A Network Analysis of the Association Between Intergroup Contact and Intergroup Relations

Figures & data

Figure 1 Pearson product–moment correlations between each variable.

Abbreviations: quantity, quantity of contact; quality, quality of contact; similarity, perceived similarity; thermometer, feeling thermometer; community, sense of community; connection, perceived connection ; helping, outgroup helping intention; distance, social distance; attitude, intergroup attitude; approach, willingness to approach contact; empathy, outgroup empathy; knowledge, knowledge about outgroup; intimacy, perceived intimacy of outgroup contact.

Table 1 Mean, Standard Deviation (SD), Minimum (Min), Maximum (Max), Skewness, and Kurtosis of Each Variable (Before Nonparanormal Transformation)

	Mean	SD	Min	Max	Skewness	Kurtosis
Contact quantity	23.34	7.16	7.00	35.00	−0.30	−0.49
Contact quality	30.69	5.24	5.00	35.00	−1.47	2.25
Perceived similarity	19.16	5.05	4.00	28.00	−0.52	0.20
Knowledge about out-group	13.37	5.94	4.00	28.00	0.11	−0.89
Feeling thermometer	6.98	2.07	0	10.00	−0.28	−0.46
Sense of community	20.71	3.71	6.00	30.00	−0.18	1.18
Perceived connection	19.25	3.48	5.00	25.00	−0.49	0.95
Out-group helping intention	9.24	1.28	3.00	10.00	−1.86	3.16
Social distance	48.69	8.19	8.00	56.00	−0.81	0.18
Intergroup attitude	24.13	3.86	4.00	28.00	−1.18	1.80
Willingness to approach contact	12.15	1.98	2.00	14.00	−1.31	1.98
Out-group empathy	5.81	1.09	1.00	7.00	−0.90	1.01
Perceived intimacy of out-group contact	5.67	1.18	1.00	7.00	−0.86	0.90

Figure 2 Graphical Gaussian model network constructed via the graphical LASSO.

Abbreviations: QT, quantity of contact; QL, quality of contact; PS, perceived similarity; kAO, knowledge about outgroup; FT, feeling thermometer; SOC, Sense of community; PC, perceived connection; OHI, outgroup helping intention; SD, social distance; IA, intergroup attitude;WTAC, willingness to approach contact; OE, outgroup empathy; PIOOC, perceived intimacy of outgroup contact.

Figure 3 Centrality estimates of intergroup contact depicting strength, betweenness, and closeness.

Figure 4 Bootstrapped confidence intervals of estimated edge – weights for the estimated network of intergroup contact.

Figure 5 Bootstrapped difference of estimated edge – weights for the estimated network of intergroup contact.

Figure 6 Average correlations between centrality indices of networks sampled with case dropped and the original sample.

Figure 7 Bootstrapped difference of strength for the estimated network of intergroup contact.

Figure 8 Average correlations between bridge strength of networks sampled with case dropped and the original sample.

Table 2 Accumulated Bridge Strength for Each Community

Community	A–D	A–C	B–D	B–C	C–D	A–B
	0.04	0.03	0.05	0.01	0.02	0.07
Highest Bridge Node	Intergroup attitude	Intergroup attitude	Perceived connection	Perceived intimacy of contact	Willingness to approach contact	Quality of contact

Notes: A: green community; B: red community, C: purple community, D: blue community. A–D: accumulated bridge strength for green and blue communities. A–C: accumulated bridge strength for green and purple communities. B–D: accumulated bridge strength for red and blue communities. B–C: accumulated bridge strength for red and purple communities. C–D: accumulated bridge strength for purple and blue communities. A–B: accumulated bridge strength for green and red communities.