Antisemitic attitudes reflect a historically enduring form of prejudice and are shaped by a confluence of individual, interpersonal, and sociocultural factors. Those high in the personality trait of openness are often less prone to prejudicial views, and identifying mechanisms that account for this effect could provide insight into avenues for intervention. Drawing on intergroup contact theory, this study examined whether interpersonal contact with Jewish individuals mediated the relationship between trait openness and antisemitic attitudes. Using data from non-Jewish individuals collected as part of a nationally representative panel study of Americans, we tested whether openness predicted reduced antisemitic attitudes and whether this effect operated through increased interpersonal contact with Jewish individuals. Consistent with hypotheses, openness predicted reduced antisemitic attitudes, and this relationship was partially mediated by interpersonal contact. Effects held when controlling for demographic covariates including age, gender, political orientation, education, and income, and proved robust in weighted and unweighted samples. By identifying interpersonal contact as a behavioral mechanism downstream of personality that may account for individual differences in susceptibility to adopting antisemitic views, results highlight the potential value of contact-facilitation strategies for addressing antisemitism. Findings offer both theoretical insight into personality-behavior-attitude pathways and practical implications for intervention development. • We examine antisemitic attitudes in a representative panel study of Americans. • The personality trait of openness predicted reduced antisemitic attitudes. • Greater contact with Jewish people partially accounted for this effect. • Mediation analysis results replicated in weighted and unweighted samples. • Implications for intervention strategies to address antisemitism are discussed.
Morstead et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: