strangers following closeness-generating tasks in the laboratory,
and response-time based cognitive indicators of closeness.
The Present Research
Inclusion of the other in the self also plays a central role in the extended contact
hypothesis (Wright et al., 1997). Based on results reported by Smith and Henry (1996) showing
that ingroup (but not outgroup) members are spontaneously included in the self, and Sedikides,
Olsen, and Reis’ (1993) finding that observers treat partners in an interaction as a single
cognitive unit, Wright and colleagues suggested the following logic: In an observed intergroup
interaction, where the ingroup member is part of the self and the outgroup member is part of the
ingroup member’s self, the outgroup member becomes part of the self. Presuming that the
outgroup member’s group membership is part of what is included in the self, then the outgroup
itself becomes part of the self. By this process, outgroup members receive, at least to some
extent, the benefits that are associated with inclusion in the self, such as positive affect, greater
empathy, and shared resources. Consistent with the idea that such a process plays a role in
extended contact effects, Turner et al. (2008) demonstrated that inclusion of the outgroup in the
self partly mediates the effects of extended contact on attitudes.
In the present article we sought to qualify this general process further. While it is true that
all ingroup members are at least to some extent included in the self (Smith & Henry, 1996) and,
under certain circumstances, interchangeable with each other and the self (Turner, Hogg, Oakes,
Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), it is also plausible to assume that the specific relationship to the
ingroup member who experiences contact matters. The extended contact hypothesis is premised
on the idea that the fellow ingroup member who has contact with an outgroup member is
