Negative factors limiting contact’s prejudice reduction remain the least understood

Evidence

But the meta-analytic data reveal that the knowledge gained from past contact research is limited by its primary emphasis on positive features of the contact situation. Factors that curb contact’s ability to reduce prejudice are now the most problematic theoretically, yet the least understood. These negative factors, ranging from intergroup anxiety (Stephan & Stephan, 1985) to authoritarianism and normative restraints (Pettigrew, Wagner, Stellmacher, & Christ, 2006), deserve to become a major focus of future contact research. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 232

Categorization

• QUESTION: Worth chasing: which specific negative factors (intergroup anxiety, authoritarianism, normative restraints) have since received empirical attention, and what was found?

Related

• Affective factors, not knowledge gain, drive contact’s prejudice-reducing effect (similarity 0.87)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice across outgroups, and Allport’s conditions are helpful but not essential. (similarity 0.87)
• Allport’s optimal contact conditions are facilitating rather than essential (similarity 0.87)
• Theorists now seek what is necessary, not just helpful, for contact success (similarity 0.86)
• No meta-analysis of intergroup contact research existed before this study. (similarity 0.86)
• Contact’s prejudice-reducing effect is causal, not a selection or publication artifact. (similarity 0.86)
• Intergroup contact research has expanded beyond prejudice to test trust, forgiveness, and ingroup perception. (similarity 0.86)
• Intergroup contact is an established general mechanism for reducing prejudice across group types. (similarity 0.86)
• Early skeptics judged intergroup contact research premature and methodologically weak. (similarity 0.85)
• Stronger contact effects in rigorous studies would confirm the contact-prejudice link. (similarity 0.85)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice even beyond the groups involved. (similarity 0.85)
• Contact’s prejudice reduction must generalize beyond the immediate situation to matter. (similarity 0.85)
• Contact research should start from the default prediction of prejudice reduction (similarity 0.85)
• Contact research spans 250,493 respondents across 38 nations (similarity 0.85)
• Allport’s optimal contact conditions enhance but are not necessary for reducing prejudice. (similarity 0.85)