Contact theory generalizes equally well to nonracial prejudice targets.

Evidence

Contact theory was originally developed to address racial and ethnic prejudices, but recent decades have witnessed a massive use of the theory for a range of different target groups. Is this expansion of contact theory justified? And do these nonracial and nonethnic samples yield meta-analytic patterns that are similar to those for racial and ethnic samples? … Comparisons across the racial and ethnic subsets and the nonracial and nonethnic subsets yield virtually identical mean estimates of contact–prejudice effect sizes (mean r . and .220, respectively), QB(1) 0.027, p .87. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 159

Categorization

• QUESTION: Interesting to investigate what nonracial/nonethnic target groups have been tested under contact theory — the passage doesn’t enumerate them.
• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source

Related

• Contact theory transfers equivalently from racial to nonracial target groups (similarity 0.95)
• The contact-prejudice effect varies across samples by design and context (similarity 0.86)
• Intergroup contact is an established general mechanism for reducing prejudice across group types. (similarity 0.85)
• Stronger contact effects in rigorous studies would confirm the contact-prejudice link. (similarity 0.84)
• Allport’s contact conditions boost prejudice reduction more for nonracial than racial intergroup contexts (similarity 0.84)
• Contact’s prejudice reduction must generalize beyond the immediate situation to matter. (similarity 0.83)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice across outgroups, and Allport’s conditions are helpful but not essential. (similarity 0.83)
• Contact reduces hostility even amid conflict and heavy segregation, mainly affectively. (similarity 0.83)
• No meta-analysis of intergroup contact research existed before this study. (similarity 0.83)
• Contact alone fails to reduce prejudice outside controlled conditions. (similarity 0.82)
• More rigorous contact studies show larger prejudice-reduction effects. (similarity 0.82)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice even beyond the groups involved. (similarity 0.82)
• Contact research spans 250,493 respondents across 38 nations (similarity 0.82)
• Even under apartheid and segregation, intergroup contact reduced prejudice. (similarity 0.82)
• Allport’s contact hypothesis has guided fifty years of intergroup research (similarity 0.82)