The conditions that inhibit positive contact effects are the least understood.

Evidence

This shift in perspective challenges the original “positive factors” approach taken by Allport in The Nature of Prejudice. But this revised view is consistent with the contentions of other theorists who propose that greater contact and familiarity typically contribute to increased liking (e.g., Homans, 1950; Zajonc, 1968). And presently, with only a minute number of contact studies showing contact leading to greater prejudice, the “negative factors” that curb reductions in prejudice now appear to be the most problematic theoretically, yet the least understood. Thus, future contact research must grant more attention to the negative factors operating in contact situations to enhance understanding of the conditions that may inhibit the development of positive contact outcomes. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1711

Categorization

Category: Causal Relationships

• XREF: Echoes the mere-exposure effect literature (Zajonc) and connects to Allport’s original four conditions discussed elsewhere in this volume.

Related

• Negative factors inhibiting contact’s effect are the least understood theoretically (similarity 0.97)
• Allport doubted contact would reduce prejudice except under specified positive conditions. (similarity 0.86)
• Allport’s four optimal conditions are facilitating rather than necessary for contact effects. (similarity 0.86)
• Contact research should start from the default prediction of prejudice reduction (similarity 0.86)
• Allport’s optimal contact conditions are facilitating rather than essential (similarity 0.85)
• Contact reduces prejudice chiefly through affective processes even amid active conflict (similarity 0.84)
• Contact reduces prejudice through five distinct mediating processes spanning cognitive, affective, and behavioral channels. (similarity 0.84)
• Contact effects on prejudice are strongest when the contact measure is friendship (similarity 0.83)
• Contact alone fails to reduce prejudice outside controlled conditions. (similarity 0.83)
• Superficial casual contact between groups can worsen rather than reduce prejudice. (similarity 0.83)
• Contact research has split into two questions of when and how contact reduces prejudice (similarity 0.83)
• Contact reduces hostility even amid conflict and heavy segregation, mainly affectively. (similarity 0.83)
• Allport’s optimal contact conditions enhance but are not necessary for reducing prejudice. (similarity 0.82)
• Allport’s four contact conditions must operate together, not individually. (similarity 0.82)
• Modern research shifted contact theory from whether to when and how bias reduces. (similarity 0.82)