Contact studies vary in how they generalize findings beyond immediate settings.

Evidence

The ratings of participant characteristics included age, sex, and geographical area of the study and the kind of target group involved (e.g., racial or ethnic, elderly, mentally ill). Additional ratings focused on the contact situation, including the setting of the contact (e.g., educational, residential, laboratory) and whether participants had any choice in participating in the contact. Another rating concerned the type of generalization involved (e.g., to outgroup members within the situation, to the whole outgroup, across situations, or to other outgroups). — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 78

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies the distinct generalization targets of intergroup-contact research, which is useful framing vocabulary.
• XREF: connects to: Intergroup contact’s usefulness depends on attitude change generalizing beyond the immediate situation. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 51

Related

• Intergroup contact’s usefulness depends on attitude change generalizing beyond the immediate situation. (similarity 0.91)
• No meta-analysis of intergroup contact research existed before this study. (similarity 0.85)
• Contact’s prejudice reduction must generalize beyond the immediate situation to matter. (similarity 0.85)
• Contact effects persist beyond the immediate contact situation. (similarity 0.85)
• Theorists now seek what is necessary, not just helpful, for contact success (similarity 0.84)
• High group salience in studies explains contact’s broad generalization effects (similarity 0.84)
• Intergroup contact research has expanded beyond prejudice to test trust, forgiveness, and ingroup perception. (similarity 0.84)
• Face-to-face contact with out-group individuals can improve attitudes toward the whole group. (similarity 0.83)
• Proximity to outgroup members does not constitute actual intergroup contact. (similarity 0.83)
• A meta-analysis synthesized 515 studies with 250,089 participants across 38 nations. (similarity 0.83)
• Early skeptics judged intergroup contact research premature and methodologically weak. (similarity 0.82)
• Prior contact research reviews each covered fewer than 60 studies. (similarity 0.82)
• Stronger contact effects in rigorous studies would confirm the contact-prejudice link. (similarity 0.82)
• Intergroup contact is an established general mechanism for reducing prejudice across group types. (similarity 0.82)
• Minimal group experiments offered a laboratory testbed for contact research. (similarity 0.81)