Contact theory transfers equivalently from racial to nonracial target groups

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

Related

• Contact theory generalizes equally well to nonracial prejudice targets. (similarity 0.95)
• The contact-prejudice effect varies across samples by design and context (similarity 0.85)
• Intergroup contact is an established general mechanism for reducing prejudice across group types. (similarity 0.84)
• Allport’s contact conditions boost prejudice reduction more for nonracial than racial intergroup contexts (similarity 0.83)
• No meta-analysis of intergroup contact research existed before this study. (similarity 0.83)
• Learning facts about outgroups is not the main way contact reduces prejudice (similarity 0.82)
• Contact reduces hostility even amid conflict and heavy segregation, mainly affectively. (similarity 0.82)
• Contact research spans 250,493 respondents across 38 nations (similarity 0.82)
• Contact effects are largest for sexual orientation, exceeding racial and ethnic groups. (similarity 0.82)
• Contact alone fails to reduce prejudice outside controlled conditions. (similarity 0.82)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice across outgroups, and Allport’s conditions are helpful but not essential. (similarity 0.81)
• Stronger contact effects in rigorous studies would confirm the contact-prejudice link. (similarity 0.81)
• Allport’s contact hypothesis has guided fifty years of intergroup research (similarity 0.81)
• Theorists now seek what is necessary, not just helpful, for contact success (similarity 0.81)
• Meta-analysis pools all studies to estimate effect sizes and moderators (similarity 0.80)