With the ubiquity of technology in the modern life, contact between different social groups via different digital means is an everyday reality. Can such a digital intergroup contact reduce prejudice, or does it exacerbate it? In this study, we summarize the present evidence on the links between intergroup digital contact and prejudice in a variety of intergroup contexts. We meta-analyzed experimental and correlational evidence from 88 independent samples (n = 9,385). Digital intergroup contact showed a small but significant effect consistent with prejudice reduction (g = 0.25). Direct digital contact showed larger effect than indirect forms of contact, and contact via computer-mediated communication showed larger effects than contact achieved via other activities such as interacting with nonplayable characters or embodiment. The effects were similar regardless of the type of out-group targeted by prejudice. Overall, meta-analytical results suggest that digital intergroup contact may reduce prejudice.
MillsCE, SchmuhlM, CapellanJA, et al.Hate as backlash: A county-level analysis of white supremacist mobilization in response to racial and gender “Threats”. Soc Prob, 2023; doi: 10.1093/socpro/spad020spad020
5.
AllportGW. The Nature Of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley; 1954.
6.
BrownR. Prejudice: Its Social Psychology. John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
7.
PettigrewTF, TroppLR. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J Pers Soc Psychol, 2006; 90(5):751–783; doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
8.
BarlowFK, PaoliniS, PedersenA, et al.The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 2012; 38(12):1629–1643; doi: 10.1177/0146167212457953
9.
BrownR, PatersonJ. Indirect contact and prejudice reduction: Limits and possibilities. Curr Opin Psychol, 2016; 11:20–24; doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.005
10.
DovidioJF, EllerA, HewstoneM. Improving intergroup relations through direct, extended and other forms of indirect contact. Group Process Intergr Relat, 2011; 14(2):147–160; doi: 10.1177/1368430210390555
11.
ShamlooSE, CarnaghiA, PiccoliV, et al.Imagined intergroup physical contact improves attitudes toward immigrants. Front Psychol, 2018; 9:1685; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01685
12.
LemmerG, WagnerU. Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions. Euro J Social Psych, 2015; 45(2):152–168; doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2079
13.
DovidioJF, LoveA, SchellhaasFM, et al.Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Process Intergroup Relat, 2017; 20(5):606–620; doi: 10.1177/1368430217712052
14.
Amichai-HamburgerY, McKennaKY. The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Interacting via the Internet. J Comp Mediated Comm, 2006; 11(3):825–843; doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00037.x
15.
ImperatoC, SchneiderBH, CaricatiL, et al.Allport meets internet: A meta-analytical investigation of online intergroup contact and prejudice reduction. Int J Intercult Relat, 2021; 81:131–141; doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2021.01.006
16.
StiffC, KedraP. Playing well with others: The role of opponent and intergroup anxiety in the reduction of prejudice through collaborative video game play. Psychol Pop Media, 2020; 9(1):105–115; doi: 10.1037/ppm0000210
17.
TawaJ, MaR, KatsumotoS. “All Lives Matter”: The cost of colorblind racial attitudes in diverse social networks. Race Soc Probl, 2016; 8(2):196–208; doi: 10.1007/s12552-016-9171-z
18.
AdachiPJ, HodsonG, HoffarthMR. Video game play and intergroup relations: Real world implications for prejudice and discrimination. Aggress Violent Behav, 2015; 25:227–236; doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.09.008
19.
BanakouD, HanumanthuPD, SlaterM. Virtual embodiment of white people in a black virtual body leads to a sustained reduction in their implicit racial bias. Front Hum Neurosci, 2016; 10(NOV2016):601; doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00601
20.
GroomV, BailensonJN, NassC. The influence of racial embodiment on racial bias in immersive virtual environments. Soc Influence, 2009; 4(3):231–248; doi: 10.1080/15534510802643750
21.
TassinariM, AulbachMB, Jasinskaja-LahtiI. The use of virtual reality in studying prejudice and its reduction: A systematic review. PLoS One, 2022; 17(7):e0270748; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270748
22.
MoherD, LiberatiA, TetzlaffJ, et al.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 2009; 6(7):e1000097; doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
23.
LakensD. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol, 2013; 4:863; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
24.
ColeR, HaimsonJ, Perez-JohnsonI, et al.Variability in Pretest-Posttest Correlation Coefficients by Student Achievement Level. NCEE 2011-4033.
25.
ViechtbauerW. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Soft, 2010; 36(3):1–48; doi: 10.18637/jss.v036.i03
HedgesLV, TiptonE, JohnsonMC. Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Res Synth Methods, 2010; 1(1):39–65; doi: 10.1002/jrsm.5
28.
PustejovskyJE, TiptonE. Small-sample methods for cluster-robust variance estimation and hypothesis testing in fixed effects models. J Bus Econ Stat, 2018; 36(4):672–683; doi: 10.1080/07350015.2016.1247004
29.
Tanner-SmithEE, TiptonE. Robust variance estimation with dependent effect sizes: Practical considerations including a software tutorial in Stata and SPSS. Res Synth Methods, 2014; 5(1):13–30; doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1091
30.
LinL, ChuH, MuradMH, et al.Empirical comparison of publication bias tests in meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med, 2018; 33(8):1260–1267; doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4425-7
31.
PustejovskyJE, RodgersMA. Testing for funnel plot asymmetry of standardized mean differences. Res Synth Methods, 2019; 10(1):57–71; doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1332
32.
EggerM, SmithGD, SchneiderM, et al.Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 1997; 315(7109):629–634; doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
33.
DuvalS, TweedieR. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 2000; 56(2):455–463; doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x
34.
StanleyTD, DoucouliagosH. Meta-regression approximations to reduce publication selection bias. Res Synth Methods, 2014; 5(1):60–78; doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1095
35.
StanleyTD. Limitations of PET-PEESE and other meta-analysis methods. Soc Psychol Pers Sci, 2017; 8(5):581–591; doi: 10.1177/1948550617693062
36.
BorensteinM, HedgesLV, HigginsJPT, et al.Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
37.
KilteniK, GrotenR, SlaterM. The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environments, 2012; 21(4):373–387; doi: 10.1162/PRES_a_00124
38.
AkçayırM, DündarH, AkçayırG. What makes you a digital native? Is it enough to be born after 1980? Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 60:435–440; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.089
39.
BierwiaczonekK, CheungMWL, KunstJR. Revisiting the integration hypothesis again: High heterogeneity complicates the interpretation of cross-sectional evidence. Int J Intercult Relat, 2023; 93:101780; doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2023.101780
40.
Abu-RayyaHM. Majority members’ endorsement of the acculturation integrationist orientation improves their outgroup attitudes toward ethnic minority members: An electronic-contact experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017; 75:660–666; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.010
41.
AndrewsNP, YogeeswaranK, WalkerMJ, et al.Effect of valenced vicarious online contact on out‐group prejudice and perceived out‐group variability: A study of online poker. J Applied Social Pyschol, 2018; 48(10):571–581; doi: 10.1111/jasp.12548
42.
AndrewsN, YogeeswaranK. Can That Donkey at the Poker Table Increase Prejudice? Investigating the Effects of Negative vs. Positive Vicarious Contact on Outgroup Attitudes. Master's thesis, University of Canterbury. 2016.
43.
BanakouD, BeaccoA, NeyretS, et al.Virtual body ownership and its consequences for implicit racial bias are dependent on social context: Body ownership and implicit racial bias. R Soc Open Sci, 2020; 7(12):201848; doi: 10.1098/rsos.201848
44.
BanakouD, KishoreS, SlaterM. Virtually being Einstein results in an improvement in cognitive task performance and a decrease in age bias. Front Psychol, 2018; 9(JUN):917; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00917
45.
Behm-MorawitzE, HoffswellJ, ChenSW. The virtual threat effect: A test of competing explanations for the effects of racial stereotyping in video games on players’ cognitions. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2016; 19(5):308–313; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2015.0461
46.
Behm-MorawitzE, PennellH, SpenoAG. The effects of virtual racial embodiment in a gaming app on reducing prejudice. Commun Monogr, 2016; 83(3):396–418; doi: 10.1080/03637751.2015.1128556
47.
BenatovJ, BergerR, TadmorCT. Gaming for peace: Virtual contact through cooperative video gaming increases children’s intergroup tolerance in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. J Exp Soc Psychol, 2021; 92:104065; doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104065
48.
BrevesP. Reducing outgroup bias through intergroup contact with non-playable video game characters in VR. Presence Teleoperat Virtual Environ, 2020; 27(3):257–273; doi: 10.1162/PRES_a_00330
49.
BruneauE, HameiriB, Moore-BergSL, et al.Intergroup contact reduces dehumanization and meta-dehumanization: Cross-sectional, longitudinal, and quasi-experimental evidence from 16 samples in five countries. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 2021; 47(6):906–920; doi: 10.1177/0146167220949004
50.
CaoB, LinWY. Revisiting the contact hypothesis: Effects of different modes of computer-mediated communication on intergroup relationships. Int J Intercult Relat, 2017; 58:23–30; doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.03.003
51.
ChristofiM, Michael-GrigoriouD, KyrlitsiasC. A virtual reality simulation of drug users’ everyday life: The effect of supported sensorimotor contingencies on empathy. Front Psychol, 2020; 11:1242; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01242
EspeltE, JavaloyF, CornejoJM. La paradoja del racismo aversivo hacia los inmigrantes: Un estudio experimental. Rev Psicol Soc, 2006; 21(1):3–20; doi: 10.1174/021347406775322232
54.
GamberiniL, ChittaroL, SpagnolliA, et al.Psychological response to an emergency in virtual reality: Effects of victim ethnicity and emergency type on helping behavior and navigation. Comput Hum Behav, 2015; 48:104–113; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.040
55.
Gonzalez-LiencresC, ZapataLE, IruretagoyenaG, et al.Being the victim of intimate partner violence in virtual reality: First-versus third-person perspective. Front Psychol, 2020; 11:820; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00820
56.
HaslerBS, HirschbergerG, Shani-ShermanT, et al.Virtual peacemakers: Mimicry increases empathy in simulated contact with virtual outgroup members. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2014; 17(12):766–771; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0213
Hernández-RamosP, BachenCM, RaphaelC, et al.Experiencing poverty in an online simulation: Effects on players’ beliefs, attitudes and behaviors about poverty. Cyberpsychology, 2019; 13(3); doi: 10.5817/CP2019-3-1
59.
KalyanaramanS, PennDL, IvoryJD, et al.The virtual doppelganger: Effects of a virtual reality simulator on perceptions of schizophrenia. J Nerv Ment Dis, 2010; 198(6):437–443; doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e3181e07d66
60.
KimN, WojcieszakM. Intergroup contact through online comments: Effects of direct and extended contact on outgroup attitudes. Comput Hum Behav, 2018; 81:63–72; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.013
61.
KrysanM, CouperMP. Race in the live and the virtual interview: Racial deference, social desirability, and activation effects in attitude surveys. Soc Psychol Q, 2003; 66(4):364; doi: 10.2307/1519835
62.
KrysanM, CouperMP. Race of interviewer effects: What happens on the web? Int J Internet Sci, 2006; 1(1).
63.
LissitsaS. Online political participation, online contacts with out-groups members and social distances. Asian J Commun, 2017; 27(1):18–32; doi: 10.1080/01292986.2016.1257033
64.
LissitsaS, KushnirovichN. Secondary transfer effect of positive and negative online contact between groups involved in high-intensity conflict. Int J Intercult Relat, 2018; 67:71–80; doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.10.001
65.
LissitsaS, KushnirovichN. Harnessing digital media in the fight against prejudice: Social contact and exposure to digital media solutions. J Mass Commun Q, 2019; 96(4):1052–1075; doi: 10.1177/1077699019837938
66.
LopezS, YangY, BeltranK, et al.Investigating implicit gender bias and embodiment of white males in virtual reality with full body visuomotor synchrony. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on human factors in computing systems. 2019:1–12.
67.
MaloneyD. Mitigating negative effects of immersive virtual avatars on racial bias. In: CHI PLAY 2018 - Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts. 2018; 39–43. doi:10.1145/3270316.3270599
68.
ManciniT, CaricatiL, BalestrieriMF, et al.How to reduce intergroup hostility in virtual contexts: The role of alts in decreasing intergroup bias in World of Warcraft. Computers in Human Behavior, 2018; 83:8–15; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.021
69.
MaunderRD, WhiteFA, VerrelliS. Modern avenues for intergroup contact: Using E-contact and intergroup emotions to reduce stereotyping and social distancing against people with schizophrenia. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2019; 22(7):947–963; doi: 10.1177/1368430218794873
70.
NeubaumG, SobierajS, RaaschJ, et al.Digital destigmatization: How exposure to networking profiles can reduce social stereotypes. Computers in Human Behavior, 2020; 112:106461; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106461
71.
OhSY, BailensonJ, WeiszE, et al.Virtually old: Embodied perspective taking and the reduction of ageism under threat. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 60:398–410; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.007
72.
PeckTC, SeinfeldS, AgliotiSM, et al.Putting yourself in the skin of a black avatar reduces implicit racial bias. Conscious Cogn, 2013; 22(3):779–787; doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2013.04.016
73.
PrattJA, HauserK, UgrayZ, et al.Looking at human-computer interface design: Effects of ethnicity in computer agents. Interacting with Computers, 2007; 19(4):512–523; doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2007.02.003
74.
RittenourCE, CohenEL. Viewing our aged selves: Age progression simulations increase young adults’ aging anxiety and negative stereotypes of older adults. Int J Aging Hum Dev, 2016; 82(4):271–289; doi: 10.1177/0091415016641690
75.
Roel LesurM, LynS, LenggenhagerB. How does embodying a transgender narrative influence social bias? An Explorative Study in an artistic context. Front Psychol, 2020; 11:1861; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01861
76.
SalmanowitzN. The impact of virtual reality on implicit racial bias and mock legal decisions. J Law Biosci, 2018; 5(1):174–203; doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsy005
77.
SchulzeS, PenceT, IrvineN, et al.The effects of embodiment in virtual reality on implicit gender bias. Lect Notes Comput Sci, 2019:361–374; doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-21607-8_28
78.
SchumannS, KleinO, DouglasK, et al.When is computer-mediated intergroup contact most promising? Examining the effect of out-group members’ anonymity on prejudice. Comput Human Behav, 2017; 77:198–210; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.006
79.
SchwabAK, GreitemeyerT. The world’s biggest salad bowl: Facebook connecting cultures. J Applied Social Pyschol, 2015; 45(4):243–252; doi: 10.1111/jasp.12291
TamboriniR, NovotnyE, PrabhuS, et al.The effect of behavioral synchrony with black or white virtual agents on outgroup trust. Comput Human Behav, 2018; 83:176–183; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.037
82.
TawaJ. Asymmetric peer selections among Blacks, Asians, and Whites in a virtual environment: Preliminary evidence for triangulated threat theory. J Soc Psychol, 2017; 157(6):736–753; doi: 10.1080/00224545.2017.1294140
83.
TongX, GromalaD, Kiaei ZiabariSP, et al.Designing a virtual reality game for promoting empathy toward patients with chronic pain: Feasibility and Usability Study. JMIR Serious Games, 2020; 8(3):e17354; doi: 10.2196/17354
84.
TongX, UlasS, JinW, et al.The design and evaluation of a body-sensing video game to foster empathy towards chronic pain patients. In: Proceedings of the 11th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare. 2017. pp. 244–250.
85.
Van DesselP, HughesS, Van AsscheJ. Supercharging implicit bias training. manuscript in preparation 2021.
86.
VangMH, FoxJ. Race in virtual environments: Competitive versus cooperative games with black or white avatars. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2014; 17(4):235–240; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2013.0289
87.
WaltherJB, HoterE, GanayemA, et al.Computer-mediated communication and the reduction of prejudice: A controlled longitudinal field experiment among Jews and Arabs in Israel. Comput Hum Behav, 2015; 52:550–558; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.08.004
WhiteFA, Abu-RayyaHM, BliucAM, et al.Emotion expression and intergroup bias reduction between Muslims and Christians: Long-term Internet contact. Comput Hum Behav, 2015; 53:435–442; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.074
90.
WhiteFA, TurnerRN, VerrelliS, et al.Improving intergroup relations between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland via E-contact. Euro J Social Psych, 2019; 49(2):429–438; doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2515
91.
WhiteFA, VerrelliS, MaunderRD, et al.Using electronic contact to reduce homonegative attitudes, emotions, and behavioral intentions among heterosexual women and men: A contemporary Extension of the contact Hypothesis. J Sex Res, 2019; 56(9):1179–1191; doi: 10.1080/00224499.2018.1491943
92.
YeeN, BailensonJ. Walk a mile in digital shoes: The impact of embodied perspective-taking on the reduction of negative stereotyping in immersive virtual environments. In: Proc PRESENCE. 26.
93.
YooSC, PeñaJF, DrumwrightME. Virtual shopping and unconscious persuasion: The priming effects of avatar age and consumers’ age discrimination on purchasing and prosocial behaviors. Comput Hum Behav, 2015; 48:62–71; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.042
94.
YuenASY, MakWWS. The effects of immersive virtual reality in reducing public stigma of mental illness in the university population of Hong Kong: Randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res, 2021; 23(7):e23683; doi: 10.2196/23683
95.
ZippSA, CraigSD. The impact of a user’s biases on interactions with virtual humans and learning during virtual emergency management training. Education Tech Research Dev, 2019; 67(6):1385–1404; doi: 10.1007/s11423-019-09647-6
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
