The contact-prejudice effect varies across samples by design and context

Evidence

At the same time, these effect sizes are highly heterogeneous across the samples (Qw(695) 4,990.44, p .0001). Indeed, even when we remove the results of one fifth of the samples that are the largest outliers, highly significant heterogeneity remains. Such vast heterogeneity is, of course, precisely what intergroup contact theory predicts. These studies are highly diverse as to research methods, participants, situations, and targets, all of which are potential moderators of the link between contact and prejudice. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 95

Geographic area. With 72% of our samples conducted in the United States, it is important to determine whether there are significant differences in effect sizes in contact research conducted elsewhere. A general test across the six geographical areas revealed no significant differences in effects, QB(5) 1.88, p . (see Table 12). And a focused test shows that there is virtually no difference in effect sizes between U.S. (mean r .215) and non–U.S. samples (mean r .217), QB(1) .01, p .90. — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 203

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: Supports the general ‘grafting and growth’ theme about contact/infrastructure as connecting mechanisms, showing that effect strength is conditional on context.
• SEED: Angle: a claim that intergroup-contact effects are culturally universal — the rare social-science finding that holds across six world regions.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 95; Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup…, 203

Related

• More rigorous contact studies show larger prejudice-reduction effects. (similarity 0.88)
• Randomized contact experiments yield near-large prejudice reduction effects. (similarity 0.87)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice even beyond the groups involved. (similarity 0.87)
• Stronger contact effects in rigorous studies would confirm the contact-prejudice link. (similarity 0.87)
• No meta-analysis of intergroup contact research existed before this study. (similarity 0.86)
• Contact theory generalizes equally well to nonracial prejudice targets. (similarity 0.86)
• Contact’s prejudice-reducing effect is causal, not a selection or publication artifact. (similarity 0.85)
• Intergroup contact is an established general mechanism for reducing prejudice across group types. (similarity 0.85)
• Contact research spans 250,493 respondents across 38 nations (similarity 0.85)
• Contact theory transfers equivalently from racial to nonracial target groups (similarity 0.85)
• Contact effects persist beyond the immediate contact situation. (similarity 0.85)
• Contact reduces hostility even amid conflict and heavy segregation, mainly affectively. (similarity 0.85)
• The contact-prejudice effect may be partly an artifact of publication bias. (similarity 0.85)
• Contact studies with cleaner control groups show larger effects. (similarity 0.84)
• Intergroup contact reduces prejudice across outgroups, and Allport’s conditions are helpful but not essential. (similarity 0.84)