1. ‚ One Bad Apple: Generalizing Dislike from an Individual to the Group Kathleen A. Oltman & John F. Dovidio Yale University Partner Liking Values of Fairness Participants in the negative condition disliked their partners significantly more F(1,225) = 27.664 p <.001 Post-hoc analyses confirm the difference between positive and neutral valence was not significant M pos = 4.19, SD pos =.543 M neut = 4.28, SD neut =.560 p=.770 Participants in the negative condition reported marginally lower levels of allophilia for Black men F(1,225) = 2.623 p =.107 Post-hoc analyses confirm the difference between positive and neutral valence was not significant M pos = 4.53, SD pos =. 987 M neut = 4.52, SD neut = 1.28 p=.999 Introduction  Imagined contact is one of several indirect contact methods used to improve intergroup attitudes and reduce intergroup prejudice  Research on direct contact has found that contact reduces intergroup anxiety and increases empathy with the out-group but more research is needed on the mechanisms of imagined contact before it can have wide-scale implementation in prejudice reduction intervention efforts  What cognitive mediators might impact the efficacy of imagined contact? Do various types of contact (positive, neutral, negative ) have similar effects? We hypothesize that: 1) Imagined contact with a Black man will influence impressions of Black men in general such that Positive imagined contact will result in better impressions Negative imagined contact will result in worse impressions 2) Contact with a “typical” Black man will lead to increased generalizability between qualities of the individual and Black men generally Methods Contact Manipulation Non-black participants (N = 230) were randomly assigned to engage in positive, neutral, or negative imagined contact with a Black man “Please take a minute to imagine yourself meeting a black, male, stranger for the first time. During the conversation, imagine you find out some interesting, [positive, negative] and unexpected things about the stranger.” Measures :  Partner Liking (  =.84). “My imagined conversation partner was nice”  Allophilia, a measure of positive attitudes toward an out-group (Pittinsky, Rosenthal, & Montoya, 2011) (  =.96). ““I am motivated to get to know Black men”  Entitativity, a measure of group cohesion (Newheiser, Sawaoka and Dovidio, 2012) (  =.74)^. “What happens to one Black man also impacts other Black men”  Typicality (Abrams, Bown, Marques, & Henson, 2000; Abrams, Marques, Bown, and Dougill, 2002) (  =.81). “Many Black males would behave in the same way that my imagined conversation partner behaved” Results Allophilia Mediation Typicality Moderation: Positive Condition Discussion  kathleen.oltman@yale.edu ‚ Typicality Moderation: Negative Condition ‚ Discussion.16(.03)***.62(.10)***.24(.15)*.003(.15), ns Negative (vs. Positive/Neutral) Contact Partner Liking Allophilia for Black Men Discussion Participants in the positive condition who liked their partner more also showed greater allophilia for Black men in general t(95)=3.9, p<.001 Participants in the positive condition who saw their partner as more typical of the out-group led had greater allophilia for Black men in general t(95)=5.16, p<.001 The interaction between liking for one’s specific partner, and typicality ratings for one’s Black partner, was not significant t(95)=-1.49, p=.139 Participants in the negative condition who liked their partner more showed greater allophilia for Black men in general t(99)=2.1, p=.038 Participants in the negative condition did not show an effect of typicality on allophilia for Black men in general t(99)=-.678, p=.499 The interaction between liking for one’s specific partner and typicality ratings was significant t(99)=2.17, p=.032 For participants high in liking, the interaction with typicality was non-significant b=.100, SE=.241, p=.678. For participants low in liking, the interaction was significant; greater typicality of the partner led to significantly less allophilia for Black men in general b=-.349, SE=.137, p=.012.  There were no differences between those in the positive and neutral conditions; as long as the experience is non-negative, imagined contact improves inter-individual and intergroup relations  Participants in imagined contact scenarios are generalizing their imagined experience with a specific partner to feelings about an entire out-group, e.g. "one bad apple rots the whole barrel”  When partners are disliked, if they are seen as typical of the group the effect of disliking the partner is more likely to generalize to the group than if the partner is disliked but seen as atypical  In future prejudice reduction efforts it will be important to acknowledge the harm/good a single individual can have on group-level impressions, particularly when that individual is stereotypical of the group ^There were no significant effects of entitativity on any outcome variables, mediators, or moderators F(1,225) =.205, p =.651 *p <.15, **p <.05, ***p<.001