High group salience in studies explains contact’s broad generalization effects

Evidence

It is likely that the demands of the contact research situation (or the need for reflection by those reporting on past contact) led to high group salience in most of the studies. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 234

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to whether dissolving an enemy boundary transfers: generalization only spreads when group membership stays salient — a caution for the reader’s enmity-dismantling question. — connects to: Contact’s prejudice-reducing effect is causal, not a selection or publication artifact. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 216

Related

• Contact’s prejudice reduction must generalize beyond the immediate situation to matter. (similarity 0.88)
• Intergroup contact’s usefulness depends on attitude change generalizing beyond the immediate situation. (similarity 0.86)
• Contact effects persist beyond the immediate contact situation. (similarity 0.86)
• Contact studies vary in how they generalize findings beyond immediate settings. (similarity 0.84)
• Keeping group identities salient during contact improves generalization of positive feelings (similarity 0.83)
• Theorists now seek what is necessary, not just helpful, for contact success (similarity 0.83)
• Intergroup contact is an established general mechanism for reducing prejudice across group types. (similarity 0.82)
• No meta-analysis of intergroup contact research existed before this study. (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)
• Intergroup contact research has expanded beyond prejudice to test trust, forgiveness, and ingroup perception. (similarity 0.82)
• Salient group category awareness improves prejudice reduction during contact. (similarity 0.82)
• Stronger contact effects in rigorous studies would confirm the contact-prejudice link. (similarity 0.82)
• Contact’s prejudice-reducing effect is causal, not a selection or publication artifact. (similarity 0.81)
• Positive contact reduces prejudice most when group membership stays salient (similarity 0.81)