The present article presents a meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. With 713 independent samples from 515 studies, the meta-analysis finds that intergroup contact typically reduces intergroup prejudice. Multiple tests indicate that this finding appears not to result from either participant selection or publication biases, and the more rigorous studies yield larger mean effects. These contact effects typically generalize to the entire outgroup, and they emerge across a broad range of outgroup targets and contact settings. Similar patterns also emerge for samples with racial or ethnic targets and samples with other targets. This result suggests that contact theory, devised originally for racial and ethnic encounters, can be extended to other groups. A global indicator of Allport's optimal contact conditions demonstrates that contact under these conditions typically leads to even greater reduction in prejudice. Closer examination demonstrates that these conditions are best conceptualized as an interrelated bundle rather than as independent factors. Further, the meta-analytic findings indicate that these conditions are not essential for prejudice reduction. Hence, future work should focus on negative factors that prevent intergroup contact from diminishing prejudice as well as the development of a more comprehensive theory of intergroup contact.

Recent years have witnessed a renewal of interest in intergroup contact theory. A meta-analysis of more than 500 studies established the theory's basic contention that intergroup contact typically reduces prejudices of many types. This paper addresses the issue of process: just how does contact diminish prejudice? We test meta-analytically the three most studied mediators: contact reduces prejudice by (1) enhancing knowledge about the outgroup, (2) reducing anxiety about intergroup contact, and (3) increasing empathy and perspective taking. Our tests reveal mediational effects for all three of these mediators. However, the mediational value of increased knowledge appears less strong than anxiety reduction and empathy. Limitations of the study and implications of the results are discussed.

No abstract

Considerable research has shown that greater intergroup contact corresponds with lower intergroup prejudice, yet little is known regarding how the relationships between contact and prejudice may vary for members of minority and majority status groups. The present research examined differences in contact-prejudice relationships among members of minority and majority status groups, using data from a larger meta-analytic study of the effects of intergroup contact. Results indicate that the relationships between contact and prejudice tend to be weaker among members of minority status groups than among members of majority status groups. Moreover, establishing Allport's (1954) proposed conditions for optimal intergroup contact significantly predicts stronger contact-prejudice relationships among members of majority status groups, but not among members of minority status groups. Implications of these findings for future research on contact between minority and majority status groups are discussed.

This work identifies how cross-group friendships are conceptualized and measured in intergroup research, investigates which operationalizations yield the strongest effects on intergroup attitudes, explores potential moderators, and discusses the theoretical importance of the findings. Prior meta-analyses have provided initial evidence that cross-group friendships are especially powerful forms of intergroup contact. Although studies of cross-group friendship have grown considerably in recent years, varied assessments leave us without a clear understanding of how different operationalizations affect relationships between friendship and attitudes. With a greatly expanded database of relevant studies, the authors compared friendship-attitude associations across a wide range of specific conceptualizations. Time spent and self-disclosure with outgroup friends yielded significantly greater associations with attitudes than other friendship measures, suggesting that attitudes are most likely to improve when cross-group friendships involve behavioral engagement. Processes underlying cross-group friendships are discussed, as are implications for future research and application.