In a previous article in The Fulcrum, we argued that interpersonal communication is a – not the only – way to reduce perceived political divides. Today, we highlight a group of researchers who noted that methods beyond interpersonal communication may actually be more effective.
We do not want a “competition” between different techniques. Rather, we seek alignment that recognizes the value of methods other than interpersonal communication in efforts to reduce perceived political divides, especially in terms of scale. Both interpersonal and other options (e.g., observing others across the political spectrum interact productively) should be utilized. Overblown perceptions of political divides are sometimes referred to as “Perception Gaps,” a term coined by the organization More in Common.
The researchers we highlight claimed that both in-person interpersonal communication (which they referred to as direct contact) and various other methods (which they referred to as indirect contact) can improve emotions and attitudes toward individuals in another group. However, they noted that because some forms of indirect contact can reach many more people, they can more easily change social norms than small-group or one-on-one direct contact.
In the 2021 academic journal article “Beyond Direct Contact: The Theoretical and Societal Relevance of Indirect Contact for Improving Intergroup Relations,” social psychologist Fiona White and a half-dozen other researchers examined the distinction between direct and indirect contact in fostering positive intergroup relations. Both direct and indirect contact are branches of contact theory, which suggests that meaningful interaction between groups under the right conditions can reduce intergroup hostility and increase mutual understanding. This journal article is central to the field, part of a special issue on transforming society through intergroup contact, and has been cited over 180 times.
In the field to correct political Perception Gaps, direct contact has been considered the default means of reducing prejudice. Yet academic researchers have been open to a wider variety of approaches.
In their article, White et al. outlined various forms of direct contact, including structured intergroup dialogues, workshops, collaborative activities, and facilitated conversations. While these methods are effective under optimal conditions, the authors emphasized that direct contact was often limited by structural barriers, such as segregation, existing social tensions, or logistical challenges of reaching thousands or even millions of people through small-scale opportunities.
White et al. argued that indirect contact was not merely a substitute for direct methods but offered unique advantages, particularly in its ability to scale, shift social norms, and reach individuals who might otherwise resist engagement. They outlined several key forms of indirect contact that had emerged in research, each offering distinct pathways to improving intergroup relations. Below are forms of indirect contact that the authors covered:
- Extended contact leverages existing relationships, in which knowing that an ingroup member had a friendship with an outgroup member can shift attitudes by association.
- Vicarious contact allows individuals to observe positive interactions between groups, often through media or storytelling, reinforcing the idea that intergroup cooperation is both possible and beneficial.
- Imagined contact operates through mental simulation, encouraging individuals to visualize a positive exchange with an outgroup member, which can reduce anxiety and improve attitudes toward real-life interactions.
- Parasocial contact occurs through one-sided relationships with outgroup members as portrayed in media, such as television, films, or social media influencers, subtly shaping perceptions over time without requiring direct engagement.
Finally, White et al. considered “e-contact” that utilizes digital platforms to facilitate structured intergroup communication as a form of indirect contact; however, because it typically involves 1:1 or small group interactions, it blurs the clear distinction between direct and indirect contact.
Both direct and indirect contact have been shown to reduce affective polarization—that is, the emotional hostility people feel toward members of the opposing political party—and to improve intergroup attitudes more broadly. While they operate through different formats, both approaches appear to help by reducing anxiety and fostering empathy across group lines. Direct contact enables personal, real-world interactions that foster mutual understanding.
In comparison, many of the indirect contact options described above can normalize more inclusive attitudes at scale. Indirect contact may not have the depth of face-to-face engagement, but its wide reach allows it to reinforce positive norms and help shift public perceptions in meaningful ways.
The authors posited that a major strength of indirect contact is its ability to influence social norms, in addition to improving individual-level affect between groups. While direct contact is largely constrained to small-scale interactions, various forms of indirect contact can be disseminated widely through various media and institutional structures. White et al. also emphasized the importance of social norms (collective expectations about behavior) in shaping intergroup attitudes. By making positive intergroup interactions more visible and normalized, indirect contact can lead to broad societal changes that direct contact alone may struggle to achieve.
While acknowledging the need for more research on the long-term persistence of indirect contact effects, White et al. argued that indirect contact was not merely a substitute for direct contact, but also a valuable intervention in its own right. They proposed that future efforts to reduce intergroup prejudice should integrate both direct and indirect approaches, leveraging the strengths of each to create lasting social change. And given the added ability of indirect contact to change social norms at scale, they believed that indirect contact might even have benefits over direct contact.
James Coan is the co-founder and executive director of More Like US. Coan can be contacted at James@morelikeus.org
Imre Huss is a current intern at More Like US.
NECHAMA volunteers work alongside local residents during recovery efforts in Western North Carolina.
