Gordon Allport’s Contact Hypothesis has been greatly advanced over the decades into what is now called Contact Theory. The application of the theory toward the improvement of intergroup relations has had the effect of concealing the fact that Contact Theory is fundamentally a prejudice theory and not a theory of intergroup relations. This article focuses on the concept of prejudice by following the ways in which Allport worked with the concept prior to and after the publication of The Nature of Prejudice. The focus is not on the definitional correctives of prejudice that have been offered but on the metaphysical and moral perspectives that Allport adopts in his conception of prejudice. The exploration of these issues reveals a number of challenges and implications for Contact Theory that contact researchers have yet to contend with. The paper also poses an epistemological question to the theory asking: how was prejudice selected as the source of intergroup strife? Taken together the paper calls for a re-examination of the place and role of prejudice in Contact Theory and in turn a re-evaluation of the theory itself.
AbendG. (2008). The meaning of “theory”. Sociological Theory, 26(2), 173–199. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–9558.2008.00324.x
2.
AdornoT. W.Frenkel-BrunswikE.LevinsonD. J.SanfordR. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Norton, NY: Harper & Brothers.
3.
AllportG. (1921). Personality and character. Psychological Bulletin, 18, 441–455.
4.
AllportG. (1946). Foreword. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 244, vii–viii.
5.
AllportG. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Blackwell.
6.
AllportG. (1956). Prejudice in modern perspective. Paper presented at the 12th Alfred and Winifred Hoernlé Memorial Lecture, South African Institute of Race Relations, Johannesburg, South Africa.
7.
AllportG.KramerB. (2010). Some roots of prejudice. Journal of Psychology, 22(1), 9–39. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1946.9917293 (Original work published 1946)
8.
BannerW. (1968). Ethics: An introduction to moral philosophy. New York, NY: Scribner Publishing.
9.
BogardusE. (1925). Social distance and its origins. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 216–226.
10.
BogardusE. (1928). Immigration and race attitudes. Boston, MA: Heath and Company.
11.
BondE. (1996). Ethics and human well-being: An introduction to moral philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
12.
BourdieuP.ChamboredonJ.PasseronJ. (1991). The craft of sociology: Epistemological preliminaries. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
13.
BrownR. J. (2010). Prejudice: Its social psychology (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
14.
DixonJ.DurrheimK.TredouxC. (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(7), 697–711. doi: 10.1037/0003–066X.60.7.697
15.
DixonJ.DurrheimK.TredouxC.TroppL.ClackB.EatonL. (2010). A paradox of integration? Inter-racial contact, prejudice reduction and perceptions of racial discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 66(2), 401–416. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–4560.2010.01652
16.
DixonJ.LevineM.ReicherS.DurrheimK. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like each other more the solution?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(6), 1–56. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X11002214
17.
DollardJ. (1937). Caste and class in a Southern town. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
DovidioJ.GlickP.RudmanL. (2005). Introduction: Reflecting on the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport. In DovidioJ.GlickP.RudmanL. (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 1–15). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
20.
Du BoisW. E. B. (1901). The relation of the negroes to the whites in the South. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 18, 121–140.
21.
DurkheimE. (1950). The rules of sociological method (8th ed.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
22.
EaglyA.DiekmanA. (2005). What is the problem? Prejudice as an attitude-in-context. In DovidioJ.GlickP.RudmanL. (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice (pp. 19–35). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
23.
EaglyA.MladinicA. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. European Review of Psychology, 5(1), 1–35. doi: 10.1080/14792779543000002
24.
EdelA.FlowerE.O’ConnorF. (1989). Morality, philosophy, and practice: Historical and contemporary readings and studies. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
25.
EllisG. W. (1915). The psychology of American race prejudice. The Journal of Race Development, 5, 297–315.
26.
ErasmusZ. (2010). Contact Theory: Too timid for “race” and racism. Journal of Social Issues, 66(2), 387–400. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–4560.2010.01651
27.
ForbesD. (1997). Ethnic conflict: Commerce, culture, and the contact hypothesis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.70.3.491
29.
GuilfordJ. (1931). Racial preferences of a thousand American university students. Journal of Social Psychology, 2(2), 179–204. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1931.9918966
30.
HorkheimerM.FlowermanS. (1950). Foreword to studies in prejudice. In AdornoT. W.Frenkel-BrunswikE.LevinsonD. J.SanfordR. N. (Eds.), The authoritarian personality (pp. v–viii). Norton, NY: Harper & Brothers.
31.
JackmanM. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.
32.
KantI. (1952 [1787]). The critique of pure reason: The critique of practical reason and other ethical treaties (MeiklejohnJ. M. D., Trans.). Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica. (Original work published 1787)
KatzD.BralyK. (1933). Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28(3), 280–290.
35.
KatzD.BralyK. (1935). Racial prejudice and racial stereotypes. Abnormal and Social Psychology, 30(2), 175–193.
36.
KatzI. (1991). Gordon Allport’s “The Nature of Prejudice”. Political Psychology, 12(1), 125–157.
37.
KraisB. (Ed.). (1991). Preface to the English edition. In BourdieuP.ChamboredonJ.PasseronJ., The craft of sociology: Epistemological preliminaries (pp. v–ix). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
38.
MaozI. (2000a). Power relations in intergroup encounters: A case study of Jewish-Arab encounters in Israel. International Journal of Intercultural Relations24(4), 259–277. doi: 10.1016/S0147–1767(99)00035–8
39.
MaozI. (2000b). Multiple conflicts and competing agendas: A framework for conceptualizing structured encounters between groups in conflict—The case of a coexistence project of Jews and Palestinians in Israel. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology6(2), 135–156. doi: 10.1207/S15327949PAC0602_3
40.
MaozI. (2004). Coexistence is in the eye of the beholder: Evaluating intergroup encounter interventions between Jews and Arabs in Israel. Journal of Social Issues60(2), 437–452. doi: 10.1111/j.0022–4537.2004.00119.x
41.
MaozI. (2006). Between coexistence and conflict: Jewish–Arab encounters in Israel. In PodehE.KaufmanA. (Eds.), Arab–Jewish relations: From conflict to resolution? (pp. 319–341). Brighton, UK: Sussex Academic Press.
42.
MaozI. (2011) Does contact work in protracted asymmetrical conflict? Appraising 20 years of reconciliation-aimed encounters between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Journal of Peace Research, 48, 115–125. doi: 10.1177/0022343310389506
43.
PettigrewT. (1986). The intergroup contact hypothesis reconsidered. In HewstoneM.BrownR. (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 169–195). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
44.
PettigrewT. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85.
45.
PettigrewT.TroppL. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.90.5.751
46.
PettigrewT.TroppL. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.504
47.
PettigrewT.TroppL. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
48.
PettigrewT.TroppL.WagnerU.ChristL. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 271–280.
49.
ReicherS. (2007). Rethinking the paradigm of prejudice. South African Journal of Psychology, 37(4), 820–834.
50.
SamelsonF. (1978). From “race psychology” to “studies in prejudice”: Some observations on the thematic reversal in social psychology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 14(3), 265–278. doi: 10.1002/1520–6696(197807)14:3<265::AID-JHBS2300140313>3.0.CO;2-P
51.
ThomasW. I. (1904). The psychology of race-prejudices. The American Journal of Sociology, 9(5), 593–611.
52.
ThurstoneL. (1928). An experimental study of nationality preferences. Journal of General Psychology, 1, 405–423.
53.
WebsterR.SaucierD.HarrisR. (2010). Before the measurement of prejudice: Early psychological and sociological papers on prejudice. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 46(3), 300–313. doi: 10.1002/jhbs.20442
