Classic research on the contact hypothesis focused on the direct relationship between the antecedents (conditions under which contact occurs) and the outcomes (primarily, the reduction of prejudice) of intergroup contact. Recent work has taken a broader view of contact processes and effects. We review key developments over the past 20 years, identifying different forms of contact, factors that mediate and moderate the effects of contact, and both the nature and temporal stage and the varied outcomes of contact. We then identify several research directions to address pressing theoretical and practical issues. These issues concern (a) group processes and intergroup relations, (b) intergroup contact in the context of multiple categorization, (c) structural- and individual-level processes, (d) a broader range of individual-level outcomes (e.g., health), and (e) impact on social change. Contact theory and research provides a comprehensive conceptual foundation, allied to a range of powerful empirical techniques, for important new advances and practical applications for improving intergroup relations and producing more equitable outcomes across groups.
AbramsD.EllerA.BryantB. (2006). An age apart: The effects of intergenerational contact and stereotype threat on performance and intergroup bias. Psychology and Aging, 21, 691–702. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.4.691
2.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3.
Amichai-HamburgerY.McKennaK. Y. A. (2006). The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Interacting via the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 825–843. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00037.x
4.
BeckerJ. C.WrightS. C.LubenskyM. E.ZhouS. (2013). Friend or ally: Whether cross-group contact undermines collective action depends on what advantaged group members say (or don’t say). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 442–455. doi:10.1177/0146167213477155
5.
BergsiekerH. B.SheltonJ. N.RichesonJ. A. (2010). To be liked versus respected: Divergent goals in interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 248–264. doi:10.1037/a0018474
6.
BinderJ.ZagefkaH.BrownR.FunkeF.KesslerT.MummendeyA.. . . LeyensJ.-P. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 843–856. doi:10.1037/a0013470
7.
BrownR.HewstoneM. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
8.
BurkeS. E.DovidioJ. F.PerryS. P.BurgessD. J.HardemanR. R.PhelanS. M.. . . van RynM. (2017). The effects of informal training experiences on explicit bias against African Americans among medical students: A report from the Medical Student CHANGE Study. Social Psychology Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0190272516668166
9.
ÇakalH.HewstoneM.GülerM.HeathA. (2016). Predicting support for collective action in the conflict between Turks and Kurds: Perceived threats as a mediator of intergroup contact and social identity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19, 732–752. doi:10.1177/1368430216641303
10.
ChristO.SchmidK.LolliotS.SwartH.StolleD.TauschN.. . . HewstoneM. (2014). Contextual effect of positive intergroup contact on outgroup prejudice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 3996–4000. doi:10.1073/pnas.1320901111
11.
CrispR. J.TurnerR. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions? Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. American Psychologist, 64, 231–240. doi:10.1037/a0014718
12.
DaviesK.TroppL. R.AronA.PettigrewT. F.WrightS. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 332–351. doi:10.1177/1088868311411103
13.
DixonJ.LevineM.ReicherS.DurrheimK. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 411–466. doi:10.1017/s0140525x11002214
14.
DovidioJ. F. (2013). Bridging intragroup processes and intergroup relations. Needing the twain to meet. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 1–24. doi:10.1111/bjso.12026
15.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L. (2010). Intergroup bias. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1084–1121). New York, NY: Wiley.
16.
EllerA.AbramsD. (2004). Come together: Longitudinal comparisons of Pettigrew’s reformulated intergroup contact model and the common ingroup identity model in Anglo-French and Mexican-American contexts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 1–28. doi:10.1002/ejsp.194
17.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F.GuerraR.HehmanE.SaguyT. (2016). A common ingroup identity: A categorization-based approach for reducing intergroup bias. In NelsonT. (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping (2nd ed., pp. 433–454). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
18.
GaitherS. E.SommersS. R.AmbadyN. (2013). When the half affects the whole: Priming identity for biracial individuals in social interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 368–371. doi:10.1037/e541672013-005
19.
GómezA.TroppL. R.FernándezS. (2011). When extended contact opens the door to future contact: Testing the effects of extended contact on attitudes and intergroup expectancies in majority and minority groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 161–173. doi:10.1177/1368430210391119
20.
GrafS.PaoliniS.RubinM. (2014). Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 536–547. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2052
21.
GreenwaldA. G.PoehlmanT. A.UhlmannE. L.BanajiM. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17–41. doi:10.1037/e633982013-155
22.
HaywardL. E.TroppL. R.HornseyM. J.BarlowF. K. (2017). Toward a comprehensive understanding of intergroup contact: Descriptions and mediators of positive and negative contact among majority and minority groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 347–364. doi:10.1177/0146167216685291
23.
HewstoneM.SwartH. (2011). Fifty-odd years of inter-group contact: From hypothesis to integrated theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 374–386. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02047.x
24.
KauffM.GreenE. G. T.SchmidK.HewstoneM.ChristO. (2016). Effects of majority members’ positive intergroup contact on minority members’ support for ingroup rights: Mobilizing or demobilizing effects?European Journal of Social Psychology.
25.
LemmerG.WagnerU. (2015). Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 152–168. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2079
26.
LevinS.van LaarC.SidaniusJ. (2003). The effects of ingroup and outgroup friendships on ethnic attitudes in college: A longitudinal study. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 76–92. doi:10.1177/1368430203006001013
27.
MacInnisC. C.Page-GouldE. (2015). How can intergroup interaction be bad if intergroup contact is good? Exploring and reconciling an apparent paradox in the science of intergroup relations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 307–327. doi:10.1177/1745691614568482
28.
MajorB.DovidioJ. F.LinkB. (Eds.). (in press). Oxford handbook of stigma and health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
29.
MilesE.CrispR. J. (2014). A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 3–26. doi:10.1177/1368430213510573
30.
MillerN. (2002). Personalization and the promise of contact theory. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 387–410. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00267
31.
MunniksmaA.StarkT. H.VerkuytenM.FlacheA.VeenstraR. (2013). Extended intergroup friendships within social settings: The moderating role of initial outgroup attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 752–770. doi:10.1177/1368430213486207
32.
NadlerA.ShnabelN. (2015). Intergroup reconciliation: Instrumental and socio-emotional processes and the needs-based model. European Review of Social Psychology, 26, 93–125. doi:10.1080/10463283.2015.1106712
33.
PaluckE. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 574–587. doi:10.1037/a0011989
34.
PekerM.CrispR. J.HoggM. A. (2010). Predictors of ingroup projection: The roles of superordinate category coherence and complexity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 525–542. doi:10.1177/1368430209360205
35.
PennerL. A.GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F.HagiwaraN.PercerelliJ.MarkovaT.AlbrechtT. L. (2013). A social psychological approach to improving the outcomes of racially discordant medical interactions. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 28, 1143–1149. doi:10.1007/s11606-013-2339-y
36.
PennerL. A.HagiwaraN.EgglyS.GaertnerS. L.AlbrechtT. L.DovidioJ. F. (2013). Racial healthcare disparities: A social psychological analysis. European Review of Social Psychology, 24, 77–112. doi:10.1080/10463283.2013.840973
37.
PennerL. A.PhelanS. M.EarnshawV.AlbrechtT. L.DovidioJ. F. (in press). Patient stigma, medical interactions, and healthcare disparities: A selective review. In MajorB.DovidioJ. F.LinkB. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of stigma and health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
38.
PettigrewT. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 173–185. doi:10.1177/0146167297232006
39.
PettigrewT. F. (2016). In pursuit of three theories: Authoritarianism, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 1–21. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033327
40.
PettigrewT. F.HewstoneM. (2017). The single factor fallacy: Implications of missing critical variables from an analysis of intergroup contact theory. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11, 8–37. doi:10.1111/sipr.12026
41.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
42.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (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
43.
ReimerN. K.BeckerJ. C.BenzA.ChristO.DhontK.KlockeU.. . . HewstoneM. (2017). Intergroup contact and social change: Implications of negative and positive contact for collective action in advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 121–136. doi:10.1177/0146167216676478
44.
RichmanL. S.PascoeE.LattannerM. (in press). Interpersonal discrimination and physical health. In MajorB.DovidioJ. F.LinkB. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of stigma and health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
45.
SaguyT.DovidioJ. F. (2013). Insecure status relations shape preferences for the content of intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1030–1042. doi:10.1177/0146167213487078
46.
SaguyT.TauschN.DovidioJ. F.PrattoF. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20, 114–121. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02261.x
47.
SamD. L.BerryJ. W. (2010). Acculturation: When individuals and groups of different cultural backgrounds meet. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 472–481. doi:10.1177/1745691610373075
48.
SchellhaasF. M. H.NapierJ. L.ÇakalH.InamlikO. S.HewstoneM.DovidioJ. F. (2017). Perceived atypicality can sustain collective action in intergroup contact. Manuscript under review.
49.
SchiappaE.GreggP. B.HewesD. E. (2005). The parasocial contact hypothesis. Communication Monographs, 72, 92–115. doi:10.1080/0363775052000342544
50.
SchmidK.HewstoneM.TauschN. (2014). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact via social identity complexity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53, 443–462. doi:10.1111/bjso.12045
51.
SelvanathanH.TechakesariP.TroppL. R.BarlowF. K. (2017). Whites for racial justice: How contact with Black Americans predicts support for collective action among White Americans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1368430217690908
52.
SteeleC. M. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi: And other clues to how stereotypes affect us. New York, NY: Norton.
53.
TauschN.HewstoneN. (2010). Intergroup contact and prejudice. In DovidioJ. F.HewstoneM.GlickP.EssesV. M. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 544–560). London, UK: SAGE.
54.
TauschN.SaguyT.BrysonJ. (2015). How does intergroup contact affect social change? Its impact on collective action and individual mobility intentions among members of a disadvantaged group. Journal of Social Issues, 71, 536–553. doi:10.1111/josi.12127
55.
ToosiN. R.BabbittL. G.AmbadyN.SommersS. R. (2012). Dyadic interracial interactions: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1–27. doi:10.1037/a0025767
56.
TredouxC.FinchilescuG. (2010). Mediators of the contact–prejudice relation among South African students on four university campuses. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 289–308. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01646.x
57.
TroppL. R. (2007). Perceived discrimination and interracial contact: Predicting interracial closeness among Black and White Americans. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70, 70–81. doi:10.1177/019027250707000108
58.
TroppL. R.PettigrewT. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16, 951–957. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01643.x
59.
TurnerR. N.HewstoneM.VociA. (2007). Reducing explicit and implicit outgroup prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 369–388. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.369
60.
TurnerR. N.HewstoneM.VociA.VonofakouC. (2008). A test of the extended intergroup contact hypothesis: The role of intergroup anxiety, perceived ingroup and outgroup norms, and inclusion of the outgroup in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 843–860. doi:10.1037/a0011434
61.
Van RynM.HardemanR.PhelanS. M.BurgessD. J.DovidioJ. F.HerrinJ.. . . PrzedworskiJ. M. (2015). Medical school experiences associated with change in implicit racial bias among 3547 students: A medical student CHANGES Study report. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 30, 1748–1756. doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3447-7
62.
VerkuytenM.ThijsJ.BekhuisH. (2010). Intergroup contact and ingroup reappraisal: Examining the deprovincialization thesis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73, 398–416. doi:10.1177/0190272510389015
63.
VezzaliL.HewstoneM.CapozzaD.GiovanniniD.WölferR. (2014). Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology, 25, 314–389. doi:10.1080/10463283.2014.982948
64.
VociA.HewstoneM. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 37–54. doi:10.1177/1368430203006001011
65.
VociA.HewstoneM.SwartH.VenezianiC. A. (2015). Refining the association between intergroup contact and intergroup forgiveness in Northern Ireland: Type of contact, prior conflict experience, and group identification. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 589–608. doi:10.1177/1368430215577001
66.
WenzelM.MummendeyA.WaldzusS. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 331–372. doi:10.1080/10463280701728302
67.
WestK.TurnerR. N.LevitaL. (2015). Applying imagined contact to improve physiological responses in anticipation of intergroup interactions and the perceived quality of these interactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45, 425–436. doi:10.1111/jasp.12309
68.
WestT. V.DovidioJ. F. (2013). Intergroup contact across time: Beyond initial contact. In HodsonG.HewstoneM. (Eds.), Advances in intergroup contact (pp. 152–175). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
69.
WhiteF. A.Abu-RayyaH. M.WeitzelC. (2014). Achieving twelve-months of intergroup bias reduction: The dual identity-electronic contact (DIEC) experiment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 158–163. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.08.002
70.
WölferR.HewstoneM. (2017). Beyond the dyadic perspectives: 10 reasons for using social network analysis in intergroup contact research. British Journal of Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/bjso.12195
71.
WölferR.SchmidK.HewstoneM.van ZalkM. (2016). Developmental dynamics of intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes: Long-term effects in adolescence and early adulthood. Child Development, 87, 1466–1478. doi:10.1111/cdev.12598
72.
WrightS. C.AronA.McLaughlin-VolpeT.RoppS. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73–90. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.73.1.73
73.
WrightS. C.LubenskyM. E. (2009). The struggle for social equality: Collective action versus prejudice reduction. In DemoulinS.LeyensJ.-P.DovidioJ. F. (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
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.
