Indirect Contact Interventions to Promote Peace in Multicultural Societies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In today’s multicultural societies, promoting more favourable attitudes between groups of different cultural backgrounds is of pressing importance. Drawing on intergroup contact theory, this chapter describes some methods for fostering these favourable views of “the other” among children and youth. In situations where bringing two different groups into direct contact is not possible, or the groups are unwilling to interact directly with each other, indirect contact can be useful. In this chapter, we describe three types of indirect contact: (1) extended contact , the knowledge of cross-group friendship, that is, someone from one’s own group ( ingroup ) has a close relationship with someone from another group to which one does not belong ( outgroup ); (2) vicarious contact , the observation of cross-group friendship; and (3) imagined contact , the mental simulation of an interaction with an outgroup member. Then, we describe ways of optimizing these methods for intervention with children and youth. We also describe potential future directions for research in this area. Finally, we note that indirect contact interventions are particularly effective among children and youth who have no or little previous contact with the outgroup. Given the low cost and relative ease of implementation, our hope is that this chapter will provide a practical guide for those planning to use indirect contact interventions with children and youth in diverse societies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".