A test of imagined contact as a means to improve cross-partisan feelings and reduce attribution of malevolence and acceptance of political violence

References

• Abramowitz, A. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Achen, C. H., & Bartles, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
   Google Scholar
• Barlow, F. K., Paolini, S., Pedersen, A., Hornsey, M., Radke, H. R. M., Harwood, J., … Sibley, C. G. (2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1629–1643. doi: 10.1177/0146167212457953
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bodie, G. D., Honeycutt, J. M., & Vickery, A. J. (2013). An analysis of the correspondence between imagined interaction attributes and functions. Human Communication Research, 39, 157–183. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, R., & Hewstone, H. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Donald, E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, C. Y., Joyce, N., Harwood, J., & Xiang, J. (2017). Stereotype reduction through humor and accommodation during imagined communication with older adults. Communication Monographs, 84, 94–109. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2016.1149737
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, J., & Ha, Y. (2012). On the communicative underpinnings of campaign effects: Presidential debates, citizen communication, and polarization in evaluations of candidates. Political Communication, 29, 184–204. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2012.671233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chozick, A. (2016, September 10). Hillary Clinton calls many Trump backers “deplorables,” and G.O.P. pounces. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables.html
   Google Scholar
• Crisp, R. J., & Husnu, S. (2011). Attributional processes underlying imagined contact effects. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(2), 275–287. doi: 10.1177/1368430210390721
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions?: Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. American Psychologist, 64(4), 231–240. doi: 10.1037/a0014718
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dvir-Gvirsman, S. (2014). It’s not that we don’t know, it’s that we don’t care: Explaining why selective exposure polarizes attitudes. Mass Communication and Society, 17, 74–97. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2013.816738
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203–210. doi: 10.1037/h0041593
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorina, M., Abrams, S., & Pope, J. (2011). Culture war?: The myth of a polarized America. Boston, MA: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Garrett, K. R., Dvir-Gvirsman, S, Johnson, B. K., Tsfati, Y., Neo, R., & Dal, A. (2014). Implications of pro- and counterattitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research, 40, 309–332. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2004). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. Grand Rapids, MI: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harwood, J., Joyce, N., Chen, C. Y., Paolini, S., Xiang, J., & Rubin, M. (2017). Effects of past and present intergroup communication on perceived fit of an outgroup member and desire for future intergroup contact. Communication Research, 44, 530–555. doi: 10.1177/0093650214565926
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hewstone, M. (1990). The ultimate attribution error?: A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 311–335. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420200404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hewstone, M., & Swart, H. (2011). Fifty-odd years of inter-group contact: From hypothesis to integrated theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 374–386. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02047.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honeycutt, J. M. (2003). Imagined interactions: Daydreaming about communication. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hornsey, M. L. (2008). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 204–222. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00066.x
   Google Scholar
• Husnu, S., & Crisp, R. J. (2010). Elaboration enhances the imagined contact effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 943–950. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husnu, S., & Crisp, R. J. (2011) Enhancing the imagined contact effect. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(1), 113–116. doi: 10.1080/00224541003599043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700–710. doi: 10.1177/0146167293196005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfs038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 690–707. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamieson, K. H., & Hardy, B. (2012). What is civil engaged argument and why does aspiring to it matter? PS: Political Science & Politics, 45, 412–415. doi: 10.1017/S1049096512000479
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, J. (2016, October 4). As Clinton gains, Trump supporters seem to hate her more than ever. The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-clinton-gains-trump-supporters-seem-to-hate-her-more-than-ever/2016/10/04/07470fd6-871b-11e6-92c2-14b64f3d453f_story.html
   Google Scholar
• Joyce, N., & Harwood, J. (2014). Improving intergroup attitudes through televised vicarious intergroup contact. Communication Research, 41, 627–643. doi: 10.1177/0093650212447944
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalmoe, N. (2014). Fueling the fire: Violent metaphors, trait aggression, and support for political violence. Political Communication, 31, 545–563. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2013.852642
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Lau, H., Lau, C. Q., & Loper, K. (2014). Public opinion in Hong Kong about gays and lesbians: The impact of interpersonal and imagined contact. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 36(3), 302–322. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edu016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levendusky, M. (2013). How partisan media polarize America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18, 285–300. doi: 10.1037/a0033266
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madison, T. P., Rold, M., & Honeycutt, J. (2014–2015). How partisans differ from independents: The imaginative functions of self-understanding, rehearsal, and relationship maintenance. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 34, 105–116. doi:10.2190/IC.32.2b
   Google Scholar
• Miles, E., & Crisp, R. J. (2014). A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(1), 3–26. doi: 10.1177/1368430213510573
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro, G. D., Weih, C., & Tsai, J. (2010). Motivated suspicion: Asymmetrical attributions of the behavior of political ingroup and outgroup members. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 173–184. doi: 10.1080/01973531003738551
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Paolini, S., Harwood, J., & Rubin, M. (2010). Negative intergroup contact makes group membership salient: Explaining why intergroup conflict endures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1723–1738. doi: 10.1177/0146167210388667
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paolini, S., Harwood, J., Rubin, M., Husnu, S., Joyce, N., & Hewstone, M. (2014). Positive and extensive intergroup contact in the past buffers against the disproportionate impact of negative contact in the present. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 548–562. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, A., & Corasaniti, N. (2016, October, 27). Some Donald Trump votes warn of revolution if Hillary Clinton wins. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/politics/donald-trump-voters.html?_r=0
   Google Scholar
• Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461–476. doi: 10.1177/014616727900500407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeder, G. D., Pryor, J. B., Wohl, M. J. A., & Griswell, M. L. (2005). On attributing negative motives to others who disagree with our opinions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1498–1510. doi: 10.1177/0146167205277093
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/ doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stathi, S., & Crisp, R. J. (2008). Imagining intergroup contact promotes projection to outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 943–957. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60, 556–576. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. (2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 74, 33–47. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, R. N., & Crisp, R. J. (2010). Imagined intergroup contact reduces implicit prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 129–142. doi: 10.1348/014466609X419901
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viser, M., & Jan, T. (2016, October 15). Warnings of conspiracy stroke anger among Trump faithful. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/15/donald-trump-warnings-conspiracy-rig-election-are-stoking-anger-among-his-followers/LcCY6e0QOcfH8VdeK9UdsM/story.html
   Google Scholar
• Warner, B. R., & Banwart, M. C. (2016). A multifactor approach to candidate image. Communication Studies, 67(3), 259–279. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2016.1156005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner, B. R., Galarza, R., Coker, C. R., Tschirhart, P., Hoeun, S., Jennings, F. J., & McKinney, M. S. (2017). Comic agonism in the 2016 campaign: A study of Iowa Caucus rallies. American Behavioral Scientist. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0002764217704868
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner, B. R., & McKinney, M. S. (2013). To unite and divide: The polarizing effect of presidential debates. Communication Studies, 64(5), 508–527. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2013.832341
   Google Scholar
• Waytz, A., Young, L. L., & Ginges, J. (2014). Motive attribution asymmetry for love vs. hate drives intractable conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 15687–15692. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1414146111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar