Stronger contact effects in rigorous studies would confirm the contact-prejudice link.

Evidence

If less rigorous research was largely responsible for the average effect size between contact and prejudice, we would hesitate to accept it as established. But if the more rigorous studies produce stronger contact effects, it would lend credibility to the results. Meta-analysts have checked on this issue with a variety of generally accepted indices of rigor. We used five rated variables: type of study, type of contact measure, type of control group, quality of the contact measure, and quality of the prejudice measure. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 52

Categorization

• XREF: This is the classic meta-analytic validity-check design; connects to methodological discussions in other meta-analyses I’ve read. — connects to: More rigorous contact studies show larger prejudice-reduction effects. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 120

Related

• More rigorous contact studies show larger prejudice-reduction effects. (similarity 0.95)
• Randomized contact experiments yield near-large prejudice reduction effects. (similarity 0.91)
• Contact studies with cleaner control groups show larger effects. (similarity 0.90)
• No meta-analysis of intergroup contact research existed before this study. (similarity 0.89)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice even beyond the groups involved. (similarity 0.88)
• Meta-analysis pools all studies to estimate effect sizes and moderators (similarity 0.88)
• Contact’s prejudice-reducing effect is causal, not a selection or publication artifact. (similarity 0.87)
• The contact-prejudice effect varies across samples by design and context (similarity 0.87)
• The contact-prejudice effect may be partly an artifact of publication bias. (similarity 0.87)
• Theorists now seek what is necessary, not just helpful, for contact success (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 0.86)
• Early skeptics judged intergroup contact research premature and methodologically weak. (similarity 0.85)
• Intergroup contact is an established general mechanism for reducing prejudice across group types. (similarity 0.85)
• Negative factors limiting contact’s prejudice reduction remain the least understood (similarity 0.85)