More rigorous contact studies show larger prejudice-reduction effects.

Evidence

Results from five rated variables reveal that greater research rigor is routinely associated with larger effect sizes. Put differently, the less rigorous studies sharply reduce the overall relationships observed between contact and prejudice. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 120

To further demonstrate the combined importance of these three methodological predictors, we formed a subset of 77 samples that boasted the most rigorous category for each of these variables. The mean effect for this rigorous subset (r .323) proved far stronger than did that of the remaining, less rigorous samples (r .202), QB(1) 35.96, p .0001. Thus, when properly tested with rigorous measures and research procedures, studies of contact–prejudice relationships typically yield larger effects. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 146

Categorization

• QUESTION: What mechanism explains this? Perhaps rigorous studies reduce noise better, or perhaps publication/citation dynamics — worth investigating.
• SEED: A surprising methodological twist: apparent effect sizes in this literature were being diluted by sloppy measurement — an argument that rigor in design can itself reveal stronger real-world effects.
• DEEPTHINKING: The counterintuitive inversion — careful controls don’t shrink effects, they amplify them — folds into a broader principle about how measurement quality shapes what we think we know.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 120; Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 146
• XREF: connects to: Stronger contact effects in rigorous studies would confirm the contact-prejudice link. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 52; Randomized contact experiments yield near-large prejudice reduction effects. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 121; 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

• Stronger contact effects in rigorous studies would confirm the contact-prejudice link. (similarity 0.95)
• Randomized contact experiments yield near-large prejudice reduction effects. (similarity 0.94)
• Contact studies with cleaner control groups show larger effects. (similarity 0.90)
• Contact’s prejudice-reducing effect is causal, not a selection or publication artifact. (similarity 0.90)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice even beyond the groups involved. (similarity 0.89)
• The contact-prejudice effect varies across samples by design and context (similarity 0.88)
• The contact-prejudice effect may be partly an artifact of publication bias. (similarity 0.88)
• Affective factors, not knowledge gain, drive contact’s prejudice-reducing effect (similarity 0.87)
• Contact effects persist beyond the immediate contact situation. (similarity 0.86)
• Intergroup contact research has expanded beyond prejudice to test trust, forgiveness, and ingroup perception. (similarity 0.86)
• No meta-analysis of intergroup contact research existed before this study. (similarity 0.85)
• Contact effects on prejudice are strongest when the contact measure is friendship (similarity 0.85)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice more strongly than prejudice drives avoidance of contact (similarity 0.85)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice across outgroups, and Allport’s conditions are helpful but not essential. (similarity 0.85)
• Intergroup contact is an established general mechanism for reducing prejudice across group types. (similarity 0.85)