Early skeptics judged intergroup contact research premature and methodologically weak.

Evidence

Stephan (1987) acknowledged that intergroup contact has the potential to reduce prejudice, but he emphasized the complexity involved in the link between intergroup contact and prejudice. For example, characteristics of the contact setting, the groups under study, and the individuals involved may all contribute to enhancing or inhibiting contact’s effects (see also Patchen, 1999; Pettigrew, 1998; Riordan, 1978). Additional reviews have been more critical regarding the potential for contact to promote positive intergroup outcomes. Ford (1986) examined 53 papers (from six journals) on contact. He found support for the contact hypothesis to be, at best, “premature” and that the research presented in these papers was “grossly insufficient in representing the various settings of daily life” (Ford, 1986, p. 256). McClendon (1974) suggested that “contact research has been rather unsophisticated and lacking in rigor” (p. 47) and concluded that this body of work “would not lead [one] to expect a widespread reduction in prejudice” (p. 52). — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 22

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Intergroup contact theory originated in a 1947 synthesis of 102 propositions. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 8

Related

• No meta-analysis of intergroup contact research existed before this study. (similarity 0.91)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice even beyond the groups involved. (similarity 0.90)
• Intergroup contact theory originated in a 1947 synthesis of 102 propositions. (similarity 0.90)
• Intergroup contact is an established general mechanism for reducing prejudice across group types. (similarity 0.89)
• Intergroup contact research has expanded beyond prejudice to test trust, forgiveness, and ingroup perception. (similarity 0.89)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice across outgroups, and Allport’s conditions are helpful but not essential. (similarity 0.88)
• Theorists now seek what is necessary, not just helpful, for contact success (similarity 0.87)
• Stronger contact effects in rigorous studies would confirm the contact-prejudice link. (similarity 0.85)
• Negative factors limiting contact’s prejudice reduction remain the least understood (similarity 0.85)
• Contact effects persist beyond the immediate contact situation. (similarity 0.85)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice only under four specific optimal conditions. (similarity 0.85)
• Randomized contact experiments yield near-large prejudice reduction effects. (similarity 0.84)
• Allport’s optimal contact conditions facilitate but are not necessary for prejudice reduction (similarity 0.84)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice more strongly than prejudice drives avoidance of contact (similarity 0.84)
• Contact’s prejudice reduction must generalize beyond the immediate situation to matter. (similarity 0.84)