Randomized contact experiments yield near-large prejudice reduction effects.

Evidence

Table 3 shows that samples tested with true experiments (mean r .336) yield significantly larger effects than do those tested with either quasi-experiments (mean r .237), QB(1) 6.72, p .01, or surveys and field studies (mean r .204), QB(1) 15.99, p .001. Note that contact’s effects on prejudice in experiments (r .336) approach what Cohen (1988) described as a “large” effect size for psychological data (d .713). — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 121

One measure of research rigor involves the type of study. Table 3 shows that samples tested with true experiments (mean r .336) yield significantly larger effects than do those tested with either quasi-experiments (mean r .237), QB(1) 6.72, p .01, or surveys and field studies (mean r .204), QB(1) 15.99, p .001. Note that contact’s effects on prejudice in experiments (r .336) approach what Cohen (1988) described as a “large” effect size for psychological data (d .713). — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 121

Categorization

• XREF: This is the classic Petttigrew & Tropp meta-analysis — foundational for the intergroup contact literature, relevant to anyone studying social psychology or prejudice reduction programs. — connects to: More rigorous contact studies show larger prejudice-reduction effects. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 120
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 121

Related

• More rigorous contact studies show larger prejudice-reduction effects. (similarity 0.94)
• Stronger contact effects in rigorous studies would confirm the contact-prejudice link. (similarity 0.91)
• Contact’s prejudice-reducing effect is causal, not a selection or publication artifact. (similarity 0.89)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice even beyond the groups involved. (similarity 0.89)
• Contact studies with cleaner control groups show larger effects. (similarity 0.88)
• The contact-prejudice effect varies across samples by design and context (similarity 0.87)
• Affective factors, not knowledge gain, drive contact’s prejudice-reducing effect (similarity 0.86)
• No meta-analysis of intergroup contact research existed before this study. (similarity 0.86)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice across outgroups, and Allport’s conditions are helpful but not essential. (similarity 0.86)
• The contact-prejudice effect may be partly an artifact of publication bias. (similarity 0.86)
• 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 0.85)
• Meta-analysis pools all studies to estimate effect sizes and moderators (similarity 0.85)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice more strongly than prejudice drives avoidance of contact (similarity 0.85)
• Intergroup contact is an established general mechanism for reducing prejudice across group types. (similarity 0.85)