Cross-orientation contact reduces prejudice more than contact with the mentally ill

Evidence

The largest effects emerge for samples involving contact between heterosexuals and gay men and lesbians (mean r .271). These effects are significantly larger than are those for the other samples combined (mean r .211), QB(1) 5.34, p .02. Research focused on contact with the physically disabled (mean r .243) also provides a larger-than-average effect size. … But research with other target groups generally produces smaller effects. In particular, samples concerning contact with the mentally ill and the elderly combined (mean r .183) render significantly lower mean effects than do the other target groups combined (mean r .221), QB(1) 4.51, p .03. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 175

Categorization

• QUESTION: Why does contact work best for sexuality and disability but worst for mental illness and age? These targets may involve dimensions seen as less mutable or as unwanted similarity.
• XREF: connects to: Cross-group friendship especially reduces prejudice through intimacy and equal-status contact. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 98

Related

• Contact effects are largest for sexual orientation, exceeding racial and ethnic groups. (similarity 0.83)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice best when group categories stay salient. (similarity 0.82)
• Contact with one out-group improves attitudes toward unrelated out-groups (similarity 0.82)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice across outgroups, and Allport’s conditions are helpful but not essential. (similarity 0.81)
• Cross-group friendship especially reduces prejudice through intimacy and equal-status contact. (similarity 0.81)
• Contact effects on prejudice are strongest when the contact measure is friendship (similarity 0.81)
• Intergroup contact is an established general mechanism for reducing prejudice across group types. (similarity 0.80)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice even beyond the groups involved. (similarity 0.80)
• Theorists now seek what is necessary, not just helpful, for contact success (similarity 0.80)
• Contact reduces hostility even amid conflict and heavy segregation, mainly affectively. (similarity 0.80)
• Negative factors limiting contact’s prejudice reduction remain the least understood (similarity 0.80)
• Stronger contact effects in rigorous studies would confirm the contact-prejudice link. (similarity 0.80)
• Allport’s optimal contact conditions are facilitating rather than essential (similarity 0.80)
• Allport held that equal-status contact alone cannot reduce prejudice (similarity 0.80)
• Contact’s prejudice-reducing effect is causal, not a selection or publication artifact. (similarity 0.80)