nucleation

LIT-1829: Extended Contact Effects: Is Exposure to Positive Outgroup Exemplars Sufficient or Is Interaction With Ingroup Members Necessary?

1 min read

Properties2
StatusUnfetched — searched 2026-10-29 for a lawful full text; one appears to exist but this client could not fetch it, so it is not read and no NOTE is filed. The ResearchGate publication page (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51971721_Extended_Contact_Effects_Is_Exposure_to_Positive_Outgroup_Exemplars_Sufficient_or_Is_Interaction_With_Ingroup_Members_Necessary) is indexed by web search with text from the article's method section (sample, sex and age, and the three conditions' sizes), so it seems to carry the full text as an upload, which counts under the owner's ruling of 2026-10-29; it returned 403 to curl and to WebFetch. The publisher's page (tandfonline.com) returned 403 and is subscription-only; Europe PMC lists only the subscription DOI, Semantic Scholar marks it closed, the Princeton prejudice-reduction database's pages returned 403, and no course, faculty or academia.edu copy was found. OpenAlex was over its shared daily budget and was not consulted. A browser fetch of the ResearchGate copy is the cheapest way to read it. It stays Unfetched until a copy is supplied.
Tagssocial-identity, social-science

Graph View

Cernat, V. (2011). Extended contact effects: Is exposure to positive outgroup exemplars sufficient or is interaction with ingroup members necessary? The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(6), 737–753. doi:10.1080/00224545.2010.522622

Not read: a full text appears to be posted on ResearchGate, which this client could not fetch (see the status note).

Why this is here

The owner asked on 2026-10-29 to “find those new candidate readings”. The reading of Lemmer and Wagner’s meta-analysis (LIT-1836, NOTE-1419) named this work, and the curation entry of 22:38 listed it as possibly the nearest within-study test of CLAIM-430’s second defeater, that information of equal favourable content, received without taking part, changes as much as taking part; QUESTION-262’s first contrast is the same.

From the abstract and the indexed method text, it is not that test. The “interaction” in its title is between two characters in a story, an ingroup member and an outgroup member, not between the participant and anyone. All three arms read; the contrast is whether the outgroup exemplar’s friend in the story is one of the reader’s own group. It bears on what kind of information works, not on information against taking part.

Backlinks