Allport’s four contact conditions can be reliably coded from program descriptions.
Evidence
Next, for the 134 samples with contact in the context of structured programs, we attempted to conduct more fine-grained ratings for each of Allport’s conditions. Though these research studies often implemented the conditions together, we used “yes” and “no” ratings to discern whether the program clearly and explicitly (a) focused participants on common goals, (b) emphasized a cooperative environment, (c) presented the groups with equal status, and (d) demonstrated authority sanction for the contact. Ratings of these variables by two independent judges yielded kappas between . and .97, with a median kappa of .84. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 91
Categorization
- DEFINE: Specifies exactly what each of Allport’s optimal contact conditions means operationally: common goals, cooperative environment, equal status, and authority sanction.
Related
- Allport’s four contact conditions were meant to operate jointly, not as separate variables (similarity 0.88)
- Allport’s contact conditions function as a package, not separable variables. (similarity 0.87)
- Allport’s four contact conditions must operate together, not individually. (similarity 0.83)
- Allport’s four contact conditions were adopted to explain inconsistent contact outcomes (similarity 0.81)
- Institutional support matters most for contact but backfires under competition or unequal status. (similarity 0.81)
- Allport’s contact hypothesis requires four specific conditions to reduce prejudice (similarity 0.80)
- Allport’s contact hypothesis rested on four distinct situational conditions. (similarity 0.80)
- Allport’s four optimal conditions are facilitating rather than necessary for contact effects. (similarity 0.79)
- Allport’s optimal contact conditions enhance but are not necessary for reducing prejudice. (similarity 0.79)
- Allport’s optimal contact conditions are facilitating rather than essential (similarity 0.78)