Value priorities and readiness for out-group social contact.
Abstract
Relations of individuals' value priorities to their readiness for out-group social contact were examined in dominant and minority groups. Study I examined readiness of 151 Israeli Jewish teachers (dominant group) for contact with Israeli Arabs (minority). Readiness correlated positively with emphasizing universalism and self-direction values and negatively with emphasizing tradition, security, and conformity values. This confirmed an integrated set of hypotheses from S. H. Schwartz's (1992) value theory. Study 2 examined readiness of Israeli Arab Muslim (N = 111) and Christian (N = 88 ) teachers for contact with Israeli Jews. Hypotheses took account of differences between the two Arab minorities in motivation to integrate into the dominant society versus to preserve their uniqueness. Correlations with values confirmed most hypotheses.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Collectivistic attitudes are generally associated with an unwillingness to contact or otherwise interact with out-group members.
“Along with an emphasis on interdependence, collectivistic attitudes are generally associated with an unwillingness to contact or otherwise interact with out-group members”
From Parasite-stress promotes in-group assortative sociality: The cases of strong family ties and heightened religiosity (2012) · cites this paper as Sagiv & Schwartz 1995
Collectivists emphasize the boundary between in-group and out-group and are distrusting of and unwilling to contact out-group members; individualists make less distinction between in- and out-groups, and are more trusting of and show more willingness to contact out-groups.
“Collectivists emphasize the boundary between in-group and out-group and are distrusting of and unwilling to contact out-group members; individualists make less distinction between in- and out-groups, and are more trusting of and show more willingness to contact out-groups”
From Parasite-stress promotes in-group assortative sociality: The cases of strong family ties and heightened religiosity (2012) · cites this paper as Sagiv & Schwartz 1995
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 514
- Authors
- Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H.
- Affiliations
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- ORCID
- Schwartz, Shalom H.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1995-09
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 437-448
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2055659022
- Cited by
- 514
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 28
- FWCI
- 22.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Migration, Refugees, and Integration
- Keywords
- value priorities, intergroup relations, axiology, Schwartz value theory, universalism, self-direction, tradition, security, conformity, Israeli Jews, Arab citizens of Israel
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
