How intergroup programs are conducted matters more than which techniques they use.

Evidence

Although the studies were coded for a host of other factors that are thought to affect the impact of these programs (e.g., holding group discussions, providing information on cultural differences, viewing films/videos), none of these factors proved to be positively related to the effect sizes in these studies, perhaps because all of these studies employed multiple techniques, making it difficult to disentangle the effectiveness of any particular technique. In addition, the age of the participants and the duration of the programs were unrelated to effect sizes. These programs appeared to be equally effective with majority and minority group members. At the present state of our knowledge, it appears that the manner in which the programs are conducted may be more important than the specific techniques that are employed. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2668

Categorization

• QUESTION: What exactly about ‘the manner’ of conducting programs drives effect sizes, if specific techniques don’t? Worth chasing the original meta-analysis for clues.
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 2668