ince Wright and Lubensky (2009) suggested that intergroup contact and collective action seem strategically incompatible when it comes to social change, social psychologists have been inclined to see their potential match as one made in hell, rather than in heaven. Against this backdrop, I review and discuss the contributions to this special issue, most of which seem to suggest that intergroup contact and collective action are a match made in heaven, not hell. To account for these seemingly divergent perspectives, I suggest that both intergroup contact and collective action be conceptualized as relational, interaction‐based phenomena within which the forces of harmony and conflict—intergroup contact and collective action, respectively—reflect two sides of the same coin, namely individuals’ need to regulate their relationships within their social network. As such, it is individuals’ embeddedness in (networks of) social relationships that determines whether intergroup contact and collective action work together, or against each other, toward social change. I discuss the need for a broader and integrative theoretical perspective that does justice to the underlying psychology of these phenomena in terms of relationship regulation.

中文翻译：

---

群体间的接触和集体行动：在地狱还是在天堂进行的比赛？

ince Wright和Lubensky（2009）提出，在社会变革方面，群体间的接触和集体行动在战略上似乎是不相容的，社会心理学家倾向于将其潜在的匹配视为在地狱而不是在天堂。在这种背景下，我回顾并讨论了对这一特刊的贡献，其中大多数似乎暗示着群体间的接触和集体行动是天上的对决，而不是地狱。为了解释这些看似不同的观点，我建议将群体间接触和集体行动都概念化为基于关系的，基于相互作用的现象，在这种现象中，和谐与冲突的力量（群体间接触和集体行动）分别反映了同一枚硬币的两个侧面。 ，即个人需要在社交网络中调节自己的关系。因此，正是个人在社会关系（网络）中的嵌入程度决定了群体间的接触和集体行动是共同努力还是相互对抗，以实现社会变革。我讨论了需要更广泛和综合的理论观点，以便从关系调节的角度来看待这些现象的内在心理。