No meta-analysis of intergroup contact research existed before this study.

Evidence

Given these limitations of past reviews and the diverse nature of contact research, the evaluation of this literature requires a metaanalytic approach. Yet, to our knowledge, no investigators have conducted such an analysis of this vast and rich research literature. Thus, a central goal of the present research was to assess the overall effect between intergroup contact and prejudice on the basis of the population of empirical studies that constitute the research literature of the 20th century. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 29

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: A meta-analysis synthesized 515 studies with 250,089 participants across 38 nations. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 30

Related

• A meta-analysis synthesized 515 studies with 250,089 participants across 38 nations. (similarity 0.93)
• Early skeptics judged intergroup contact research premature and methodologically weak. (similarity 0.91)
• Theorists now seek what is necessary, not just helpful, for contact success (similarity 0.90)
• Meta-analysis pools all studies to estimate effect sizes and moderators (similarity 0.89)
• Stronger contact effects in rigorous studies would confirm the contact-prejudice link. (similarity 0.89)
• Prior contact research reviews each covered fewer than 60 studies. (similarity 0.89)
• Intergroup contact is an established general mechanism for reducing prejudice across group types. (similarity 0.88)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice even beyond the groups involved. (similarity 0.88)
• Intergroup contact research has expanded beyond prejudice to test trust, forgiveness, and ingroup perception. (similarity 0.87)
• Contact research spans 250,493 respondents across 38 nations (similarity 0.87)
• Intergroup contact theory originated in a 1947 synthesis of 102 propositions. (similarity 0.87)
• Subjective literature reviews suffer selection biases that meta-analysis avoids. (similarity 0.87)
• The contact-prejudice effect varies across samples by design and context (similarity 0.86)
• Negative factors limiting contact’s prejudice reduction remain the least understood (similarity 0.86)
• Randomized contact experiments yield near-large prejudice reduction effects. (similarity 0.86)