Prior contact research reviews each covered fewer than 60 studies.

Evidence

Whereas there have been literally dozens of partial reviews of the contact literature, we are not aware of any review of this vast literature that attempts to encompass the entire relevant research base. Instead, past reviews have typically been restricted to a particular set of groups, such as racial or ethnic groups (e.g., Patchen, 1999), or a particular contact setting, such as interracial housing (e.g., Cagle, 1973) or schools (e.g., Carithers, 1970). Further examination also reveals that these reviews covered a mean of less than 60 research articles each, compared with the hundreds of studies that comprise the contact research literature. Thus, past reviews offer only limited views regarding the effects of intergroup contact. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 24

Categorization

• XREF: The methodological point that fragmented reviews produce divergent conclusions connects to broader epistemics of meta-analysis and how scope limits drive conflicting literature assessments. — 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

• No meta-analysis of intergroup contact research existed before this study. (similarity 0.89)
• A meta-analysis synthesized 515 studies with 250,089 participants across 38 nations. (similarity 0.88)
• Subjective literature reviews suffer selection biases that meta-analysis avoids. (similarity 0.87)
• Meta-analysis pools all studies to estimate effect sizes and moderators (similarity 0.82)
• Contact studies vary in how they generalize findings beyond immediate settings. (similarity 0.82)
• Stronger contact effects in rigorous studies would confirm the contact-prejudice link. (similarity 0.81)
• Early skeptics judged intergroup contact research premature and methodologically weak. (similarity 0.81)
• Contact research spans 250,493 respondents across 38 nations (similarity 0.81)
• Intergroup contact studies grew steadily across each decade since 1960 (similarity 0.80)
• Theorists now seek what is necessary, not just helpful, for contact success (similarity 0.80)
• The contact-prejudice effect varies across samples by design and context (similarity 0.79)
• Random effects meta-analysis suits heterogeneous literatures with ill-specified treatments (similarity 0.79)
• Contact studies with cleaner control groups show larger effects. (similarity 0.78)
• More rigorous contact studies show larger prejudice-reduction effects. (similarity 0.78)
• Contact theory generalizes equally well to nonracial prejudice targets. (similarity 0.78)