Introduction
Intergroup contact fosters positive social relations, yet political rhetoric is a key influence on intergroup attitudes. While research shows that rhetoric can shape prejudice, little is known about its impact on readiness for intergroup contact. We conceptualise rhetoric as a form of vicarious contact, investigating whether politicians' rhetoric facilitates or inhibits willingness to engage in future interactions with Muslims.


Purpose
We examined the effects of both positive and negative political rhetoric on contact readiness, measured through contact perceptions (how positive interactions are expected to be) and contact intentions (willingness to engage). We also tested intergroup trust, intergroup anxiety, and perceptions of authority norms as potential mediators.


Method
Two experimental studies were conducted with non-Muslim participants randomly assigned to one of three conditions: exposure to positive political rhetoric about Muslims, negative rhetoric, or a control condition. Study 1 (n = 435) employed a smaller sample, while Study 2 (n = 636) used a higher-powered design to replicate and extend findings.


Results
Across both studies, positive rhetoric consistently increased positive contact perceptions and intentions, largely explained by greater intergroup trust. In Study 1, negative rhetoric did not affect contact readiness. In Study 2, negative rhetoric showed conditional effects: participants with lower social dominance orientation (SDO) reported higher intergroup anxiety and less positive perceptions of contact, while those with average or higher SDO showed no significant differences from control.


Conclusions
Findings indicate that political rhetoric, operating as vicarious contact, shapes public willingness to engage with Muslims. Positive rhetoric reliably facilitated readiness for intergroup contact, whereas negative rhetoric produced conditional effects dependent on ideological orientations. These results contribute to understanding both inhibitors and facilitators of contact and highlight political rhetoric as an underexplored avenue within contact theory, thereby opening new pathways for examining how different sources of rhetoric may impact intergroup relations.