Intergroup contact research has expanded beyond prejudice to test trust, forgiveness, and ingroup perception.

Evidence

These advances raise the possibility of the development of a model considerably more complex and complete than Allport’s original “contact hypothesis.” Contemporary research has examined a range of additional mediators of contact effects, including perspective taking (Craig, Cairns, Hewstone, & Voci, 2002), broadened views of the ingroup (e.g., Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Pettigrew, 1998; Sherif, 1966), and the perceived importance of the contact (Van Dick et al., 2004). The search for mediators has also involved an expanded investigation of contact effects. Beyond the influence of contact on prejudice, researchers have tested the effects of intergroup contact on such variables as intergroup differentiation and outgroup variability (Islam & Hewstone, 1993; Oaker & Brown, 1986; Paolini et al., 2004), ingroup pride (London & Linney, 1993), and a willingness to trust and forgive the outgroup (Hewstone et al., 2005). — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 235

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Intergroup contact is an established general mechanism for reducing prejudice across group types. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 239

Related

• Intergroup contact is an established general mechanism for reducing prejudice across group types. (similarity 0.93)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice even beyond the groups involved. (similarity 0.90)
• Early skeptics judged intergroup contact research premature and methodologically weak. (similarity 0.89)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice across outgroups, and Allport’s conditions are helpful but not essential. (similarity 0.89)
• Theorists now seek what is necessary, not just helpful, for contact success (similarity 0.88)
• No meta-analysis of intergroup contact research existed before this study. (similarity 0.87)
• Contact effects persist beyond the immediate contact situation. (similarity 0.87)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice more strongly than prejudice drives avoidance of contact (similarity 0.87)
• Contact’s prejudice reduction must generalize beyond the immediate situation to matter. (similarity 0.86)
• Intergroup contact most strongly and reliably predicts willingness to mix with the outgroup (similarity 0.86)
• Affective factors, not knowledge gain, drive contact’s prejudice-reducing effect (similarity 0.86)
• Stronger contact effects in rigorous studies would confirm the contact-prejudice link. (similarity 0.86)
• Low interethnic contact sustains rejection of collective guilt (similarity 0.86)
• Negative factors limiting contact’s prejudice reduction remain the least understood (similarity 0.86)
• More rigorous contact studies show larger prejudice-reduction effects. (similarity 0.86)