Dialogue across Difference: Direct Conversation as an Intervention Method for Prejudice Reduction and Differential Consequences for Discrimination

Le résumé fourni par la source

Drawing on Gordon Allport’s work on intergroup contact and John Stuart Mill’s observation that “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that,” this mixed methods quasi-experimental study sought to evaluate one-on-one discussions and their relationship to political prejudice. Participants in the United States (N = 28) were pre-screened for political affiliation (liberal versus conservative) and then matched to one of three conditions. Within each condition, each participant was paired with another participant of the opposing political affiliation. Participants then took part in a 20-minute discussion with each other over Zoom. The topic of discussion varied by condition. Participants in the control condition were asked to discuss their favorite leisure activities. Participants in the first pseudo-experimental condition were asked to discuss immigration, and those in the second experimental condition were asked to listen to their conversation partner’s perspective on immigration and summarize it to their partner’s satisfaction before discussing the for the remaining 20 minutes. Participants completed intergroup attitude measures before the discussion as well as immediately afterwards and 30-days post. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the results showed that participants positively evaluated their discussion partner and the discussion, and that these forms of intergroup contact decreases political prejudice in the short-term and at 30-days post. This article is a condensed version of a master’s thesis (Durham, 2020) with additional support from co-authors Silver and Andrews.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.