Casual tourism contact reduces prejudice far less than structured or recreational contact

Evidence

Contact setting. Various research settings relate significantly to the size of the effects (see Table 12). Although there likely are differences in intensity and duration of contact among these settings, their discrepant mean effects are suggestive. The smallest mean effect results from intergroup contact through tourism and travel. Though based on only 13 samples from nine studies, this tourism effect size (mean r .113) is significantly smaller than is that of the other samples combined (mean r .217), QB(1) 3.84, p .05. By contrast, the largest mean effects emerge from contact that occurs in recreational and laboratory settings. The 48 samples studied in these settings provide a mean effect (mean r .287) that is significantly larger than that of the other settings combined (mean r .211), QB(1) 6.86, p .01. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 204

Categorization

• QUESTION: Why does tourism contact underperform so dramatically? This suggests superficial, unequal-status encounters may even be counterproductive vs. structured intergroup contact.
• ADDENDUM: Connects to the contact-hypothesis mechanics worth adding as supporting evidence to a discussion of how intergroup relations change.
• XREF: connects to: Proximity to outgroup members does not constitute actual intergroup contact. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 58; Structured contact programs yield consistent and stronger prejudice reduction — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 137; Most prejudice-reducing contact occurs outside Allport’s presumed optimal conditions. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 226

Related

• Most prejudice-reducing contact occurs outside Allport’s presumed optimal conditions. (similarity 0.91)
• Structured contact programs yield consistent and stronger prejudice reduction (similarity 0.89)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice even beyond the groups involved. (similarity 0.86)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice across outgroups, and Allport’s conditions are helpful but not essential. (similarity 0.85)
• Randomized contact experiments yield near-large prejudice reduction effects. (similarity 0.84)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice more strongly than prejudice drives avoidance of contact (similarity 0.83)
• Mere exposure to outgroup members reduces prejudice even without optimal conditions. (similarity 0.83)
• Allport’s optimal contact conditions facilitate but are not necessary for prejudice reduction (similarity 0.83)
• The contact-prejudice effect varies across samples by design and context (similarity 0.83)
• Contact’s prejudice-reducing effect is causal, not a selection or publication artifact. (similarity 0.83)
• More rigorous contact studies show larger prejudice-reduction effects. (similarity 0.83)
• Proximity to outgroup members does not constitute actual intergroup contact. (similarity 0.82)
• Allport’s optimal contact conditions are facilitating rather than essential (similarity 0.82)
• Superficial intergroup contact can actually worsen rather than reduce prejudice (similarity 0.82)
• Affective factors, not knowledge gain, drive contact’s prejudice-reducing effect (similarity 0.82)