USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
https://youtu.be/nmXr-rC5F-4- Video ( A Class Divided) this video is part of the assigment.
- Choose any group of which you are not a member.
Possible dimensions from which you may select your group include: race, gender, social class, nationality, sexual identity, (dis)ability, rural versus urban status, religious belief, incarceration/criminal history, occupational status, victim, military status, and so on.
- Explain why you selected this group.
- Describe stereotypes, prejudice, and/or discrimination directed toward members of this group.
Use concrete examples to illustrate (e.g., advertisements that depict members of the group in a stereotypical manner, statements you have overheard expressing affective reactions to the group, policies that discriminate in favor or/against the group, etc.). Consider both negative and positive stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination.
- Interpret the experiences of members in this group.
The goal is to gain a new perspective, so consider spending time immersed in the group. Perhaps you could interview friends, family, or community members, or attend an event hosted by the group. Or, you could present yourself as a member of this group to gauge reactions firsthand. Alternatively, do some online research.
- Evaluate reactions toward this group in light of concepts covered in the textbook.
For example, how might social psychological theory and/or concepts explain the origin of prejudice directed toward the group you are studying? What are the influences on members of this group? Utilize scholarly, peer-reviewed sources to support your points to continue developing your academic voice. (Reminder: Be sure to synthesize and paraphrase the information you share from these articles/sources.)
- Conclude with a realistic suggestion for reducing prejudice toward members of this group, based on the contact hypothesis (see Pettigrew, 1998, for elaboration).
The Walk a Mile paper
- Must be 3 to 5 double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
- Must include a separate title page with the following:
A header
Title of paper
Student’s name
Course name and number
Instructor’s name
Date submitted - Must begin with an introductory paragraph (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. that has a succinct thesis statement (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
- Must utilize academic voice (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
- Must address the topic with critical thought.
- Must end with a conclusion (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. that reaffirms the thesis.
- Must use at least three peer-reviewed scholarly sources. Additional scholarly sources are encouraged.
Be sure to integrate your research (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. smoothly rather than simply inserting it.
In general, paraphrase (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. material rather than using direct quotes.
The Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment. - Must document all sources in APA style as outlined here (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. and here (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
- Must include a separate reference page (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. that is formatted according to APA style.
- Must be submitted to Grammarly (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. for review and correction prior to submitting.
Submitting to Grammarly:
Grammarly is your personal editor that can act as that second set of eyes and catch those errors before you submit your assignment. It takes approximately 5 minutes to set up an account and after that, you simply download your written submission and wait for the magic. This service is open 24/7, for you night owls hoping for a final proofread before submitting your work. Grammarly will then provide you with a detailed roadmap for improvement.
Grammarly Resource:
Before you submit your written assignment, review the
The Grammarly Guide: How to Set Up & Use Grammarly (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
tutorial, set up a Grammarly account (if you have not already done so), and use Grammarly to review a rough draft of your assignment. Then carefully review all issues identified by Grammarly and revise your work as needed.
To use Grammarly:
- Go to https://app.grammarly.com/ (and log in if needed).
- Click on “Upload” (located under “New”) and upload your paper.
- Grammarly will scan your paper for errors and issues.
- To read about the errors Grammarly found, click on the ▼expand button.
- To accept Grammarly’s suggestion, click on the green wording suggestion (if applicable).
- To ignore Grammarly’s suggestion, click on the “x” or the “ignore” button.
- Finally, once you have made all of your corrections, click on the ↓ downward arrow icon in the left navigation pane and select “Download.” This will create a Word document with your corrections. Note: You might have to remove or delete any lingering track changes or comment bubbles before submitting your paper. .
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1998. 49:
65
–85
Copyright © 1998 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY
Thomas F. Pettigrew
Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064;
e-mail: pettigr@cats.ucsc.edu
KEY WORDS: affective ties, ingroup reappraisal, group categorization
ABSTRACT
Allport specified four conditions for optimal intergroup contact: equal group
status within the situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation and
authority support. Varied research supports the hypothesis, but four prob-
lems remain. 1. A selection bias limits cross-sectional studies, since preju-
diced people avoid intergroup contact. Yet research finds that the positive ef-
fects of cross-group friendship are larger than those of the bias. 2. Writers
overburden the hypothesis with facilitating, but not essential, conditions. 3.
The hypothesis fails to address process. The chapter proposes four processes:
learning about the outgroup, changed behavior, affective ties, and ingroup
reappraisal. 4. The hypothesis does not specify how the effects generalize to
other situations, the outgroup or uninvolved outgroups. Acting sequentially,
three strategies enhance generalization—decategorization, salient categori-
zation, and recategorization. Finally, both individual differences and societal
norms shape intergroup contact effects. The chapter outlines a longitudinal
intergroup contact theory. It distinguishes between essential and facilitating
factors, and emphasizes different outcomes for different stages of contact.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Allport’s Intergroup Contact Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
INITIAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
RECENT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
The Causal Sequence Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Independent Variable Specification Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Unspecified Processes of Change Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
The Generalization of Effects Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
FOUR PROCESSES OF CHANGE THROUGH INTERGROUP CONTACT. . . . . . . . . . . 70
THREE TYPES OF GENERALIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
0066-4308/98/0201-0065$08.00
65
A REFORMULATION OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Individual Differences Shape Contact Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Societies Shape Contact Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
GENERAL EVALUATIONS OF CONTACT EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
INTRODUCTION
Social scientists began to theorize about intergroup contact after World War II
(Watson 1947, Williams 1947). Allport’s (1954) hypothesis proved the most in-
fluential by specifying the critical situational conditions for intergroup contact to
reduce prejudice. His hypothesis has received extensive attention both for its rare
theoretical status and policy importance (Pettigrew 1971). Oddly, for a disci-
pline that focuses on face-to-face interaction, social psychology rarely decom-
poses situations into their basic components. Allport’s attempt is a prominent
exception. And it has proven useful in applied settings, such as in the distinc-
tion between racial desegregation and integration in schools (Pettigrew 1975).
Allport’s Intergroup Contact Hypothesis
Allport (1954) held that positive effects of intergroup contact occur only in
situations marked by four key conditions: equal group status within the situa-
tion; common goals; intergroup cooperation; and the support of authorities,
law, or custom.
EQUAL STATUS Allport stressed equal group status within the situation. Most
research supports this contention, although “equal status” is difficult to define
and has been used in different ways (Cagle 1973, Riordan 1978). It is impor-
tant that both groups expect and perceive equal status in the situation (Cohen &
Lotan 1995, Cohen 1982, Riordan & Ruggiero 1980, Robinson & Preston
1976). Some writers emphasize equal group status coming into the situation
(Brewer & Kramer 1985). Thus, Jackman & Crane (1986) show negative ef-
fects from contact with outgroup members of lower status. Yet Patchen (1982),
in research on racially mixed high schools, found this to be less important than
equal status within the situation. The meta-analytic results of Mullen et al
(1992) clarify these disparities. They noted that ingroup bias increased with
relative status in laboratory groups but decreased in field research with real
groups.
COMMON GOALS Prejudice reduction through contact requires an active,
goal-oriented effort. Athletic teams furnish a prime example (Chu & Griffey
1985, Miracle 1981, Patchen 1982). In striving to win, interracial teams need
each other to achieve their goal. Goal attainment, such as a winning season,
furthers this process.
66 PETTIGREW
INTERGROUP COOPERATION Attainment of common goals must be an inter-
dependent effort without intergroup competition (Bettencourt et al 1992).
Sherif (1966) demonstrated this principle vividly in his Robbers’ Cave field
study. Intergroup cooperation in schools provides the strongest evidence
(Brewer & Miller 1984, Desforges et al 1991, Johnson et al 1984, Schofield
1989, Slavin 1983, Slavin & Madden 1979). Drawing on this thinking, Aron-
son’s jigsaw classroom technique structures classrooms so that students strive
cooperatively for common goals (Aronson & Patnoe 1997). This technique has
led to positive results for a variety of children: Australians (Walker & Crogan
1997), Germans (Eppler & Huber 1990), Japanese (Araragi 1983), and Mexi-
can Americans (Aronson & Gonzalez 1988).
SUPPORT OF AUTHORITIES, LAW, OR CUSTOM The final condition concerns the
contact’s auspices. With explicit social sanction, intergroup contact is more
readily accepted and has more positive effects. Authority support establishes
norms of acceptance. Field research underscores its importance in military
(Landis et al 1984), business (Morrison & Herlihy 1992), and religious (Parker
1968) institutions.
INITIAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
Allport (1954) derived his hypothesis from early field research. An Alabama
study revealed negative effects when all four conditions were violated (Sims &
Patrick 1936). White college students from the North increased on average in
antiblack prejudice with each year spent in the South.
Other studies investigated optimal conditions. After desegregation of the
Merchant Marine in 1948, interdependency developed on ships and in the mari-
time union. The more voyages the white seamen took with blacks under these
conditions, the more positive their racial attitudes became (Brophy 1946).
Similarly, white police in Philadelphia who had worked with black colleagues
had fewer objections to black police joining their districts, teaming with a
black partner, and taking orders from qualified black officers (Kephart 1957).
Studies of public housing provided robust evidence. Deutsch & Collins
(1951) compared racially desegregated housing projects in New York City
with similar but segregated projects in Newark. Sharp differences emerged.
Desegregated white housewives held their black neighbors in higher esteem
and favored interracial housing more (75% to 25%). When asked to name
black faults, they listed such personal issues as feelings of inferiority. Segre-
gated white women voiced stereotypes such as “rowdy” and “dangerous.”
Later public housing research extended these findings (Wilner et al 1955).
Favorable racial attitudes developed among only one third of the white tenants
who just had casual greetings with their black neighbors. But half who entered
INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY 67
into conversations and three fourths who had multiple interactions developed
positive racial views. Social norms are crucial. In the desegregated projects,
whites expected approval from their neighbors for their friendly interracial be-
havior. In the segregated projects, they feared social ostracism from other
whites for such behavior. “Contact and perceived social climate tend to rein-
force each other when their influence operates in the same direction, and to
cancel each other out when their influence works in the opposite direction”
(Wilner et al 1955, p. 106).
RECENT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
Allport’s formulation continues to receive support across a variety of situa-
tions, groups, and societies. Some research, conducted in situations that do not
provide key conditions, uncovers negative effects. Poorly arranged entry of
black workers into London’s public transportation, for example, led to hostility
by white workers (Brooks 1975). Interracial housing research sometimes reveals
few effects on racial attitudes (Bradburn et al 1971, Meer & Freedman 1966,
Zuel & Humphrey 1971). These findings support Allport, although some writers
mistakenly view their results as falsifying his hypothesis. The erroneous notion
that the hypothesis holds that intergroup contact “will of itself produce better re-
lations between…groups” still persists (McGarty & de la Haye 1997, p. 155).
Most studies report positive contact effects, even in situations lacking key
conditions. Although it concentrates on school and housing situations (Ford
1986), the contact literature ranges from Chinese students in the United States
(Chang 1973) and interracial workers in South Africa (Bornman & Mynhardt
1991) to German and Turkish school children (Wagner et al 1989) and Austra-
lians (McKay & Pitman 1993) and Americans (Riordan 1987) getting to know
Southeast Asian immigrants. It involves attitudes toward a wide range of tar-
gets beyond ethnic groups—the elderly (Caspi 1984, Drew 1988), homosexu-
als (Eskilson 1995, Herek & Capitanio 1996), the mentally ill (Desforges et al
1991), disabled persons (Anderson 1995), victims of AIDS (Werth & Lord
1992), and even computer programmers (McGinnis 1990). In addition, diverse
research methods yield supporting results—field (Meer & Freedman 1966,
Ohm 1988), archival (Fine 1979), survey (Jackman & Crane 1986; Pettigrew
1997a,b; Robinson 1980; Sigelman & Welch 1993), and laboratory (Cook
1978, 1984; Desforges et al 1991).
Research with African Americans is also supportive. Works (1961) found
that both black wives and husbands in a desegregated housing project felt more
positively about their white neighbors than those in a segregated project. With
longitudinal data, Smith (1994) found contact meeting Allport’s conditions
decreased prejudice among both black and white neighbors, though there were
68 PETTIGREW
group differences in contact effects. In a national probability sample, interra-
cial friendships proved to be a strong predictor of blacks’ racial attitudes (Elli-
son & Powers 1994, Powers & Ellison 1995).
These varied investigations broaden the application of the hypothesis. They
also raise the question: Why does intergroup contact usually have positive ef-
fects even when the situation does not attain all of Allport’s conditions? In ad-
dition, they typically do not address the basic problems with the original con-
tact hypothesis—problems to which I now turn.
PROBLEMS
The Causal Sequence Problem
Selection bias limits the interpretation of many cross-sectional studies of con-
tact. Instead of optimal contact reducing prejudice, the opposite causal se-
quence could be operating. Prejudiced people may avoid contact with out-
groups. Three methods overcome this limitation. 1. Find an intergroup situa-
tion that severely limits choice to participate. In the Merchant Marine, police,
and public-housing research, little choice was available to participants. 2. Sta-
tistical methods borrowed from econometrics allow researchers to compare
the reciprocal paths (optimal contact lowers prejudice and prejudice decreases
contact) with cross-sectional data. Powers & Ellison (1995) use endogenous
switching regression models. Later I review the use of a nonrecursive struc-
tural equation model. 3. Although not without problems (Clogg 1986), longi-
tudinal designs are best (Pettigrew 1996). Yet such research is rare in inter-
group research; Sherif’s (1966) study is a famous exception. Indeed, the major
findings of the Robbers’ Cave study would not have emerged without its longi-
tudinal design (Pettigrew 1991a). The initial intergroup contact situations had
little effect. Only after repeated treatments did the positive results cumulate.
Independent Variable Specification Problem
Allport’s hypothesis risks being an open-ended laundry list of conditions—
ever expandable and thus eluding falsification (Pettigrew 1986, Stephan
1987). Researchers keep advancing new situational factors for optimal con-
tact. From Germany, Wagner & Machleit (1986) concluded that positive ef-
fects require a common language, voluntary contact, and a prosperous econ-
omy. From Israel, Ben-Ari & Amir (1986) held that the group’s initial views of
one another cannot be too negative. From the United States, Cook (1978) in-
sisted that stereotype disconfirmation is crucial.
This growing list of limiting conditions threatens to remove all interest
from the hypothesis. Too many factors would exclude most intergroup situa-
tions. The hypothesis would rarely predict positive results from contact, al-
INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY 69
though research typically finds positive results. The problem is that writers of-
ten confuse facilitating with essential conditions. Many factors suggested for
optimal contact may not be essential but relate to the underlying mediating
processes. This point leads to the third problem.
Unspecified Processes of Change Problem
The original hypothesis says nothing about the processes by which contact
changes attitudes and behavior. It predicts only when contact will lead to posi-
tive change, not how and why the change occurs. A broader theory of inter-
group contact requires an explicit specification of the processes involved,
which I provide below.
The Generalization of Effects Problem
Nor does the hypothesis specify how the effects generalize beyond the imme-
diate situation. Such generalization is pivotal if intergroup contact is to have
broad and lasting consequences. There are three distinct types of generaliza-
tion: Situational—do the changes generalize across situations? Individual to
group—do the changes generalize from the specific outgroup members with
whom there is contact to the outgroup? To uninvolved outgroups—do the
changes toward the outgroup generalize to other outgroups not involved in the
contact? (For analyses of the generalization of different effects, see Brewer &
Miller 1988 and Hewstone 1996.) Thus, a broader theory of intergroup contact
also requires explicit predictions of how the contact effects will generalize, an-
other task I undertake below.
FOUR PROCESSES OF CHANGE THROUGH
INTERGROUP CONTACT
Recent work suggests that four interrelated processes operate through contact
and mediate attitude change: learning about the outgroup, changing behavior,
generating affective ties, and ingroup reappraisal.
LEARNING ABOUT THE OUTGROUP Initial theory held this process to be the
major way that intergroup contact has effects. When new learning corrects
negative views of the outgroup, contact should reduce prejudice. Support for
such a benign process is available, though plausible rival explanations remain.
Consider Jeffries & Ransford’s (1969) findings on middle-class white reac-
tions to the Watts race riot in Los Angeles. Those who had prior interracial
contact were significantly less fearful of blacks, less punitive, and less likely to
view the riot as caused by outside agitators.
Yet cognitive research has uncovered a host of mechanisms that limit learn-
ing material that counters our attitudes and stereotypes. Writing from this per-
70 PETTIGREW
spective, Rothbart & John (1985) conclude that disconfirming evidence alters
stereotypes only if (a) the outgroup’s behavior is starkly inconsistent with their
stereotype and strongly associated with their label, (b) occurs often and in
many situations, and (c) the outgroup members are seen as typical. These re-
strictions eliminate most intergroup contact situations.
Nonetheless, new information about an outgroup can improve attitudes.
Stephan & Stephan (1984) found that contact allowed Anglo students to learn
more about Chicano culture that in turn led to more positive attitudes toward
Chicano classmates. “Ignorance,” they assert, “promotes prejudice…”
(Stephan & Stephan 1984, p. 238). Other studies with the cultural assimilator
technique of Triandis (1994) provide further evidence that learning about an
outgroup can improve intergroup attitudes and stereotypes (Gardiner 1972,
Weldon et al 1975).
Still, the dominant consensus of cognitive analyses denies the likelihood of
positive effects from most contact situations. Yet the research literature sug-
gests that positive effects are more common than either the contact hypothesis
or cognitive analyses predict. Why the contradiction? The basic reason is that
learning about the outgroup is only one of several processes involved. Cogni-
tive analyses are not so much wrong as they are incomplete. Other processes
are also involved.
CHANGING BEHAVIOR Optimal intergroup contact acts as a benign form of be-
havior modification. Behavior change is often the precursor of attitude change.
New situations require conforming to new expectations. If these expectations
include acceptance of outgroup members, this behavior has the potential to
produce attitude change. We can resolve our dissonance between old preju-
dices and new behavior by revising our attitudes (Aronson & Patnoe 1997).
This behavioral process also benefits from repeated contact, preferably in var-
ied settings (Jackman & Crane 1986). Repetition makes intergroup encounters
comfortable and “right.” Repetition itself leads to liking (Zajonc 1968). Ap-
propriate rewards for the new behavior enhances the positive effects further.
GENERATING AFFECTIVE TIES Emotion is critical in intergroup contact. Anxi-
ety is common in initial encounters between groups, and it can spark negative
reactions (Islam & Hewstone 1993; Stephan 1992; Stephan & Stephan 1985,
1989, 1992; Wilder 1993a,b). Such anxious, negative encounters can occur
even without intergroup prejudice (Devine et al 1996). Continued contact gen-
erally reduces anxiety, though bad experiences can increase it.
Positive emotions aroused by optimal contact also can mediate intergroup
contact effects. Empathy plays a role here. Reich & Purbhoo (1975) found that
school contact improved cross-group role-taking ability among both majority
and minority Canadian students. And empathy for a stigmatized outgroup
INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY 71
member—a young woman with AIDS, a homeless man or a convicted mur-
derer—can improve attitudes toward the whole outgroup (Batson et al 1997).
Positive emotions aroused by intergroup friendship also can be pivotal. The
Oliners (1988) found that non-Jews who risked their lives to save Jews during
World War II reported more close friendships as children with other groups.
Similarly, Rippl (1995) found friendship to be decisive in shaping contact ef-
fects between West and East Germans. These findings support earlier claims
by Amir (1976) concerning the importance of intimacy in intergroup contact.
The most extensive data on intergroup friendship derive from 1988 surveys
in Western Europe (Pettigrew 1997a,b; Pettigrew & Meertens 1995). (For sur-
vey details, see Reif & Melish 1991; for a different, though consistent, analysis
of these data, see Hamberger & Hewstone 1997). Over 3800 majority group re-
spondents in seven probability samples of France, Great Britain, the Nether-
lands, and West Germany were asked their attitudes toward major minority
groups in their country and whether they had friends of another nationality,
race, culture, religion, or social class. In all samples, Europeans with outgroup
friends scored significantly lower on five prejudice measures even after con-
trolling for seven variables. The largest effect occurred for a two-item measure
of affective prejudice. Those with intergroup friends significantly more often
reported having felt sympathy and admiration for the outgroup. Few studies in
the contact literature have used affective dependent variables. When they
have, similar results emerge (Wright et al 1997).
Figure 1 compares the paths between intergroup friends and affective preju-
dice. Note that living in an intergroup neighborhood makes it more likely that a
European will have an outgroup friend (+.356). There is no direct relationship,
however, between mixed neighborhoods and affective prejudice. This allows a
test of the paths between friendship and affective prejudice (Bollen 1989,
Heist 1975). As in other research (Herek & Capitanio 1996), the prejudiced
avoid intergroup contact (−.137). But the path from friendship to reduced af-
fective prejudice is significantly stronger (−.210), a finding consistent with
that of Powers & Ellison (1995). In short, like prejudice, contact involves both
cognition and affect.
INGROUP REAPPRAISAL Optimal intergroup contact provides insight about
ingroups as well as outgroups. Ingroup norms and customs turn out not to be
the only ways to manage the social world. This new perspective can reshape
your view of your ingroup and lead to a less provincial view of outgroups in
general (“deprovincialization”). In the European surveys, outgroup friendship
related to significantly less “pride” in nationality even after education, age,
and political conservatism are controlled (Pettigrew 1997c). (A comparable
72 PETTIGREW
analysis to Figure 1 reveals similar results with a significant path from out-
group friends to less national pride.)
Part of this process involves having less contact with the ingroup as a result
of more contact with the outgroup. Wilder & Thompson (1980) covaried con-
tact with the ingroup and outgroup in a laboratory study. While it had no im-
pact on ingroup ratings, less ingroup contact led to less bias toward the out-
group. This finding is consistent with meta-analytic results that show ingroup
bias is positively related with ingroup salience (Mullen et al 1992).
THREE TYPES OF GENERALIZATION
GENERALIZATION ACROSS SITUATIONS World War II research showed major
improvements in white attitudes toward black soldiers after combat together
(Stouffer et al 1949). Yet whites continued to favor racially separate post ex-
changes (military stores). Other early studies also demonstrated limited gener-
alization across situations (Biesanz & Smith 1951, Deutsch & Collins 1951,
Harding & Hogrefe 1952, Minard 1952, Reitzes 1953, Saenger & Gilbert
1950).
Recall that the first cooperative encounters of the Robbers’ Cave study did
not generalize either. Only the cumulative effect of repeated optimal situations
INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY 73
Figure 1 Friends—prejudice model
altered the attitudes of the rival groups. Similarly, only after the US Army of-
fered many types of optimal interracial situations could it conclude that its pro-
gram of racial desegregation “works” (US Department of Defense 1955, Mos-
cos & Butler 1996).
GENERALIZATION FROM THE OUTGROUP INDIVIDUAL TO THE OUTGROUP
Brown & Turner (1981) questioned the generalization of effects between in-
terpersonal and intergroup phenomena. They doubted whether positive ef-
fects from getting to know an outgroup member (interpersonal) could affect at-
titudes about the outgroup (intergroup).
Following this reasoning, Hewstone & Brown (1986) theorized that contact
effects generalize to the outgroup only when group membership is salient. When
group saliency is low, the situation is interpersonal and no intergroup effects
should result. Only when the interactants view one another as group representa-
tives does the contact become an intergroup event. Research that supports this
salient categorization strategy shows stereotype change generalizes best to the
intergroup level when the individuals involved are typical group members
(Johnston & Hewstone 1992, Vivian et al 1995, Weber & Crocker 1983,
Wilder 1984). As typical members, their group memberships were more salient.
This poses a problem. Typical members of real groups are different in many
ways, but people with similar interests and status seek each other out—the
similarity principle (Byrne 1971). People from different groups who have con-
tact, then, are more likely to share similar interests and values. And outgroup
members with similar interests to the ingroup often will not typify their group
or make group membership salient. Hence, Brewer & Miller (1984) advocate a
decategorization strategy. The opposite of salient categorization, it holds that
intergroup contact is most effective when group saliency is low.
So, given real differences between groups, those most likely to have inter-
group contact are atypical of their groups. Yet contact effects generalize best
when the participants are typical group members. Thus, people most likely to
engage in intergroup contact are the least likely to evoke changes that general-
ize to their groups.
How, then, can effective contact take place? First, the similarity principle is
not the whole story. Durkheim (1960) pointed out that similarity (mechanical
solidarity) is only one form of social bond. Society could not exist without
bonds across reciprocal roles—parents and children, clerks and customers. So
differences (organic solidarity) also are important for social bonds. These dif-
ferences, widespread in modern society, guarantee that contact takes place be-
tween dissimilar people. Further, under some conditions, optimal contact leads
to positive changes that generalize even when atypical members are involved
(Hamburger 1994, Werth & Lord 1992).
74 PETTIGREW
Second, the time sequence is crucial. Conflicting as they seem, both strate-
gies are possible if they occur sequentially. Diminished saliency of group cate-
gories can be important when intergroup contact is initiated. Once established,
salient group categorization is required for the effects to generalize to the inter-
group level (Van Oudenhoven et al 1996).
In time, the Common Ingroup Identity Model emphasizes that recategori-
zation becomes possible (Anastasio et al 1997; Gaertner et al 1993, 1994). Af-
ter extended contact, people can begin to think of themselves in a larger group
perspective. Recategorization adopts an inclusive category that highlights
similarities among the interactants and obscures the “we” and “they” boundary
(Perdue et al 1990). Note, however, that recategorization is the final state many
interacting groups never reach. The progression through these three stages of
categorization is not automatic, and recategorization into a single group often
will not be attained.
Wright and his colleagues propose a further form of generalization involv-
ing friendship. Using both questionnaire and experimental methods, they show
that even knowledge of an ingroup member’s friendship with an outgroup
member relates to more positive attitudes toward the outgroup (Wright et al
1997). Such an “extended contact effect” does not require intergroup friend-
ship for the perceiver.
GENERALIZATION FROM THE IMMEDIATE OUTGROUP TO OTHER OUTGROUPS
This higher-order form of generalization presupposes the other forms and is
seldom studied because many regard it as highly unlikely (but see Reich &
Purbhoo 1975, Weigert 1976). Nonetheless, the European surveys show that
such generalization is possible. Having an ingroup friend related to greater ac-
ceptance of minorities of many types (Pettigrew 1997a,b). The 3800 respon-
dents rated how favorable they were toward eight outgroups, many of whom
were not in their country. In all samples, significant relationships emerged
even after seven variables were controlled. For each outgroup, those with in-
tergroup friends were significantly more positive in their views. And a test like
that of Figure 1 showed that the path from friendship to reduced prejudice is
significantly stronger than the prejudice to less friendship path. These findings
challenge Rose’s (1981) assertion that intimate relationships cannot generalize
to different persons and groups.
A REFORMULATION OF INTERGROUP CONTACT
THEORY
These considerations provide direction for a reformulation of Allport’s hy-
pothesis. At least four processes, not one, are involved, and these processes
may well overlap and interact in complex ways. Intergroup friendship is potent
INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY 75
because it potentially invokes all four mediating processes. This suggests that
constructive contact relates more closely to long-term close relationships than
to initial acquaintanceship—a dramatic shift for the intergroup contact re-
search literature.
Optimal intergroup contact requires time for cross-group friendships to de-
velop. Past work has focused chiefly on short-term intergroup contact—the very
condition that Sherif’s (1966) Robbers’ Cave field experiment found mini-
mally effective. Once we adopt a long-term perspective that allows cross-group
friendship to develop and the full decategorization, salient categorization, and
recategorization sequence to unfold, we can expect striking results. Such a re-
vised perspective explains why extended intergroup contact often has more
positive results than either the contact hypothesis or cognitive analyses predict.
The power of cross-group friendship to reduce prejudice and generalize to
other outgroups demands a fifth condition for the contact hypothesis: The con-
tact situation must provide the participants with the opportunity to become
friends. Such opportunity implies close interaction that would make self-
disclosure and other friendship-developing mechanisms possible. It also im-
plies the potential for extensive and repeated contact in a variety of social con-
texts. Allport (1954) alluded to this point when he favored intimate to trivial
contact; Cook (1962) called it “acquaintance potential.” These European re-
sults suggest that “friendship potential” is an essential, not merely facilitating,
condition for positive intergroup contact effects that generalize. Further, they
suggest that Allport’s conditions are important in part because they provide the
setting that encourages intergroup friendship.
Instead of a list of conditions, then, I propose a longitudinal model as sche-
matically outlined in Figure 2. Note first that this version of intergroup contact
theory involves the meso-level of analysis. Yet it is placed within the micro-
and macrolevel contexts of (B) the participants’ experiences and characteris-
tics as well as the larger societal setting of the situation. The basic features of
this reformulated version consist of (A) the essential and facilitating situational
factors and (C, D, E) the time dimension. Each of these features involves de-
tails not shown in Figure 2.
(A) From the previous discussion, the theory posits Allport’s four conditions
and friendship potential as essential situational factors for positive intergroup
outcomes—less negative stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. An array
of additional factors, such as equivalent group status outside the situation, act
as facilitating factors for such effects. Complicating the picture further, such
factors might prove important at different stages of the intergroup contact.
(C, D, E) in Figure 2 designate only three stages. As diagrammed, this time
dimension is obviously oversimplified. The stages will overlap, and at any
point the groups can break off contact. This heuristic, however, following the
76 PETTIGREW
three research traditions on group categorization, allows the theory to predict
different outcomes at different stages.
We need research on several points. While the recategorization of the unified
group, if attained, appears to yield the maximum in prejudice reduction, we
have little data on how this effect generalizes. Further, we must understand how
the four contact processes of change are activated and become important at each
stage. The thrust of the time dimension is to underline the need for longitudinal
research on intergroup contact. Though rare in this literature, this reformulated
theory holds that such research designs are necessary for further progress.
Conceptualizing intergroup contact as a meso-level, situational phenome-
non links it to both the microindividual and macrosocietal levels of analysis
(Pettigrew 1991b, 1996). Research has shown how important these cross-level
links can be.
Individual Differences Shape Contact Effects
Prior attitudes and experiences influence whether people seek or avoid inter-
group contact, and what the effects of the contact will be. Figure 1 showed that
prejudiced Europeans are less likely to have outgroup friends. Other character-
istics also deter contact. Value differences shaped differential readiness for in-
INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY 77
Figure 2 Reformulated contact theory.
tergroup contact among both Israeli Arabs and Jews (Sagiv & Schwartz 1995).
Cook (1984) found large individual differences in the effects of even optimal
contact; 40% of his experimental subjects, compared with 12% of controls,
evinced sweeping attitude changes. Yet other experimental subjects averaged
little change.
High intergroup anxiety and threat also can impede both contact and its
positive effects (Islam & Hewstone 1993; Stephan 1992; Stephan & Stephan
1985, 1989, 1992, 1996; Wilder 1993a,b; Wilder & Shapiro 1989). Such emo-
tions often derive from no prior experience with the outgroup. Black and white
high school students who had the most favorable earlier interracial experience
were more positive toward the other race (Patchen 1982). Thus, intergroup
contact and its effects are cumulative—we live what we learn. Braddock
(1989) found that black graduates of segregated high schools were signifi-
cantly less likely later to work with whites. Since jobs with white co-workers
have better pay and promotions, this result helps to explain why black gradu-
ates of interracial schools do better in later life than those from segregated
schools (Braddock 1989, Braddock et al 1984, Braddock & McPartland 1987).
Societies Shape Contact Effects
Situations are embedded in social institutions and societies. Thus, institu-
tional and societal norms structure the form and effects of contact situations
(Kinloch 1981, 1991). Consider intergroup strife in Northern Ireland and Que-
bec. These societal contexts severely limit all forms of intergroup contact.
Moreover, they render the contact that does occur less than optimal. Implicit in
Allport’s equal-status condition is equivalent group power in the situation.
This is difficult to achieve when a struggle over power fuels the larger inter-
group conflict.
The meager equal-status contact between groups that takes place in such
societies is typically subversive in character. In Northern Ireland, neighbor-
ing Catholic and Protestant farmers cooperate in their agricultural pursuits but
remain apart in other activities (Harris 1972, Kirk 1993). Even conversations
are circumscribed. In both Quebec and Northern Ireland, intergroup interac-
tion focuses on local issues and avoids divisive group concerns (Taylor et al
1986, Trew 1986). It is at best constrained discussion, not the easy banter of
friends.
Russell (1961) showed how societal norms of discrimination poison inter-
group contact. She tested a racially mixed neighborhood at the height of South
Africa’s Apartheid policy of intense racial segregation. This rare area had 50%
whites, 20% Coloureds, and 30% Indians. Even here, modest improvements
emerged in white attitudes toward their neighbors of color. Yet the larger so-
cial context constrained these effects. The improved attitudes did not general-
78 PETTIGREW
ize to Coloureds and Indians as groups, and whites were defensive about their
interracial contact. Some avoided it, and the exchange that took place was not
reciprocal. Whites received neighborly aid and entered nonwhite homes far
more than the reverse. Many whites rationalized their interracial behavior with
the exploitative nature of the relationship. All were aware that the then stern
South African norms punished equal-status interracial contact. Such norms
erode true neighborliness.
Alternatively, when a society embraces intergroup harmony, equal-status
contact between groups is no longer subversive. Normative support makes at-
tainment of other optimal conditions far easier.
GENERAL EVALUATIONS OF CONTACT EFFECTS
Consider this reformulation in light of two efforts to test the chief contentions
of contact theory, one with surveys and the other experimental.
In meta-analytic fashion, the European surveys tested the link between in-
tergroup friendship and five different measures of prejudice across seven sam-
ples (Pettigrew 1997a). Weighting for sample size, the average correlations
ranged between −.14 and −.32 without controls. With controls for seven vari-
ables and weighting for sample size, the average correlations ranged between
−.10 and −.25. These results are consistent with the preliminary findings of a
meta-analysis of the full contact literature now under way (Pettigrew et al
1998).
Cook (1984) provided the most extensive laboratory test of the intergroup
contact hypothesis. He set up an ideal interracial situation featuring equal
status, a stereotype-disconfirming minority member, an interdependent task,
task success, high friendship potential, and equalitarian social norms. Highly
prejudiced white subjects worked with two partners who were confederates,
one black and one white. They operated an imaginary railroad system over 40
sessions, sharing successes and failures but eventually winning bonus money.
To enhance generalization, the black confederate told of a personal experience
with racial discrimination after rapport had developed. Later, the white con-
federate disapproved of the discriminatory practice.
Cook recorded major changes. Subjects reported highly favorable opinions
of their black partner, and these views generalized. In another context, the sub-
jects evinced on average more positive racial views toward African Americans
than controls. Observe the time sequence. First, the prejudiced subjects found
the stereotype-disconfirming black as similar and grew to like her in the opti-
mal situation. Next the black confederate made race salient by telling of past
discrimination. Then the white confederate emphasized the link between their
friend’s bad treatment and racial discrimination.
INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY 79
SUMMARY
Allport’s hypothesis specified four conditions for optimal contact. The situa-
tion must allow equal group status within the situation, common goals, inter-
group cooperation, and authority support. Recent research adds another: The
contact situation must have “friendship potential.”
Varied research supports the hypothesis—from field and archival studies to
national surveys and laboratory experiments. However, cross-sectional studies
suffer from a selection bias. Prejudiced people avoid intergroup contact, so the
causal link between contact and prejudice is two-way. Yet those studies that
have tested both paths find that the positive effects of cross-group friendship
are larger than those of the bias.
Three additional problems limit the contact hypothesis. 1. Writers have
overburdened the hypothesis with too many facilitating, but not essential, con-
ditions. 2. The hypothesis does not address process. It predicts only when posi-
tive contact effects will occur, not how and why. The chapter details four inter-
related processes underlying contact effects: learning about the outgroup,
changing behavior, generating affective ties, and ingroup reappraisal. Inter-
group friendship has strong positive effects, because it potentially entails all
four processes.
3. The hypothesis does not specify how the effects generalize to other situa-
tions, the entire outgroup or uninvolved outgroups. Many effects do not gener-
alize beyond the immediate contact situation and participants. There are three
strategies to enhance generalization: decategorization, salient group categori-
zation, and recategorization. Thinking of these strategies acting sequentially
removes the apparent contradiction between them. Since similarity attracts,
initial stages of intergroup contact benefit from not making group membership
salient. Later, as anxiety and threat subside, group membership must become
salient to maximize the generalization of positive effects beyond the immedi-
ate situation. Then recategorization becomes possible if the participants adopt
an all-encompassing group identification.
Both individual differences and societal norms shape intergroup contact ef-
fects. The deeply prejudiced both avoid intergroup contact and resist positive
effects from it. Societies suffering intergroup conflict both restrict and under-
cut intergroup contact. From these considerations, the chapter advances a lon-
gitudinal reformulation of the intergroup contact hypothesis. Within the con-
texts of the participants’ characteristics and the situation’s societal setting, the
chapter outlines a meso-level theory with two key features. It distinguishes be-
tween essential and facilitating situational factors. And it emphasizes the time
dimension with different outcomes predicted for different stages of intergroup
contact.
80 PETTIGREW
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank my research colleagues over the past decade, James Jackson of
the University of Michigan and Roel W. Meertens of the University of Amster-
dam, for their invaluable collaboration with the European survey research. I
also greatly appreciate the helpful comments on earlier drafts of this chapter by
John Darley, Susan Fiske, Miles Hewstone, Marylee Taylor, and Linda Tropp.
Visit the Annual Reviews home page at
http://www.AnnualReviews.org.
INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY 81
Allport GW. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 537 pp.
Amir Y. 1976. The role of intergroup contact
in change of prejudice and race relations.
In Towards the Elimination of Racism, ed.
PA Katz, pp. 245–80. New York: Perga-
mon. 444 pp.
Anastasio P, Bachman B, Gaertner S, Dovidio
J. 1997. Categorization, recategorization
and common ingroup identity. See Spears
et al 1997, pp. 236–56
Anderson LS. 1995. Outdoor adventure rec-
reation and social integration: a social-
psychological perspective. PhD thesis.
Univ. Minn., Minneapolis, MN. 271 pp.
Araragi C. 1983. The effect of the jigsaw
learning method on children’s academic
performance and learning attitude. Jpn. J.
Educ. Psychol. 31:102–12
Aronson E, Gonzalez A. 1988. Desegregation,
jigsaw, and the Mexican-American expe-
rience. See Katz & Taylor 1988, pp.
301–14
Aronson E, Patnoe S. 1997. The Jigsaw Class-
room. New York: Longman. 150 pp. 2nd
ed.
Batson CD, Polycarpou MP, Harmon-Jones E,
Imhoff HJ, Mitchener EC, et al. 1997. Em-
pathy and attitudes: can feeling for a mem-
ber of a stigmatized group improve feel-
ings toward the group? J. Pers. Soc. Psy-
chol. 72:105–18
Ben-Ari R, Amir Y. 1986. Contact between
Arab and Jewish youth in Israel: reality
and potential. See Hewstone & Brown
1986, pp. 45–58
Bettencourt BA, Brewer MB, Rogers-Croak
MR, Miller N. 1992. Cooperation and the
reduction of intergroup bias: the role of re-
ward structure and social orientation. J.
Exp. Soc. Psychol. 28:301–19
Biesanz J, Smith LM. 1951. Race relations of
Panama and the Canal Zone. Am. J. Sociol.
57:7–14
Bollen KA. 1989. Structural Equations with
Latent Variables. New York: Wiley. 514
pp.
Bornman E, Mynhardt JC. 1991. Social identi-
fication and intergroup contact in South
Africa with specific reference to the work
situation. Genet. Soc. Gen. Psychol.
Monogr. 117:437–62
Bradburn N, Sudman S, Gockel GL. 1971.
Side by Side: Integrated Neighborhoods in
America. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.
209 pp.
Braddock JH Jr. 1989. Social psychological
processes that perpetuate racial segrega-
tion: the relationship between school and
employment desegregation. J. Black Stud.
19:267–89
Braddock JH Jr, Crain RL, McPartland JM.
1984. A long-term view of racial desegre-
gation: some recent studies of graduates as
adults. Phi Delta Kappan 66:259–64
Braddock JH Jr, McPartland JM. 1987. How
minorities continue to be excluded from
equal employment opportunities: research
on labor market and institutional barriers.
J. Soc. Issues 43:5–39
Brewer MB, Kramer RM. 1985. The psychol-
ogy of intergroup attitudes and behavior.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 36:219–43
Brewer MB, Miller N. 1984. Beyond the con-
tact hypothesis: theoretical perspectives
on desegregation. See Miller & Brewer
1984, pp. 281–302
Brewer MB, Miller N. 1988. Contact and co-
Literature Cited
82 PETTIGREW
operation: when do they work? See Katz &
Taylor 1988, pp. 315–26
Brooks D. 1975. Race and Labour in London
Transport. London: Oxford Univ. Press.
389 pp.
Brophy IN. 1946. The luxury of anti-Negro
prejudice. Public Opin. Q. 9:456–66
Brown RJ, Turner JC. 1981. Interpersonal
and intergroup behavior. In Intergroup
Behavior, ed. J Turner, H Giles, pp.
33–65. Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago Press.
277 pp.
Byrne D. 1971. The Attraction Paradigm.
New York: Academic. 474 pp.
Cagle LT. 1973. Interracial housing: a reas-
sessment of the equal-status contact hy-
pothesis. Sociol. Soc. Res. 57:342–55
Caspi A. 1984. Contact hypothesis and inter-
age attitudes: a field study of cross-age
contact Soc. Psychol. Q. 47:74–80
Chang H. 1973. Attitudes of Chinese students
in the United States. Sociol. Soc. Res. 58:
66–77
Chu D, Griffey D. 1985. The contact theory of
racial integration: the case of sport. Sociol.
Sport J. 2:323–33
Clogg CC. 1986. Invoked by RATE. Am. J.
Sociol. 92:696–706
Cohen EG. 1982. Expectation states and inter-
racial interaction in school settings. Annu.
Rev. Sociol. 8:209–35
Cohen EG, Lotan RA. 1995. Producing equal-
status interaction in the heterogeneous
classroom. Am. Educ. Res. J. 32:99–120
Cook SW. 1962. The systematic analysis of
socially significant events: a strategy for
social research. J. Soc. Issues 18:66–84
Cook SW. 1978. Interpersonal and attitudinal
outcomes in cooperating interracial
groups. J. Res. Dev. Educ. 12:97–113
Cook SW. 1984. Cooperative interaction in
multiethnic contexts. See Miller & Brewer
1984, pp. 155–85
Desforges DM, Lord CG, Ramsey SL, Mason
JA, Van Leeuwen MD, et al. 1991. Effects
of structured cooperative contact on
changing negative attitudes toward stig-
matized social groups. J. Pers. Soc. Psy-
chol. 60:531–44
Deutsch M, Collins M. 1951. Interracial
Housing: A Psychological Evaluation of a
Social Experiment. Minneapolis: Univ.
Minn. Press. 173 pp.
Devine PG, Evett SR, Vasquez-Suson KA.
1996. Exploring the interpersonal dynam-
ics of intergroup contact. In Handbook of
Motivation and Cognition: The Interper-
sonal Context, ed. RM Sorrentino, ET Hig-
gins, 3:423–64. New York: Guilford. 646
pp.
Drew B. 1988. Intergenerational contact in
the workplace: an anthropological study
of relationships in the secondary labor
market. PhD thesis. Rutgers Univ., New
Brunswick, NJ. 285 pp.
Durkheim E. 1960. (1893). The Division of La-
bor. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. 439 pp.
Ellison CG, Powers DA. 1994. The contact hy-
pothesis and racial attitudes among Black
Americans. Soc. Sci. Q. 75:385–400
Epler R, Huber GL. 1990. Wissenserwerb im
Team: Empirische Untersuchung von Ef-
fekten des Gruppen-Puzzles. Psychol. Er-
zieh. Unterr. 37:172–78
Eskilson A. 1995. Trends in homophobia and
gender attitudes: 1987–1993. Presented at
Annu. Meet. Am. Sociol. Assoc., 90th,
Washington, DC
Fine GA. 1979. The Pinkston settlement: an
historical and social psychological investi-
gation of the contact hypothesis. Phylon
40:229–42
Ford WS. 1986. Favorable intergroup contact
may not reduce prejudice: inconclusive
journal evidence 1960–1984. Sociol. Soc.
Res. 70:256–58
Gaertner SL, Dovidio JF, Anastasio PA, Bach-
man BA, Rust MC. 1993. The common in-
group identity model: recategorization and
the reduction of intergroup bias. Eur. Rev.
Soc. Psychol. 4:1–26
Gaertner SL, Rust MC, Dovidio JF, Bachman
BA, Anastasio PA. 1994. The contact hy-
pothesis: the role of a common ingroup
identity on reducing intergroup bias. Small
Group Res. 25:224–49
Gardiner GS. 1972. Complexity training and
prejudice reduction. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.
2:326–42
Hamberger J, Hewstone M. 1997. Inter-ethnic
contact as a predictor of prejudice: tests of
a model in four West European nations. Br.
J. Soc. Psychol. In press
Hamburger Y. 1994. The contact hypothesis
reconsidered: effects of the atypical out-
group member on the outgroup stereotype.
Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 15:339–58
Harding J, Hogrefe R. 1952. Attitudes of white
department store employees toward Negro
co-workers. J. Soc. Issues 8:18–28
Harris R. 1972. Prejudice and Tolerance in
Ulster. Manchester, UK: Manchester
Univ. Press. 234 pp.
Heist DR. 1975. Causal Analysis. New York:
Wiley. 301 pp.
Herek GM, Capitanio JP. 1996. “Some of my
best friends”: intergroup contact, conceal-
able stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes
toward gay men and lesbians. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. Bull. 22:412–24
INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY 83
Hewstone M. 1996. Contact and categoriza-
tion: social-psychological interventions to
change intergroup relations. In Founda-
tions of Stereotypes and Stereotyping, ed.
CN Macrae, C Stagnor, M Hewstone, pp.
323–68. New York: Guilford. 462 pp.
Hewstone M, Brown R, eds. 1986. Contact
and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters.
Oxford: Blackwell. 231 pp.
Islam MR, Hewstone M. 1993. Dimensions of
contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety,
perceived out-group variability, and out-
group attitude: an integrative model. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. Bull. 19:700–10
Jackman MR, Crane M. 1986. “Some of my
best friends are black…”: interracial
friendship and whites’ racial attitudes.
Public Opin. Q. 50:459–86
Jeffries V, Ransford HE. 1969. Interracial so-
cial contact and middle-class white reac-
tion to the Watts riot. Soc. Probl. 16:
312–24
Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Maruyama G.
1984. Goal interdependence and inter-
personal-personal attraction in heteroge-
neous classrooms: a meta-analysis. See
Miller & Brewer 1984, pp. 187–212
Johnston L, Hewstone M. 1992. Cognitive
models of stereotype change: III. Subtyp-
ing and the perceived typicality of discon-
firming group members. J. Exp. Soc. Psy-
chol. 28:360–86
Katz PA, Taylor DA, eds. 1988. Eliminating
Racism: Profiles in Controversy. New
York: Plenum. 380 pp.
Kephart WM. 1957. Racial Factors and Ur-
ban Law Enforcement. Philadelphia: Univ.
Pa. Press. 209 pp.
Kinloch GC. 1981. Comparative race and eth-
nic relations. Int. J. Comp. Sociol. 22:
257–71
Kinloch GC. 1991. Inequality, repression, dis-
crimination and violence: a comparative
study. Int. J. Cont. Sociol. 28:85–98
Kirk T. 1993. The polarisation of Protestants
and Roman Catholics in rural Northern
Ireland: a case study of Glenravel Ward,
County Antrim 1956 to 1988. PhD thesis.
Queen’s Univ., Belfast, North. Ireland.
541 pp.
Landis D, Hope RO, Day HR. 1984. Training
for desegregation in the military. See
Miller & Brewer 1984, pp. 257–78
McGarty C, de la Haye AM. 1997. Stereotype
formation: beyond illusory correlation.
See Spears et al 1997, pp. 144–70
McGinnis SP. 1990. Descriptive and evalua-
tive components of stereotypes of computer
programmers and their determinants. PhD
thesis. New York: City Univ. NY. 248 pp.
McKay S, Pitman J. 1993. Determinants of
Anglo-Australian stereotypes of the Viet-
namese in Australia. Aust. J. Psychol. 45:
17–23
Meer B, Freedman E. 1966. The impact of Ne-
gro neighbors on white house owners. Soc.
Forces 45:11–19
Miller N, Brewer MB, eds. 1984. Groups in
Contact: The Psychology of Desegrega-
tion. Orlando, FL: Academic. 316 pp.
Minard RD. 1952. Race relations in the Poca-
hontas coal field. J. Soc. Issues 8:29–44
Miracle AW. 1981. Factors affecting interra-
cial cooperation: a case study of a high
school football team. Hum. Organ. 40:
150–54
Morrison EW, Herlihy JM. 1992. Becoming
the best place to work: Managing diversity
at American Express Travel related serv-
ices. In Diversity in the Workplace, ed. SE
Jackson, pp. 203–26. New York: Guilford.
356 pp.
Moscos CC, Butler JS. 1996. All That We Can
Be. New York: Basic Books. 198 pp.
Mullen B, Brown R, Smith C. 1992. Ingroup
bias as a function of salience, relevance,
and status: an integration. Eur. J. Soc. Psy-
chol. 22:103–22
Ohm RM. 1988. Constructing and recon-
structing social distance attitudes. PhD
thesis. Ariz. State Univ., Tempe. 316 pp.
Oliner SP, Oliner PM. 1988. The Altruistic
Personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi
Europe. New York: Free Press. 419 pp.
Parker JH. 1968. The interaction of Negroes
and whites in an integrated church setting.
Soc. Forces 46:359–66
Patchen M. 1982. Black-White Contact in
Schools: Its Social and Academic Effects.
West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Univ. Press.
387 pp.
Perdue CW, Dovidio JF, Gurtman MB, Tyler
RB. 1990. Us and them: social categoriza-
tion and the process of intergroup bias. J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. 59:475–86
Pettigrew TF. 1971. Racially Separate or To-
gether? New York: McGraw-Hill. 371 pp.
Pettigrew TF. 1975. The racial integration of
the schools. In Racial Discrimination in
the United States, ed. TF Pettigrew, pp.
224–39. New York: Harper & Row. 429
pp.
Pettigrew TF. 1986. The contact hypothesis
revisited. See Hewstone & Brown 1986,
pp. 169–95
Pettigrew TF. 1991a. The importance of cu-
mulative effects: a neglected emphasis of
Sherif’s work. In Social Judgment and In-
tergroup Relations: Essays in Honor of
Muzafer Sherif, ed. D Granberg, G Sarup,
84 PETTIGREW
pp. 89–103. New York: Springer-Verlag.
280 pp.
Pettigrew TF. 1991b. Toward unity and bold
theory: Popperian suggestions for two per-
sistent problems of social psychology. In
The Future of Social Psychology, ed. CW
Stephan, W Stephan, TF Pettigrew, pp.
13–27. New York: Springer-Verlag. 121
pp.
Pettigrew TF. 1996. How to Think Like a So-
cial Scientist. New York: Harper-Collins.
198 pp.
Pettigrew TF. 1997a. Generalized intergroup
contact effects on prejudice. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. Bull. 23:173–85
Pettigrew TF. 1997b. The affective compo-
nent of prejudice: empirical support for the
new view. In Racial Attitudes in the 1990s:
Continuity and Change, ed. SA Tuch, JK
Martin, pp. 76–90. Westport, CT: Praeger.
In press
Pettigrew TF. 1997c. Ingroup reappraisal: an-
other intergroup contact process that re-
duces prejudice. Univ. Calif., Santa Cruz.
Unpublished manuscr.
Pettigrew TF, Meertens RW. 1995. Subtle and
blatant prejudice in western Europe. Eur.
J. Soc. Psychol. 25:57–75
Pettigrew TF, Wright S, Tropp L. 1998. Inter-
group contact and prejudice: a meta-
analytic test of Allport’s hypothesis. Dep.
Psychol., Univ. Calif., Santa Cruz. Unpub-
lished manuscr.
Powers DA, Ellison CG. 1995. Interracial con-
tact and black racial attitudes: the contact
hypothesis and selectivity bias. Soc.
Forces 74:205–26
Reich C, Purbhoo M. 1975. The effect of
cross-cultural contact. Can. J. Behav. Sci.
7:313–27
Reif K, Melich A. 1991. Euro-Barometer 30:
Immigrants and Out-Groups in Western
Europe, 1988. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-Univ.
Consort. Polit. Soc. Res. 780 pp.
Reitzes DC. 1953. The role of organizational
structures: union versus neighborhood in a
tension situation. J. Soc. Issues 9(1):37–44
Riordan C. 1978. Equal-status interracial con-
tact: a review and revision of the concept.
Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2:161–85
Riordan C. 1987. Intergroup contact in small
cities. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 11:143–54
Riordan C, Ruggiero J. 1980. Producing
equal-status interracial interaction: a repli-
cation. Soc. Psychol. Q. 43:131–36
Rippl S. 1995. Vorurteile und personliche Be-
ziehungen zwischen Ost- und West-
deuschen. Z. Soziol. 24:273–83
Robinson JL Jr. 1980. Physical distance and
racial attitudes: a further examination of
the contact hypothesis. Phylon 41:325–32
Robinson JW Jr, Preston JD. 1976. Equal-
status contact and modification of racial
prejudice. Soc. Forces 54:911–24
Rose TL. 1981. Cognitive and dyadic pro-
cesses in intergroup contact. In Cognitive
Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup
Behavior, ed. DL Hamilton, pp. 145–81.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 366 pp.
Rothbart M, John OP. 1985. Social categoriza-
tion and behavioral episodes: a cognitive
analysis of the effects of intergroup con-
tact. J. Soc. Issues 41:81–104
Russell MJ. 1961. Study of a South African
Inter-Racial Neighbourhood. Durban, S.
Afr: Univ. Natal, Durban. 167 pp.
Saenger G, Gilbert E. 1950. Customer reac-
tions to the integration of Negro sales
personnel. Int. J. Opin. Attent. Res. 4:
57–76
Sagiv L, Schwartz SH. 1995. Value priorities
and readiness for out-group social contact.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 69:437–48
Schofield JW. 1989. Black and White in
School: Trust, Tension, or Tolerance?
New York: Teachers College Press. 255
pp.
Sherif M. 1966. In Common Predicament.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 192 pp.
Sigelman L, Welch S. 1993. The contact hy-
pothesis revisited: black-white interaction
and positive racial attitudes. Soc. Forces
71:781–95
Sims VM, Patrick JR. 1936. Attitude toward
the Negro of northern and southern college
students. J. Soc. Psychol. 7:192–204
Slavin RE. 1983. Cooperative Learning. New
York: Longman. 147 pp.
Slavin RE, Madden NA. 1979. Social prac-
tices that improve race relations. Am.
Educ. Res. J. 16:169–80
Smith CB. 1994. Back and to the future: the in-
tergroup contact hypothesis revisited. So-
ciol. Inq. 64:438–55
Spears R, Oakes PJ, Ellemers N, Haslam SA,
eds. 1997. The Social Psychology of
Stereotyping and Group Life. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell. 422 pp.
Stephan CW. 1992. Intergroup anxiety and in-
tergroup interaction. Cult. Divers. Sch. 2:
145–58
Stephan CW, Stephan WG. 1992. Reducing
intercultural anxiety through intercultural
contact. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 16:89–106
Stephan WG. 1987. The contact hypothesis in
intergroup relations. Rev. Pers. Soc. Psy-
chol. 9:13–40
Stephan WG, Stephan CW. 1984. The role of
INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY 85
ignorance in intergroup relations. See
Miller & Brewer 1984, pp. 229–56
Stephan WG, Stephan CW. 1985. Intergroup
anxiety. J. Soc. Issues 41:157–75
Stephan WG, Stephan CW. 1989. Antecedents
of intergroup anxiety in Asian-Americans
and Hispanic-Americans. Int. J. Intercult.
Relat. 13:203–19
Stephan WG, Stephan CW. 1996. An inte-
grated threat theory of prejudice. Pre-
sented at Int. Psychol. Congr., 26th, Mont-
real
Stouffer SA, Suchman EA, DeVinney LC,
Star SA, Williams RM Jr. 1949. The
American Soldier: Adjustment During
Army Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.
Press. 756 pp.
Taylor DM, Dube L, Bellerose J. 1986. Inter-
group contact in Quebec. See Hewstone &
Brown 1986, pp. 107–18
Trew K. 1986. Catholic-Protestant contact in
Northern Ireland. See Hewstone & Brown
1986, pp. 93–106
Triandis HC. 1994. Culture and Social Behav-
ior. New York: McGraw-Hill. 330 pp.
US Department of Defense. 1955. A Progress
Report on Integration in the Armed Serv-
ices, 1954. Washington, DC: US Gov.
Print. Off. 165 pp.
Van Oudenhoven JP, Groenewoud JT, Hew-
stone M. 1996. Cooperation, ethnic sali-
ence and generalisation of interethnic atti-
tudes. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 26:649–61
Vivian J, Brown R, Hewstone M. 1995.
Changing attitudes through intergroup
contact: the effects of group membership
salience. Univ. Kent & Cardiff, Wales.
Unpublished manuscr.
Wagner U, Hewstone M, Machleit U. 1989.
Contact and prejudice between Germans
and Turks. Hum. Relat. 42:561–74
Wagner U, Machleit U. 1986. “Gestarbeiter”
in the Federal Republic of Germany: con-
tact between Germans and migrant popula-
tions. See Hewstone & Brown 1986, pp.
59–78
Walker I, Crogan M. 1997. Academic per-
formance, prejudice, and the jigsaw class-
room: new pieces to the puzzle. Presented
at Annu. Meet. Soc. Aust. Soc. Psychol.,
3rd, Wollongong
Watson G. 1947. Action for Unity. New York:
Harper. 165 pp.
Weber R, Crocker J. 1983. Cognitive pro-
cesses in the revision of stereotypic be-
liefs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 45:961–77
Weigert KM. 1976. Intergroup contact and at-
titudes about third-group: a survey of
Black soldiers’ perceptions. Int. J. Group
Tens. 6:110–24
Weldon DE, Carlston DE, Rissman AK, Slo-
bodin L, Triandis HC. 1975. A laboratory
test of effects of culture assimilator train-
ing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 32:300–10
Werth JL, Lord CG. 1992. Previous concep-
tions of the typical group member and the
contact hypothesis. Basic Appl. Soc. Psy-
chol. 13:351–69
Wilder DA. 1984. Intergroup contact: the typi-
cal member and the exception to the rule.
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 20:177–94
Wilder DA. 1993a. The role of anxiety in fa-
cilitating stereotypic judgments of out-
group behavior. In Affect, Cognition, and
Stereotyping: Interactive Processes in
Group Perception, ed. DM Mackie, DL
Hamilton, pp. 87–109. San Diego: Aca-
demic. 389 pp.
Wilder DA. 1993b. Freezing intergroup
evaluations: anxiety fosters resistance to
counterstereotypic information. In Group
Motivation: Social Psychological Per-
spectives, ed. MA Hogg, D Abrams, pp.
68–86. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
240 pp.
Wilder DA, Shapiro PN. 1989. Role of
competition-induced anxiety in limiting
beneficial impact of positive behavior by
an outgroup member. J. Pers. Soc. Psy-
chol. 56:60–69
Wilder DA, Thompson JE. 1980. Intergroup
contact with independent manipulations of
in-group and out-group interaction. J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. 38:589–603
Williams RM Jr. 1947. The Reduction of Inter-
group Tensions. New York: Soc. Sci. Res.
Counc. 153 pp.
Wilner DM, Walkley R, Cook SW. 1955. Hu-
man Relations in Interracial Housing: A
Study of the Contact Hypothesis. Minnea-
polis: Univ. Minn. Press. 167 pp.
Works E. 1961. The prejudice-interaction hy-
pothesis from the point of view of the Ne-
gro minority group. Am. J. Sociol. 67:
47–52
Wright SC, Aron A, McLaughlin-Volpe T,
Ropp SA. 1997. The extended contact ef-
fect: knowledge of cross-group friendships
and prejudice. Univ. Calif., Santa Cruz.
Unpublished manuscr.
Zajonc RB. 1968. Attitudinal effects of mere
exposure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 9(Suppl.
2):1–27
Zuel CR, Humphrey CR. 1971. The integra-
tion of black residents in suburban neigh-
borhoods. Soc. Probl. 18:462–74
