Intergroup contact reduces prejudice even beyond the groups involved.

Evidence

In addition, only 17 of the tests, drawn from nine samples, checked on contact’s effects on prejudice across situations (but see Gathing, 1991; Nesdale & Todd, 1998, 2000). These few tests rendered considerable generalization (mean r .244). Finally, 18 additional tests checked on contact effects on prejudice toward outgroups not involved in the contact. This rarely considered form of generalization also operates (mean r .190). Taken together, these results suggest a far wider generalization net of contact effects than is commonly thought. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 119

The meta-analytic results clearly indicate that intergroup contact typically reduces intergroup prejudice. Synthesizing effects from 696 samples, the meta-analysis reveals that greater intergroup contact is generally associated with lower levels of prejudice (mean r .215). Moreover, the mean effect rises sharply for experiments and other rigorously conducted studies. In addition, 94% of the samples in our analysis show an inverse relationship between intergroup contact and prejudice. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 215

First, we noted in figure 16.2 that intergroup contact typically leads to positive outcomes even when no intergroup friendships were reported and in the absence of Allport’s proposed conditions. Indeed, 95 percent of the 714 samples included in our meta-analysis reported that greater intergroup contact corresponds with lower intergroup prejudice; but only 10 percent of the contact measures involved intergroup friendship and only 19 percent of the samples reported contact under Allport’s conditions. In his formulation, Allport held his optimal factors to be essential conditions for intergroup contact to diminish prejudice. But our results indicate that, while these factors are important, they are not necessary for achieving positive effects from intergroup contact. Instead, Allport’s conditions are better thought of as facilitating, rather than essential, conditions for positive contact outcomes to occur. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1709

Overall, results from the meta-analysis reveal that greater levels of intergroup contact are typically associated with lower levels of prejudice across the three levels of analysis: studies (mean d = −0.43, mean r = −0.21), samples (mean d = −0.43, mean r = −0.21), and tests (mean d = −0.42, mean r = −0.20). Additional analyses indicate that these results are unlikely to be due to participant selection or publication biases; also, the more rigorous research studies reveal stronger contact–prejudice relationships. Moreover, these effects typically generalized, such that contact with individual outgroup members contributed to less prejudice toward the entire outgroup – an issue that has been debated extensively in the research literature (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2004a). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1685

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the classic ‘contact hypothesis’ literature (Allport) and recent critiques questioning its scalability; the generalization finding challenges common assumptions. — connects to: Contact effects persist beyond the immediate contact situation. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 118; Even under apartheid and segregation, intergroup contact reduced prejudice. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 227
• SEED: Could support an article on evidence-based approaches to reducing prejudice, contrasting the strong meta-analytic support for contact with weak popular interventions.
• QUESTION: This is the canonical Pettigrew & Tropp meta-analytic estimate; worth comparing against the effect sizes reported elsewhere in the vault and any critiques of selection/publication bias.
• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 119; Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 215; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1709 (+1 more)