Od predsodkov do povezanosti: teorija o medskupinskem stiku
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55707/ds-po.v40i3-4.205Ključne besede:
teorija o medskupinskem stiku, socialna pedagogika, vzgoja in izobraževanje, predsodki, vključenostPovzetek
Teorija medskupinskega stika ima za socialnopedagoško področje, ki si prizadeva za zmanjševanje marginaliziranosti različnih družbenih skupin, velik pomen, saj predpostavlja, da je mogoče predsodke med različnimi družbenimi skupinami zmanjševati preko stika med njimi, zlasti kadar so izpolnjeni določeni pogoji, kot npr. enak status med skupinami, skupni cilji in institucionalna podpora. V prispevku predstavimo rezultate tradicionalnega pregleda literature o teoriji medskupinskega stika. V kontekstu socialne pedagogike opredelimo v znanosti utemeljene strategije za krepitev pozitivnih učinkov medskupinskega stika in izpostavimo pomen obstoja priložnosti za medskupinski stik ter pogoje, ki povečujejo verjetnost za zmanjšanje predsodkov na podlagi le-tega. Predstavimo primer uporabe teorije medskupinskega stika pri oblikovanju vključujočih praks v vzgojno-izobraževalnem sistemu, pri čemer izpostavimo ključno vlogo socialnopedagoške prakse. Pregled literature kaže, da ima teorija medskupinskega stika sicer velik potencial za razvoj socialnopedagoške teorije in prakse, ki pa v slovenskem vzgojno-izobraževalnem prostoru zahteva nadaljnjo kontekstualizacijo in empirično preverjanje.
Literatura
1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
2. Bernardo, Di A., G., Vezzali, L., Stathi, S., Cadamuro, A. in Cortesi, L. (2017). Vicarious, extended and imagined intergroup contact: A review of interventions based on indirect contact strategies applied in educational settings. TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 24(1), 3–21.
3. Bettencourt, L., Dixon, J. in Castro, P. (2019). Understanding how and why spatial segregation endures: A systematic review of recent research on intergroup relations at a micro-ecological scale. Social Psychological Bulletin, 14(2), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.v14i2.33482
4. Bilewicz, M., Witkowska, M., Pantazi, M., Gkinopoulos, T. in Klein, O. (2019). Traumatic rift: How conspiracy beliefs undermine cohesion after societal trauma?. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i1.1699
5. Birtel, M.D., Vezzali, L. in Stathi, S. (2018). Extended contact and affective factors: A review and suggestions for future research. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 25(2), 213–238.
6. Boccanfuso, E., White, F. A. in Maunder, R. D. (2021). Reducing transgender stigma via an E-contact intervention. Sex Roles, 84(5), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01171-9
7. Bogdan Zupančič, A. (2020). Proces konceptualizacije socialne pedagogike v Sloveniji [Doktorska disertacija, Univerza na Primorskem, Pedagoška fakulteta]. Repozitorij UP. https://repozitorij.upr.si/Dokument.php?id=23144&lang=slv
8. Bogdan Zupančič, A. in Krajnčan, M. (2019). Odnosna kompetenca strokovnih delavcev v osnovni šoli. Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 34(1), 58–72.
9. Boin, J., Rupar, M., Graf, S., Neji, S., Spiegler, O. in Swart, H. (2021). The generalization of intergroup contact effects: Emerging research, policy relevance, and future directions. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12419
10. Brown, R. in Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 255–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5
11. Čehajić-Clancy, S. in Bilewicz, M. (2020). Appealing to moral exemplars: Shared perception of morality as an essential ingredient of intergroup reconciliation. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 217–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12067
12. Dixon, J., Tredoux, C., Davies, G., Huck, J., Hocking, B., Sturgeon, B., Whyatt, D., Jarman, N. in Bryan, D. (2020). Parallel lives: Intergroup contact, threat, and the segregation of everyday activity spaces. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(3), 457–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000191
13. Farmer, H. (2023). Reducing dehumanisation through virtual reality: prospects and pitfalls. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 52, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2023.101283
14. Grandić, R. in Bosanac, M. (2019). Presenting and analyzing the academic service learning model. Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 34(1), 44–57.
15. Green, E. G., Visintin, E. P., Hristova, A., Bozhanova, A., Pereira, A. in Staerklé, C. (2017). Collective victimhood and acknowledgement of outgroup suffering across history: Majority and minority perspectives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(2), 228–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2237
16. Hodson, G., Crisp, R. J., Meleady, R. in Earle, M. (2018). Intergroup contact as an agent of cognitive liberalization. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(5), 523–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617752324
17. Hultin, H., Ferrer‐Wreder, L., Engström, K., Andersson, F. in Galanti, M. R. (2021). The importance of pedagogical and social school climate to bullying: a cross‐sectional multilevel study of 94 Swedish schools. Journal of School Health, 91(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12980
18. Kauff, M., Beneda, M., Paolini, S., Bilewicz, M., Kotzur, P., O'Donnell, A. W., Stevenson, C., Wagner, U. in Christ, O. (2021). How do we get people into contact? Predictors of intergroup contact and drivers of contact seeking. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 38–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12398
19. Krajnčan, M. (2021). Indicators of the quality of work in residential treatment centres. Revija za elementarno izobraževanje, 14, 7–33. https://doi.org/10.18690/rei.14.Spec.Iss.7-33.2021
20. Marchante, M., Coelho, V. A. in Romão, A. M. (2022). The influence of school climate in bullying and victimization behaviors during middle school transition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 71, članek 102111, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102111
21. Marovič, M. (2020). Medinstitucionalna/multidisciplinarna obravnava otroka/mladostnika nameščenega v vzgojnem zavodu. V M. Volk, T. Štemberger, A. Sila in N. Kovač (ur.), Medpredmetno povezovanje: pot do uresničevanja vzgojno-izobraževalnih ciljev (str. 215–230). Založba Univerze na Primorskem.
22. Meeusen, C. in Kern, A. (2016). The relation between societal factors and different forms of prejudice: A cross-national approach on target-specific and generalized prejudice. Social Science Research, 55, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.09.009
23. Meleady, R., Crisp, R. J., Hodson, G. in Earle, M. (2019). On the generalization of intergroup contact: A taxonomy of transfer effects. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(5), 430–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419848682
24. Oblak, J. in Lavrič, M. (2019). Percepcije predmeta domovinska in državljanska kultura ter etika. Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 34(2), 34–51.
25. Paolini, S., White, F. A., Tropp, L. R., Turner, R. N., Page‐Gould, E., Barlow, F. K. in Gómez, Á. (2021). Intergroup contact research in the 21st century: Lessons learned and forward progress if we remain open. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12427
26. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65
27. Pettigrew, T. F. in Tropp, L. (2011). When groups meet: the dynamics of intergroup contact. Psychology Press.
28. Pettigrew, T. F. in Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
29. Pliberšek, U. (2025). Raznolikost pedagoških metod pri poučevanju o večkulturnosti. Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 40(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.55707/ds-po.v40i1.162
30. Ramiah, A. A., Schmid, K., Hewstone, M. in Floe, C. (2015). Why are all the W hite (A sian) kids sitting together in the cafeteria? Resegregation and the role of intergroup attributions and norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 100–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12064
31. Razpotnik, Š. (2006). Izziv socialni pedagogiki: biti glasnica družbenega obrobja. V M. Sande, B. Dekleva, A. Kobolt, Š. Razpotnik in D. Zorc-Maver (ur.), Socialna pedagogika: izbrani koncepti stroke (str. 23–37). Pedagoška fakulteta.
32. Selimović, Z., Opić, S. in Selimović, H. (2018). The quality of pedagogical climate in schools. Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 33(3–4), 66–80.
33. Stathi, S., Crisp, R. J. in Hogg, M. A. (2011). Imagining intergroup contact enables member-to-group generalization. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15(3), 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023752
34. Vukovič, M., Krajnčan, M., Rozman, U. in Vrhunc Pfeifer, K. (2024). Slovenski model pomoči otrokom in mladostnikom s čustvenimi in vedenjskimi težavami ali motnjami. Socialno delo, 63(1-2), 55–71.
35. White, F. A., Borinca, I., Vezzali, L., Reynolds, K. J., Blomster Lyshol, J. K., Verrelli, S. in Falomir‐Pichastor, J. M. (2021). Beyond direct contact: The theoretical and societal relevance of indirect contact for improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12400
36. White, F. A., Harvey, L. in Abu-Rayya, H. M. (2015). Improving intergroup relations in the Internet age: A critical review. Review of General Psychology, 19(2), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000036
37. White, F. A., Maunder, R. D. in Verrelli, S. (2020) Text-based E-contact: Harnessing cooperative Internet interactions to bridge the social and psychological divide. European Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 76–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2020.1753459
38. Witkowska, M., Beneda, M., Čehajić-Clancy, S. in Bilewicz, M. (2019). Fostering contact after historical atrocities: The potential of moral exemplars. Political Psychology, 40(3), 565–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12529
39. Zhou, S., Page-Gould, E., Aron, A., Moyer, A. in Hewstone, M. (2019). The extended contact hypothesis: A meta-analysis on 20 years of research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(2), 132–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318762647
40. Zick, A., Küpper, B. in Hövermann, A. (2011). Intolerance, predjudice and discrimination: a European report. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Objavljeno
Kako citirati
Številka
Rubrike
Licenca
Avtorske pravice (c) 2025 Nika Ferbežar, Mateja Marovič
To delo je licencirano pod Creative Commons Priznanje avtorstva 4.0 mednarodno licenco.
