Cross-group prejudice correlation shows attitudes are not driven by intergroup contact

Evidence

A potential participant selection bias could limit the interpretation of many studies of intergroup contact (Pettigrew, 1998). Instead of optimal contact reducing prejudice, the opposite causal sequence could be at work. Prejudiced people may avoid, and tolerant people may seek, contact with outgroups. … Statistical methods borrowed from econometrics allow researchers to compare roughly the reciprocal paths (contact lowers prejudice vs. prejudice decreases contact) with cross-sectional data. As shown directly in other research (e.g., Herek & Capitanio, 1996), these methods reveal that prejudiced people do indeed avoid intergroup contact. But the path from contact to reduced prejudice is generally much stronger (Butler & Wilson, 1978; Pettigrew, 1997; Powers & Ellison, 1995; Van Dick et al., 2004). Longitudinal studies also have revealed that optimal contact reduces prejudice over time (e.g., Eller & Abrams, 2003, 2004; Levin, van Laar, & Sidanius, 2003), even when researchers have eliminated the possibility of participant selection (e.g., Sherif, 1966). Thus, various methods suggest that, although both sequences operate, the more important effect is that of intergroup contact reducing prejudice. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 37 (#complicates, via linked claim)

What accounts for these various forms of intergroup attitudes? A comparative analysis of race, class, and gender relations in the US found that the specific configuration of intergroup attitudes varies according to the structure of the relationship ( Jackman, 1994). For example, in race relations, marked by pervasive spatial distance mechanisms and limited opportunities for personal intergroup contact, the groups manifest a deep ideological rift, substantial own-group preference, and assertions of negative but probabilistically attributed stereotypes about Blacks by a substantial proportion of Whites. In gender relations, marked by pervasive social distance mechanisms and dense personal contacts across group lines, there is barely any ideological rift or own-group preference between groups, and women are categorically stereotyped by both groups with positive, communal traits. None of the intergroup relations (race, gender, or class) corresponds to the expectations of Allport’s prejudice model, i.e., free-ranging, hostile feelings or unmitigated, derogatory stereotypes. And yet all three intergroup relations have marked inequalities between groups in economic outcomes, status, and power, and pronounced tendencies among dominant group members to maintain these inequalities. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 662 (#complicates, via linked claim)

In meta-analytic fashion, the European surveys tested the link between intergroup friendship and five different measures of prejudice across seven samples (Pettigrew 1997a). Weighting for sample size, the average correlations ranged between −. and −. without controls. With controls for seven variables and weighting for sample size, the average correlations ranged between −. and −.25. These results are consistent with the preliminary findings of a meta-analysis of the full contact literature now under way (Pettigrew et al 1998). — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Intergroup Contact Theory, 103 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Demographic controls do not explain intergroup contact effects on reconciliation. — Linda R. Tropp and Diala Hawi and Thomas C. O’Brien and Mirona Gheorghiu and Alexandra Zetes and David Butz, Intergroup Contact and the Potential…, 392; Intergroup contact predicts forgiveness-related attitudes even in those who suffered sectarian conflict. — Miles Hewstone and Ed Cairns and Alberto Voci and Juergen Hamberger and Ulrike Niens, Intergroup Contact, Forgiveness, and…, 2; Intergroup contact most strongly and reliably predicts willingness to mix with the outgroup — Miles Hewstone and Ed Cairns and Alberto Voci and Juergen Hamberger and Ulrike Niens, Intergroup Contact, Forgiveness, and…, 43 (+12 more)

Broader Connections

• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice more strongly than prejudice drives avoidance of contact #complicates (0.82) — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 37
• Intergroup attitude structures vary with the relationship’s contact patterns #complicates (0.79) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 662
• Intergroup friendship correlates negatively with prejudice even after controlling for other variables #complicates (0.78) — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Intergroup Contact Theory, 103
• Prejudice is acquired through learning, conformity, and intergroup contact #complicates (0.76) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1974
• Cross-group friendship shapes positive intergroup attitudes more than casual contact does. #complicates (0.75) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 556
• Positive contact reduces prejudice most when group membership stays salient #complicates (0.75) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1844
• Structured equal-status intergroup contact reduces prejudice when institutionally supported #complicates (0.74) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 129
• Cross-group friendship and empathy reduce the threat behind intergroup bias. #complicates (0.73) — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 165
• Perceiving ingroups as crosscutting reduces discrimination and improves outgroup attitudes #complicates (0.72) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 532