ACADEMIC ABSTRACT In this narrative review, we examined 134 studies of the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action benefiting disadvantaged groups. We aimed to identify whether, when, and why contact has mobilizing effects (promoting collective action) or sedative effects (inhibiting collective action). For both moderators and mediators, factors associated with the intergroup situation (compared with those associated with the out-group or the in-group) emerged as the most important. Group status had important effects. For members of socially advantaged groups (examined in 98 studies, 100 samples), contact had a general mobilizing effect, which was stronger when contact increased awareness of experiences of injustice among members of disadvantaged groups. For members of disadvantaged groups (examined in 49 studies, 58 samples), contact had mixed effects. Contact that increased awareness of injustice mobilized collection action; contact that made the legitimacy of group hierarchy or threat of retaliation more salient produced sedative effects. PUBLIC ABSTRACT We present a review of existing studies that have investigated the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action aimed at promoting equity for disadvantaged groups. We further consider the influence of contact that is positive or negative and face-to-face or indirect (e.g., through mass or social media), and we distinguish between collective action that involves socially acceptable behaviors or is destructive and violent. We identified 134 studies, considering both advantaged (100 samples) and disadvantaged groups (58 samples). We found that intergroup contact impacts collective action differently depending on group status. Contact generally leads advantaged groups to mobilize in favor of disadvantaged groups. However, contact has variable effects on members of disadvantaged groups: It sometimes promotes their collective action in support of their own group; in other cases, it leads them to be less likely to engage in such action. We examine when and why contact can have these different effects.

中文翻译：

---

动员作用还是镇静作用？群体间接触与优势群体和弱势群体集体行动之间关联的叙事回顾。


学术摘要 在这篇叙述性综述中，我们审查了 134 项关于群体间接触与造福弱势群体的集体行动之间关系的研究。我们的目的是确定接触是否、何时以及为何具有动员作用（促进集体行动）或镇静作用（抑制集体行动）。对于调节者和调解者来说，与群体间情况相关的因素（与与外群体或内群体相关的因素相比）是最重要的。群体地位具有重要影响。对于社会优势群体的成员（在 98 项研究、100 个样本中进行了检验），接触具有普遍的动员效应，当接触提高了弱势群体成员对不公正经历的认识时，这种效应就会更强。对于弱势群体的成员（在 49 项研究、58 个样本中进行了检验），接触的影响好坏参半。提高对不公正现象的认识，动员收集行动；使群体等级制度的合法性或报复威胁更加突出的接触产生了镇静作用。公共摘要 我们对现有研究进行了回顾，这些研究调查了群体间接触与旨在促进弱势群体公平的集体行动之间的关系。我们进一步考虑积极或消极、面对面或间接（例如通过大众或社交媒体）接触的影响，并区分涉及社会可接受行为或破坏性和暴力的集体行动。我们确定了 134 项研究，考虑了优势群体（100 个样本）和弱势群体（58 个样本）。我们发现，群体间接触对集体行动的影响因群体状态而异。 接触通常会导致优势群体动员起来支持弱势群体。然而，接触对弱势群体的成员有不同的影响：有时会促进他们采取集体行动来支持自己的群体；在其他情况下，这会导致他们不太可能采取此类行动。我们研究接触何时以及为何会产生这些不同的影响。