contact hypothesis simple definition

What Is the Contact Hypothesis in Psychology?

Can getting to know members of other groups reduce prejudice?

Jacob Ammentorp Lund / Getty Images 

• Archaeology
• Ph.D., Psychology, University of California - Santa Barbara
• B.A., Psychology and Peace & Conflict Studies, University of California - Berkeley

The contact hypothesis is a theory in psychology which suggests that prejudice and conflict between groups can be reduced if members of the groups interact with each other.

Key Takeaways: Contact Hypothesis

• The contact hypothesis suggests that interpersonal contact between groups can reduce prejudice.
• According to Gordon Allport, who first proposed the theory, four conditions are necessary to reduce prejudice: equal status, common goals, cooperation, and institutional support.
• While the contact hypothesis has been studied most often in the context of racial prejudice, researchers have found that contact was able to reduce prejudice against members of a variety of marginalized groups.

Historical Background

The contact hypothesis was developed in the middle of the 20th century by researchers who were interested in understanding how conflict and prejudice could be reduced. Studies in the 1940s and 1950s , for example, found that contact with members of other groups was related to lower levels of prejudice. In one study from 1951 , researchers looked at how living in segregated or desegregated housing units was related to prejudice and found that, in New York (where housing was desegregated), white study participants reported lower prejudice than white participants in Newark (where housing was still segregated).

One of the key early theorists studying the contact hypothesis was Harvard psychologist Gordon Allport , who published the influential book The Nature of Prejudice in 1954. In his book, Allport reviewed previous research on intergroup contact and prejudice. He found that contact reduced prejudice in some instances, but it wasn’t a panacea—there were also cases where intergroup contact made prejudice and conflict worse. In order to account for this, Allport sought to figure out when contact worked to reduce prejudice successfully, and he developed four conditions that have been studied by later researchers.

Allport’s Four Conditions

According to Allport, contact between groups is most likely to reduce prejudice if the following four conditions are met:

• The members of the two groups have equal status. Allport believed that contact in which members of one group are treated as subordinate wouldn’t reduce prejudice—and could actually make things worse.
• The members of the two groups have common goals.
• The members of the two groups work cooperatively. Allport wrote , “Only the type of contact that leads people to do things together is likely to result in changed attitudes.”
• There is institutional support for the contact (for example, if group leaders or other authority figures support the contact between groups).

Evaluating the Contact Hypothesis

In the years since Allport published his original study, researchers have sought to test out empirically whether contact with other groups can reduce prejudice. In a 2006 paper, Thomas Pettigrew and Linda Tropp conducted a meta-analysis: they reviewed the results of over 500 previous studies—with approximately 250,000 research participants—and found support for the contact hypothesis. Moreover, they found that these results were not due to self-selection (i.e. people who were less prejudiced choosing to have contact with other groups, and people who were more prejudiced choosing to avoid contact), because contact had a beneficial effect even when participants hadn’t chosen whether or not to have contact with members of other groups.

While the contact hypothesis has been studied most often in the context of racial prejudice, the researchers found that contact was able to reduce prejudice against members of a variety of marginalized groups. For example, contact was able to reduce prejudice based on sexual orientation and prejudice against people with disabilities. The researchers also found that contact with members of one group not only reduced prejudice towards that particular group, but reduced prejudice towards members of other groups as well.

What about Allport’s four conditions? The researchers found a larger effect on prejudice reduction when at least one of Allport’s conditions was met. However, even in studies that didn’t meet Allport’s conditions, prejudice was still reduced—suggesting that Allport’s conditions may improve relationships between groups, but they aren’t strictly necessary.

Why Does Contact Reduce Prejudice?

Researchers have suggested that contact between groups can reduce prejudice because it reduces feelings of anxiety (people may be anxious about interacting with members of a group they have had little contact with). Contact may also reduce prejudice because it increases empathy and helps people to see things from the other group’s perspective. According to psychologist Thomas Pettigrew and his colleagues , contact with another group allows people “to sense how outgroup members feel and view the world.”

Psychologist John Dovidio and his colleagues suggested that contact may reduce prejudice because it changes how we categorize others. One effect of contact can be decategorization , which involves seeing someone as an individual, rather than as only a member of their group. Another outcome of contact can be recategorization , in which people no longer see someone as part of a group that they’re in conflict with, but rather as a member of a larger, shared group.

Another reason why contact is beneficial is because it fosters the formation of friendships across group lines.

Limitations and New Research Directions

Researchers have acknowledged that intergroup contact can backfire , especially if the situation is stressful, negative, or threatening, and the group members did not choose to have contact with the other group. In his 2019 book The Power of Human , psychology researcher Adam Waytz suggested that power dynamics may complicate intergroup contact situations, and that attempts to reconcile groups that are in conflict need to consider whether there is a power imbalance between the groups. For example, he suggested that, in situations where there is a power imbalance, interactions between group members may be more likely to be productive if the less powerful group is given the opportunity to express what their experiences have been, and if the more powerful group is encouraged to practice empathy and seeing things from the less powerful group’s perspective.

Can Contact Promote Allyship?

One especially promising possibility is that contact between groups might encourage more powerful majority group members to work as allies —that is, to work to end oppression and systematic injustices. For example, Dovidio and his colleagues suggested that “contact also provides a potentially powerful opportunity for majority-group members to foster political solidarity with the minority group.” Similarly, Tropp—one of the co-authors of the meta-analysis on contact and prejudice— tells New York Magazine’s The Cut that “there’s also the potential for contact to change the future behavior of historically advantaged groups to benefit the disadvantaged.”

While contact between groups isn’t a panacea, it’s a powerful tool to reduce conflict and prejudice—and it may even encourage members of more powerful groups to become allies who advocate for the rights of members of marginalized groups.

Sources and Additional Reading:

• Allport, G. W. The Nature of Prejudice . Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley, 1954. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1954-07324-000
• Dovidio, John F., et al. “Reducing Intergroup Bias Through Intergroup Contact: Twenty Years of Progress and Future Directions.”  Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , vol. 20, no. 5, 2017, pp. 606-620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217712052
• Pettigrew, Thomas F., et al. “Recent Advances in Intergroup Contact Theory.”  International Journal of Intercultural Relations , vol. 35 no. 3, 2011, pp. 271-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001
• Pettigrew, Thomas F., and Linda R. Tropp. “A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , vol. 90, no. 5, 2006, pp. 751-783. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
• Singal, Jesse. “The Contact Hypothesis Offers Hope for the World.” New York Magazine: The Cut , 10 Feb. 2017. https://www.thecut.com/2017/02/the-contact-hypothesis-offers-hope-for-the-world.html
• Waytz, Adam. The Power of Human: How Our Shared Humanity Can Help Us Create a Better World . W.W. Norton, 2019.
• What Was the Robbers Cave Experiment in Psychology?
• What Is Top-Down Processing? Definition and Examples
• Understanding the Big Five Personality Traits
• What Is Mindfulness in Psychology?
• What Is Positive Psychology?
• Mirror Neurons and How Do They Affect Behavior
• What Is Theory of Mind in Psychology?
• What Is the Law of Effect in Psychology?
• What Is a Conditioned Response?
• What Is a Flow State in Psychology?
• What Is the Recency Effect in Psychology?
• What Is Attachment Theory? Definition and Stages
• The Life of Carl Jung, Founder of Analytical Psychology
• What Is the Mere Exposure Effect in Psychology?

• Memberships

Contact Hypothesis theory explained

Contact Hypothesis Theory: this article explains the Contact Hypothesis Theory in a practical way. Next to what it is, this article also highlights the intergroup contact and prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination, the conditions and contact hypothesis examples. After reading you will understand the basics of this psychology theory. Enjoy reading!

What is the Contact Hypothesis?

The contact hypothesis is a psychology theory suggesting that prejudice and conflict between groups can be reduced by allowing members of those groups to interact with one another. This notion is also called intra-group contact. Prejudice and conflict usually arise between majority and minority group members.

The background to the contact hypothesis

Social psychologist Gordon Allport is credited with conducting the first studies on intergroup contact.

Allport is also known for this research in the field of personalities . After the Second World War, social scientists and policymakers concentrated mainly on interracial contact. Allport brought these studies together in his study of intergroup contact.

In 1954, Allport published his first hypothesis concerning intergroup contact in the journal of personality and social psychology. The main premise of his article stated that intergroup contact was one of the most effective ways to reduce prejudice between groups.

Allport claimed that contact management and interpersonal contact could produce positive effects against with stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination, leading to better and more worthwhile interaction between two or more groups.

Over the years since Allport’s original article, the hypothesis has been expanded by social scientists and used for research into reducing prejudice relating to racism, disability, women and LGBTQ + people.

Empirical and meta analytical research into intergroup contact is still ongoing today.

Intergroup contact and prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination

The term “prejudice” is used to refer to a preconceived, negative view of another person, based on perceived qualities such as political affiliation, skin colour, faith, gender, disability, religion, sexuality, language, height, education, and more.

Prejudice can also refer to an unfounded belief, or to pigeonhole people or groups. Gordon Allport, the originator of the contact hypothesis, defined prejudice as a feeling, positive or negative, prior to actual experience, that is not based on fact.

Stereotypes, as defined in the contact hypothesis, are generalisations about groups of people. Stereotypes are often based on sexual orientation, religion, race, or age. Stereotypes can be positive, but are usually negative. Either way, a stereotype is a generalisation that does not take into account differences at the individual level.

Prejudice and stereotypes concern biased views regarding others, but discrimination consists of targeted action against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender or other identifying features. Discrimination takes many forms, from pay gaps and glass ceilings to unfair housing policies.

In recent years, more and more new legislation and regulations have been introduced, designed to tackle discrimination and prejudice reduction in, for example, the workplace. It is not however possible to eliminate discrimination through legislation. Discrimination is a complex issue relating to the justice, education and political systems in a society.

Conditions for intergroup contact to reduce prejudice

Gordon Allport claimed that prejudice and conflict between groups can be reduced by having equal status contact between groups in pursuit of common goals. This effect is even greater when contact is officially sanctioned.

This can be achieved through legislation, but also through local customs and practice. In other words, there are four conditions under which prejudice can be reduced. These are:

Equal status

Both groups taking part in the contact situations must play equal roles in the relationship. The members of each group should have similar backgrounds, qualities and other features. Differences in academic background, prosperity or experience should be kept to a minimum.

Common goals

Both groups should seek to serve a higher purpose through the relationship and working together. This is a goal which can only be achieved when the two groups join forces and work together on common initiatives.

Working together

Both groups should work together to achieve their common goals, rather than in competition.

Support from the authorities through legislation

Both groups should recognise a single authority, to support contact and collaborative interaction between groups. This contact should be helpful, considerate, and foster the right attitude towards one another.

Examples of the contact hypothesis

The effect of greater contact between members of disparate groups has been the basis of many policy decisions advocating racial integration in settings such as schools, housing, workplaces and the military.

The contact hypothesis in the desegregation of education

An example of this is a 1954 landmark court decision by the US Supreme Court. The decision brought about the desegregation of schools. In this ruling, the contact hypothesis was used to demonstrate that this would increase self-esteem among racial minorities and respect between groups in general.

Studies into the implications of this decision in subsequent years did not always yield positive results. There have been studies showing that prejudice was actually reinforced and that self-esteem did not improve among minorities. The reason for this has already been set out above.

Contact between groups in schools, for example, was not always equal, nor did it take place with social supervision. These are two essential requirements or conditions for improving relationships between disparate groups.

The contact hypothesis in developing education strategies

The contact hypothesis has also proved invaluable in developing cooperative education strategies. The best known of these is the jigsaw classroom technique. This technique involves creating a particular classroom setting where students from various racial backgrounds are brought together in pursuit of a common goal.

In practice this means that students are placed in study groups of 6. The lesson is split into six elements, and each student is assigned one part of those six. That means that each student actually represents one piece in that jigsaw.

For the lesson to succeed, students need to trust one another based on their knowledge. This increases interdependence within the group, which is necessary for improving relationships between people.

Reducing prejudice

Besides it being very important to know how prejudice arises, studies on prejudice also focus on the potential to reduce prejudice. One technique widely believed to be highly effective is training people to become more empathetic towards members of other groups.

Putting yourself in someone else’s shoes makes it easier to think about what you would do in a similar situation.

Other techniques and methods used to reduce prejudice are:

• Contact with members of other groups
• Making others aware of the inconsistencies in their beliefs and values
• Legislation and regulations which promote fair and equal treatment of people in minority groups
• Creating public support and awareness

Implication of prejudice and discrimination in the workplace

Discrimination and prejudice can lead to wellbeing issues and substantial financial loss to the organisation, along with a sharp fall in employee and company morale. According to the American Psychological Association, 61% of adults face prejudice or discrimination at some time.

For some this happens at work; others face it as part of everyday life in society. Most people are aware of the negative effects this can have on employees, but discrimination and prejudice going unchecked can also have serious consequences.

Firstly, treating people unfairly can contribute to increased stress levels. This in turn leads to more wellbeing issues for those who are personally harmed or attacked. When someone is constantly worrying about discrimination or religion, he or she is forced to think about that thing all day long. Too much stress reduces sleep quality and suppresses appetite. When this becomes the norm for someone, they are going to feel chronically ill or down.

Prejudice also has a negative effect on the company in general. Companies may even suffer financial loss as a consequence. Employees who feel ill or down because of social issues are more likely to resign. The company then incurs substantial costs training new people.

Another obvious negative outcome for organisations is employees who hate management if they feel they are not being treated fairly. This negative attitude from employees has an effect on individual employee performance and ultimately also on the performance of the organisation as a whole.

The contact hypothesis in summary

The contact hypothesis, of which the intergroup contact theory is a part, is a theory from sociology and psychology which suggests that problems such as discrimination and prejudice can be drastically reduced by having more contact with people from different social groups. This notion is also called intergroup contact. Prejudice and conflict usually arise between majority and minority group members.

The social psychologist credited for his contributions in this field is Gordon Allport. Allport brought together several studies of interracial contact after the Second World War and developed the intergroup contact theory from those. His hypothesis was published in 1954. In the decades which followed, the theory was widely used in initiatives to tackle these social problems.

Prejudice is often a negative evaluation of others based on qualities such as political affiliation, age, skin colour, height, gender or other identifying features. Stereotyping resembles prejudice, but is in fact making generalisations about groups of people.

This social failing is also based on religion, gender or other identifying features which say nothing about the group as a whole. Discrimination goes a step further than prejudice and stereotypes. Discrimination is about actually treating people in a negative way based on particular identifying features such as race or education.

Gordon Allport developed four requirements or conditions necessary for reducing prejudice through increased intergroup contact. The first is that both groups should have an equal status. The members of each group should have similar backgrounds, qualities or social status.

Differences in academic background, prosperity or experience should be kept to a minimum. The second is to have common goals. The groups should not be brought together without some purpose. As mentioned too in the example above in the jigsaw classroom section, dependence on one another is stimulating, which is a prerequisite for social equality and improved relationships. This is linked to the third condition: working together.

Now it is your turn

What do you think? Are you familiar with the explanation of the contact hypothesis? Have you ever faced prejudice or discrimination? Have you ever experienced the positive effects of contact? Had you ever heard of this theory before? Do you think eliminating discrimination and prejudice is possible? What is your view on opportunity of outcome vs opportunity of equality? Do you have any other advice or additional comments?

Share your experience and knowledge in the comments box below.

More information

• Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations . Psychological bulletin, 71(5), 319.
• Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical . Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation, 281.
• Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A., & Green, D. P. (2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated . Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129-158.
• Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2005). Allport’s intergroup contact hypothesis: Its history and influence . On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport, 262-277.

How to cite this article: Janse, B. (2021). Contact Hypothesis Theory . Retrieved [insert date] from Toolshero: https://www.toolshero.com/psychology/contact-hypothesis/

Original publication date: 05/25/2021 | Last update: 08/21/2023

Add a link to this page on your website: <a href=”https://www.toolshero.com/psychology/contact-hypothesis/”>Toolshero: Contact Hypothesis Theory</a>

Did you find this article interesting?

Your rating is more than welcome or share this article via Social media!

Average rating 4.2 / 5. Vote count: 13

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Ben Janse is a young professional working at ToolsHero as Content Manager. He is also an International Business student at Rotterdam Business School where he focusses on analyzing and developing management models. Thanks to his theoretical and practical knowledge, he knows how to distinguish main- and side issues and to make the essence of each article clearly visible.

Related ARTICLES

Transactional Analysis: the Theory and Examples

Martin Seligman biography, quotes and books

Social Interaction Theory: the Definition and Main Roles

Standpoint Theory: the Definition and an Example

SCARF model by David Rock: the Basics

Victor Vroom biography, theory and books

Also interesting.

Bronfenbrenner Ecological Model: Basics and Examples

Big Five Personality Test: the basics and traits

Ikigai explained including the meaning

Leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

BOOST YOUR SKILLS

Toolshero supports people worldwide ( 10+ million visitors from 100+ countries ) to empower themselves through an easily accessible and high-quality learning platform for personal and professional development.

By making access to scientific knowledge simple and affordable, self-development becomes attainable for everyone, including you! Join our learning platform and boost your skills with Toolshero.

POPULAR TOPICS

• Change Management
• Marketing Theories
• Problem Solving Theories
• Psychology Theories

ABOUT TOOLSHERO

• Free Toolshero e-book
• Memberships & Pricing

magazine issue 2 2013 / Issue 17

Justice seems not to be for all: exploring the scope of justice.

written by Aline Lima-Nunes, Cicero Roberto Pereira & Isabel Correia

That human touch that means so much: Exploring the tactile dimension of social life

written by Mandy Tjew A Sin & Sander Koole

Intergroup Contact Theory: Past, Present, and Future

• written by Jim A. C. Everett
• edited by Diana Onu

In the midst of racial segregation in the U.S.A and the ‘Jim Crow Laws’, Gordon Allport (1954) proposed one of the most important social psychological events of the 20th century, suggesting that contact between members of different groups (under certain conditions) can work to reduce prejudice and intergroup conflict . Indeed, the idea that contact between members of different groups can help to reduce prejudice and improve social relations is one that is enshrined in policy-making all over the globe. UNESCO, for example, asserts that contact between members of different groups is key to improving social relations. Furthermore, explicit policy-driven moves for greater contact have played an important role in improving social relations between races in the U.S.A, in improving relationships between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, and encouraging a more inclusive society in post-Apartheid South Africa. In the present world, it is this recognition of the benefits of contact that drives modern school exchanges and cross-group buddy schemes. In the years since Allport’s initial intergroup contact hypothesis , much research has been devoted to expanding and exploring his contact hypothesis . In this article I will review some of the vast literature on the role of contact in reducing prejudice , looking at its success, mediating factors, recent theoretical extensions of the hypothesis and directions for future research. Contact is of utmost importance in reducing prejudice and promoting a more tolerant and integrated society and as such is a prime example of the real life applications that psychology can offer the world.

The Contact Hypothesis

The intergroup contact hypothesis was first proposed by Allport (1954), who suggested that positive effects of intergroup contact occur in contact situations characterized by four key conditions: equal status, intergroup cooperation , common goals, and support by social and institutional authorities (See Table 1). According to Allport, it is essential that the contact situation exhibits these factors to some degree. Indeed, these factors do appear to be important in reducing prejudice , as exemplified by the unique importance of cross-group friendships in reducing prejudice (Pettigrew, 1998). Most friends have equal status, work together to achieve shared goals, and friendship is usually absent from strict societal and institutional limitation that can particularly limit romantic relationships (e.g. laws against intermarriage) and working relationships (e.g. segregation laws, or differential statuses).

Since Allport first formulated his contact hypothesis , much work has confirmed the importance of contact in reducing prejudice . Crucially, positive contact experiences have been shown to reduce self-reported prejudice (the most common way of assessing intergroup attitudes) towards Black neighbors, the elderly, gay men, and the disabled - to name just a few (Works, 1961; Caspi, 1984; Vonofako, Hewstone, & Voci, 2007; Yuker & Hurley, 1987). Most interestingly, though, in a wide-scale meta-analysis (i.e., a statistical analysis of a number of published studies), it has been found that while contact under Allport’s conditions is especially effective at reducing prejudice , even unstructured contact reduces prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). What this means is that Allport’s proposed conditions should be best be seen as of a facilitating, rather than an essential, nature. This is important as it serves to show the importance of the contact hypothesis : even in situations which are not marked by Allport’s optimal conditions, levels of contact and prejudice have a negative correlation with an effect size comparable to those of the inverse relationship between condom use and sexually transmitted HIV and the relationship between passive smoking and the incidence of lung cancer at work (Al-Ramiah & Hewstone, 2011). Contact between groups, even in sub-optimal conditions, is strongly associated with reduced prejudice .

Importantly, contact does not just influence explicit self-report measures of prejudice , but also reduces prejudice as measured in a number of different ways. Explicit measures (e.g. ‘How much do you like gay men?’) are limited in that there can be a self-report bias: people often answer in a way that shows them in a good light. As such, research has examined the effects of contact on implicit measures: measures that involve investigating core psychological constructs in ways that bypass people’s willingness and ability to report their feelings and beliefs. Implicit measures have been shown to be a good complement to traditional explicit measures - particularly when there may be a strong chance of a self-report bias. In computer reaction time tasks, contact has been shown to reduce implicit associations between the participant’s own in-group and the concept ‘good’, and between an outgroup (a group the participant is not a member of) and the concept ‘bad’ (Aberson and Haag, 2007). Furthermore, positive contact is associated with reduced physiological threat responses to outgroup members (Blascovich et al., 2001), and reduced differences in the way that faces are processed in the brain, implying that contact helps to increase perceptions of similarity (Walker et al., 2008). Contact, then, has a real and tangible effect on reducing prejudice – both at the explicit and implicit level. Indeed, the role of contact in reducing prejudice is now so well documented that it justifies being referred to as intergroup contact theory (Hewstone & Swart, 2011).

How does it work?

Multiple mechanisms have been proposed to explain just how contact reduces prejudice . In particular, “four processes of change” have been proposed: learning about the out-group , changing behavior, generating affective ties, and in-group reappraisal (Pettigrew, 1998). Contact can, and does, work through both cognitive (i.e. learning about the out-group , or reappraising how one thinks about one’s own in-group ), behavioural (changing one’s behavior to open oneself to potential positive contact experiences), and affective (generating affective ties and friendships, and reducing negative emotions) means. A particularly important mediating mechanism (i.e. the mechanisms or processes by which contact achieves its effect) is that of emotions, or affect, with evidence suggesting that contact works to reduce prejudice by diminishing negative affect (anxiety / threat) and inducing positive affect such as empathy (Tausch and Hewstone, 2010). In another meta-analysis , Pettigrew and Tropp (2008) supported this by looking specifically at mediating mechanisms in contact and found that contact situations which promote positive affect and reduce negative affect are most likely to succeed in conflict reduction. Contact situations are likely to be effective at improving intergroup relations insofar as they induce positive affect, and ineffective insofar as they induce negative affect such as anxiety or threat. If we feel comfortable and not anxious, the contact situation will be much more successful.

Generalizing the effect

An important issue that I have not yet addressed, however, is how these positive experiences after contact can be extended and generalized to other members of the outgroup . While contact may reduce an individual’s prejudice towards (for example) their Muslim colleague, its practical use is strongly limited if it doesn’t also diminish prejudice towards other Muslims. Contact with each and every member of an outgroup – let alone of all out-groups to which prejudice is directed – is clearly unfeasible and so a crucial question in intergroup contact research is how the positive effect can be generalized.

A number of approaches have been developed to explain how the positive effect of contact, including making group saliency low so that people focus on individual characteristics and not group-level attributes (Brewer & Miller, 1984), making group saliency high so that the effect is best generalized to others (Johnston & Hewstone, 1992), and making an overarching common ingroup identity salient (Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993). Each of these approaches have both advantages and disadvantages, and in particular each individual approach may be most effective at different stages of an extended contact situation. To deal with this issue Pettigrew (1998) proposed a three stage model to take place over time to optimize successful contact and generalization. First is the decategorization stage (as in Brewer & Miller, 1984), where participants’ personal (and not group) identities should be emphasized to reduce anxiety and promote interpersonal liking. Secondly, the individuals’ social categories should be made salient to achieve generalization of positive affect to the outgroup as a whole (as in Johnston & Hewstone, 1992). Finally, there is the recategorization stage, where participants’ group identities are replaced with a more superordinate group: changing group identities from ‘Us vs. Them’ to a more inclusive ‘We’ (as in Gaertner et al., 1993). This stage model could provide an effective method of generalizing the positive effects of intergroup contact.

Theoretical Extensions

Even with such work on generalization, however, it may still be unrealistic to expect that group members will have sufficient opportunities to engage in positive contact with outgroup members: sometimes positive contact between group members is incredibly difficult, if not impossible. For example, at the height of the Northern Ireland conflict, positive contact between Protestants and Catholics was nigh on impossible. As such, recent work on the role of intergroup contact in reducing prejudice has moved away from the idea that contact must necessarily include direct (face-to-face) contact between group members and instead includes the notion that indirect contact (e.g. imagined contact, or knowledge of contact among others) may also have a beneficial effect.

A first example of this approach comes from Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, and Ropp’s (1997) extended contact hypothesis . Wright et al. propose that mere knowledge that an ingroup member has a close relationship with an outgroup member can improve outgroup attitudes, and indeed this has been supported by a series of experimental and correlational studies. For example, Shiappa, Gregg, & Hewes, (2005) have offered evidence suggesting that just watching TV shows that portrayed intergroup contact was associated with lower levels of prejudice . A second example of an indirect approach to contact comes from Crisp and Turner’s (2009) imagined contact hypothesis , which suggests that actual experiences may not be necessary to improve intergroup attitudes, and that simply imagining contact with outgroup members could improve outgroup attitudes. Indeed, this has been supported in a number of studies at both an explicit and implicit level: British Muslims (Husnu & Crisp, 2010), the elderly (Abrams, Crisp, & Marques 2008), and gay men (Turner, Crisp, & Lambert, 2007).

These more recent extensions of the contact hypothesis have offered important suggestions on how to most effectively generalize the benefits of the contact situation and make use of findings from work on mediating mechanisms. It seems that direct face-to-face contact is always not necessary, and that positive outcomes can be achieved by positive presentation of intergroup-friendships in the media and even simply by imagining interacting with an outgroup member.

Issues and Directions for Future Research

Contact, then, has important positive effects on improved intergroup relations. It does have its critics, however. Notably, Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux (2005) argue that while contact has been important in showing how we can promote a more tolerant society, the existing literature has an unfortunate absence of work on how intergroup contact can affect societal change: changes in outgroup attitudes from contact do not necessarily accompany changes in the ideological beliefs that sustain group inequality. For example, Jackson and Crane (1986) demonstrated that positive contact with Black individuals improved Whites’ affective reactions towards Blacks but did not change their attitudes towards policy in combating inequality in housing, jobs and education. Furthermore, contact may also have the unintended effect of weakening minority members’ motivations to engage in collective action aimed at reducing the intergroup inequalities. For example, Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux (2007) found that the more contact Black South Africans had with White South Africans, the less they supported policies aimed at reducing racial inequalities. Positive contact may have the unintended effect of misleading members of disadvantaged groups into believing inequality will be addressed, thus leaving the status differentials intact. As such, a fruitful direction for future research would be to investigate under what conditions contact could lead to more positive intergroup relations without diminishing legitimate protest aimed at reducing inequality. One promising suggestion is to emphasize commonalities between groups while also addressing unjust group inequalities during the contact situation. Such a contact situation could result in prejudice reduction without losing sight of group inequality (Saguy, Tausch, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2009).

A second concern with contact research is that while contact has shown to be effective for more prejudiced individuals, there can be problems with getting a more prejudiced individual into the contact situation in the first place. Crisp and Turner’s imagined contact hypothesis seems to be a good first step in tackling this problem (Crisp & Turner, 2013), though it remains to be seen if, and how, such imagined contact among prejudiced individuals can translate to direct contact. Greater work on individual differences in the efficacy of contact would provide an interesting contribution to existing work.

Conclusions

Contact, then, has been shown to be of utmost importance in reduction of prejudice and promotion of more positive intergroup attitudes. Such research has important implications for policy work. Work on contact highlights the importance of institutional support and advocation of more positive intergroup relations, the importance of equal status between groups, the importance of cooperation between groups and the importance of positive media presentations of intergroup friendships - to name just a few. As Hewstone and Swart (2011) argue,

“Theory-driven social psychology does matter, not just in the laboratory, but also in the school, the neighborhood, and the society at large” (Hewstone & Swart, 2011. p.380).

• Aberson, C. L., & Haag, S. C. (2007). Contact, perspective taking, and anxiety as predictors of stereotype endorsement, explicit attitudes, and implicit attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10 , 179–201.
• Abrams, D. and Crisp, R.J. & Marques, S., (2008). Threat inoculation: Experienced and Imagined intergenerational contact prevent stereotype threat effects on older peoples math performance. Psychology and Aging, 23 (4), 934-939.
• Al Ramiah, A., & Hewstone, M. (2011). Intergroup difference and harmony: The role of intergroup contact. In P. Singh, P. Bain, C-H. Leong, G. Misra, and Y. Ohtsubo. (Eds.), Individual, group and cultural processes in changing societies. Progress in Asian Social Psychology (Series 8), pp. 3-22. Delhi: University Press.
• Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice . Cambridge/Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom: Building cooperation in the classroom (Vol. 978, p. 0673993830). New York: Longman.
• Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., & Kowai-Bell, N. (2001). Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 253–267.
• Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1985). The psychology of intergroup attitudes and behavior. Annual review of psychology, 36 (1), 219-243.
• Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (Eds.). (1984). Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation. Academic Press.
• Caspi, A. (1984). Contact hypothesis and inter-age attitudes: A field study of cross-age contact. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74-80.
• Chu, D., & Griffey, D. (1985). The contact theory of racial integration: The case of sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2 (4), 323-333.
• Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (1), 99-120.
• Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions? Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. American Psychologist, 64, 231–240.
• Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2013). Imagined intergroup contact: Refinements, debates and clarifications. In G. Hodson & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Advances in intergroup contact. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
• Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check for the contact hypothesis . American Psychologist, 60, 697–711.
• Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2007). Intergroup contact and attitudes toward the principle and practice of racial equality. Psychological Science, 18, 867–872.
• Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4 (1), 1-26.
• Hewstone, M., & Swart, H. (2011). Fifty-odd years of inter-group contact: From hypothesis to integrated theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50 (3), 374-386.
• Husnu, S. & Crisp, R. J. (2010). Elaboration enhances the imagined contact effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 943-950
• Jackman, M.R., & Crane, M. (1986). “Some of my best friends are black...”: interracial friendship and whites’ racial attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 50, pp. 459–86
• Johnston, L., & Hewstone, M. (1992). Cognitive models of stereotype change: 3. Subtyping and the perceived typicality of disconfirming group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28 (4), 360-386.
• Landis D., Hope R.O., & Day H.R. (1984). Training for desegregation in the military. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer 1984, Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation, pp. 257–78. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
• Miller, N., & Brewer M. B., eds. (1984). Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
• Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual review of psychology, 49 (1), 65-85.
• Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta- analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (5), 751.
• Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice ? Meta- analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38 (6), 922-934.
• Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20 , 114–121.
• Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B., & Hewes, D. E. (2006). Can One TV Show Make a Difference? Will & Grace and the Parasocial Contact Hypothesis . Journal of Homosexuality, 51 (4), 15-37.
• Tausch, N., & Hewstone, M. (2010). Intergroup contact and prejudice . In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The Sage handbook of prejudice , stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 544–560). Newburg Park, CA: Sage.
• Turner, R. N., Crisp, R. J., & Lambert, E. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10 , 427-441.
• Vonofakou, C., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007). Contact with outgroup friends as a predictor of meta-attitudinal strength and accessibility of attitudes towards gay men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 , 804–820.
• Works, E. (1961).The prejudice -interaction hypothesis from the point of view of the Negro minority group. American Journal of Sociology. 67 : 47–52
• Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 , 73–90.
• Yuker, H. E., & Hurley, M. K. (1987). Contact with and attitudes toward persons with disabilities: The measurement of intergroup contact. Rehabilitation Psychology, 32 (3), 145.

From the editors

Everett (2013) presents an excellent overview of the research on Intergroup Contact Theory and how psychologists have used it to understand prejudice and conflict. As the article notes, friendship between members of different groups is one form of contact that helps dissolve inter-group conflict. Friendships are beneficial because of “self-expansion,” which is a fundamental motivational process that drives people to grow and integrate new things into their lives (Aron, Norman, & Aron, 1998). When an individual learns something or experiences something for the first time, his/her mind literally grows. When friendships are very intimate, people include aspects of their friends in their own self-concept (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991).

For example, if Scott (an American) becomes friends with Dan (a Russian), Scott might grow to appreciate Russian culture, because of their intimacy. Even the word “Russian” is now part of Scott’s own self-concept through this friendship, and Scott will have more positive feelings and attitudes toward Russians as a group. The same process happens for all kinds of other groups based race/ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

Importantly, self-expansion and intimacy through friendship do not work like magic; psychologists can’t wave a wand and make them appear. Nor does it happen through superficial small talk (e.g., “how about this crazy weather?”). Intimacy develops through deep communication: sustained, reciprocal, escalating conversations in which two friends come to know each other in a meaningful way. A Christian person might say, “I have a Jewish co-worker” (while talking about a casual acquaintance) or a Caucasian person might say, “I give money to an organization that helps starving people in Africa” or a straight person might say, “I support same-sex marriage equality because I know someone who is gay.” All of that is good, but it’s not as effective at reducing inter-group conflict as a true friendship with someone in those other groups; superficial contact has a small effect on racism, anti-Semitism, or homophobia. A recent meta-analysis (Davies, Tropp, Aron, Pettigrew, & Wright, 2011) revealed that spending lots of time with cross-group friends and having lots of in-depth communication with those friends were the two strongest predictors of change in positive attitudes and prejudice reduction.

At In-Mind, we work in a transnational team and we think this is enriching. What about you? Have you found friendships, or even working relations, across social groups? Did this lead you to have more open or positive attitudes? Or, do you have other experiences?

article author(s)

Jim A. C. Everett

Jim Everett studied for his undergraduate at the University of Oxford, gaining a First Class degree in Psychology, Philosophy, and Physiology. He completed... more

article keywords

• discrimination
• intergroup contact hypothesis

article glossary

• intergroup conflict
• recognition
• Intergroup Contact Hypothesis
• contact hypothesis
• cooperation
• meta-analysis
• stereotypes
• stereotype threat
• field study

Contact Hypothesis

Unveiling the Power of the Contact Hypothesis

In a world brimming with diversity, the quest for harmony among varied social groups remains a pivotal challenge. The  Contact Hypothesis , a beacon of hope in social psychology, posits that under the right conditions, direct interaction between members of different groups has the power to dismantle barriers of prejudice and foster a landscape of mutual understanding. First proposed by Gordon W. Allport in 1954, this theory has not only stood the test of time but has also ignited a flame of research and application across the globe.

As we delve into the intricacies of the Contact Hypothesis, we uncover the layers of its potential to transform society. From its historical roots in the aftermath of World War II to its modern-day implications in a world that is more interconnected than ever, the Contact Hypothesis offers a roadmap to navigate the complexities of intergroup relations. This article aims to explore the fertile ground upon which the Contact Hypothesis stands, examining the conditions under which it thrives and the psychological processes it sets in motion to bridge the chasms that divide us

Key Definition:

The contact hypothesis in psychology refers to the idea that bringing members of different social groups into contact with one another can help to reduce prejudice and improve intergroup relations. This theory suggests that under certain conditions, intergroup contact can lead to more positive attitudes and behaviors towards members of the out-group.

Understanding the Contact Hypothesis

People by nature are suspicious of those they don’t know. We further alienate ourselves from those that we perceive as different from us. The fear of outgroups, or ‘outgroup bias,’ is considered to have an evolutionary basis. Evolutionary psychology suggests that such biases may have developed as adaptive responses in our ancestral environments. Identifying with and supporting one’s group could have been crucial for survival, leading to a natural wariness of strangers or those from outside the group.

This inclination towards ethnocentrism and the tendency to view outgroups with suspicion or as a threat can be traced back to primordial tribal sentiments. These sentiments were adaptational for the success of a group in the past. However, in modern societies, these innate tendencies can be manipulated by politics or social influences, leading to communal tensions or prejudice.

It’s important to note that while there may be an evolutionary component to outgroup fear, it is not deterministic. Humans also have the capacity for cooperation and embracing diversity, which can counteract these primitive instincts. National integration and democracy, for example, can foster solidarity beyond one’s immediate group and promote cultural rights for all citizens.

Gordon Allport suggested that contact between in-groups and out-groups may provide a partial solution to these natural divisions that lead to prejudice. We refer to Allport’s theory as the contact hypothesis. Basically, by interacting with and getting to know members of different groups in a supportive environment, individuals may challenge stereotypes, reduce anxiety, and develop empathy and understanding. This hypothesis has been an important concept in the study of social psychology and has implications for promoting social harmony and cooperation in diverse settings.

Categorization, In-Group, Out-Group, and Prejudice

Categorization.

Social categorization is a fundamental aspect of human psychology that involves the classification of individuals into social groups based on shared characteristics. Social categorization is a subconscious cognitive process that allows individuals to simplify and make sense of the complex social world.

Allport wrote, “the human mind must think with the aid of categories.… Once formed, categories are the basis for normal prejudgment. We cannot possibly avoid this process. Orderly living depends on it” ( Allport, 1955 ). This process of categorization plays a significant role in shaping perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors towards others. Mahzarin R. Banaji and Anthony G. Greenwald explain, “categories are not only extremely convenient—they are essential in permitting us to get about the business of our lives” ( Banaji & Greenwald, 2016, p. 80 ). Basically, we could not manage the massive flow of information without the foundation of categories to help organize and process every stimuli.

Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson wrote, “Cognitive psychologists consider stereotypes to be energy-saving devices that allow us to make efficient decisions on the basis of past experience; help us quickly process new information and retrieve memories; make sense of real differences between groups; and predict, often with considerable accuracy, how others will behave or how they think. We wisely rely on stereotypes and the quick information they give us to avoid danger, approach possible new friends, choose one school or job over another, or decide that that person across this crowded room will be the love of our lives ( Tavris & Aronson, 2015. Kindle location: 926 ).

In-Group, Out-Group

However, although this process is natural and an unavoidable part of the human psyche, it has some downsides. Categories are not truths. They are subjective divisions. They resemble the folders that we create and label in the filing cabinet. Each folder having its own description and properties. Culture, experience, and natural biases influence these categories.

One byproduct of Categorizing people involves dividing people into in-groups (groups to which an individual belongs) and out-groups (groups to which an individual does not belong). These categories can be based on various factors such as age, gender, race, occupation, or interests.

Philip Zimbardo explains that as a part of the in-group, outgroup divisions we begin attributing non-human traits to the out-groups. He calls this infrahumanization. He explains, “out-group infrahumanization is a newly investigated phenomenon in which people tend to attribute uniquely human emotions and traits to their in-group and deny their existence in out-groups. It is a form of emotional prejudice.” Zimbardo continues, “while we attribute infrahumanness to out-groups, as less than human, we are motivated to see ourselves as more human than others” ( Zimbardo, 2007. Kindle location: 7,274 ).

Tavris and Aronson explain, “prejudices emerge from the disposition of the human mind to perceive and process information in categories. ‘Categories’ is a nicer, more neutral word than ‘stereotypes,’ but it’s the same thing” ( Tavris & Aronson, 2015. Kindle location: 925 ). We may divide individuals in legitimate categories. We do have different ages, genders, races, occupations, and interests. These are all legitimate categories. New ideas about gender are dividing traditional categories into subcategories and entirely new categories. Moreover, we often describe ourselves by citing some of the categories that we belong to.

The categories in and of themselves are not bad. However, the definition and traits that we attach to these categories can be. In our categorization process, we attach descriptive traits to the category. We then project these categorical traits onto everybody in the category. Consequently, it is the attaching of traits to the categories and generalizing those traits onto every member of the group that is hurtful and wrong.

These prejudices operate unconsciously. While they are arbitrary subjective descriptions, they operate as imperative truths, tainting our vision of others. According to the Contact Hypothesis, interaction between in and out-groups is a partial solution. When we interact with others, we are more likely to see errors to our prejudiced generalizations. These enlightenments may motivate a reorganization of our categories and descriptive labels.

Basic Points of the Contact Hypothesis

The  Contact Hypothesis  is a significant concept in social psychology that addresses how intergroup contact can reduce prejudice and improve relations between different social or cultural groups. The opposite of contact is segregation. Traditional practices of segregation worked to enhance in-group, out-group prejudices. Evan Staub wrote, “social psychologists have shown that although contact between different groups (for example, blacks and whites in America) does not guarantee a loss of prejudice, separation and segregation maintain it” ( Staub, 1992 ).

Allport wrote in his introduction to his chapter on contact that, “it has sometimes been held that merely by assembling people without regard for race, color, religion, or national origin, we can thereby destroy stereotypes and develop friendly attitudes. This is not the case” ( Allport, 1955 ). Accordingly, contact alone is not enough. And in some cases, contact may ignite violent clashes.

Necessary Elements in the Contact Hypothesis

• Equal Status Between Groups : For contact to be effective in reducing prejudice, the members of different groups must interact as equals, without any group holding power over the other.
• Common Goals : The groups should work towards shared goals, which necessitates cooperation and interdependence.
• Cooperation : Working together in a cooperative manner, rather than in competition, is essential for reducing negative stereotypes and fostering positive intergroup attitudes.
• Institutional Support : The contact should be supported by law, customs, or local authorities, which helps legitimize the interaction and the equality of the groups ( Allport, 1955 ).

These conditions, when met, can lead to reduced prejudice, decreased stereotypes, and increased acceptance between individuals from different groups.

Successive Stages of Group Relationships

We know relationships never develop without contact. Boundaries are maintained, stereotypes left unchallenged and fear and suspicion expand. However, relationships do not naturally materialize with contact. Relationships typically progress through stages. Allport listed four stages:

• Sheer contact : casual contact between groups is not sufficient to break down stereotypes. In many cases, the brief contacts may support erroneous beliefs through protective cognitive processes such as selective information processing .
• Competition : Continued contact through shared environments often progresses to competition over resources.
• Accomodation : Overtime, a more integrated community eads to accommodation. This represents a reasonable tolerance of outside groups.
• Assimilation : The final stage is an assimilation of the out-group into one’s in-group ( Allport, 1955 ).

According to the contact hypothesis the ultimate ending of assimilation may only occur through contact.

Example of Contact Hypothesis

Robbers cave experiment.

The Robbers Cave experiment, conducted by Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues in the 1950s, is a landmark study that significantly contributed to our understanding of the Contact Hypothesis. The experiment took place in a summer camp setting with 22 boys who were divided into two groups, each unaware of the other’s existence at first.

Phase 1 : In-group Formation During the initial phase, each group engaged in activities that fostered internal cohesion and identity. They developed their own norms and even chose names for themselves (The Eagles and The Rattlers)1.

Phase 2 : Intergroup Conflict The researchers then introduced competitive tasks, such as games and challenges, which led to hostility and conflict between the two groups. This phase demonstrated how competition over resources could exacerbate intergroup tensions.

Phase 3 : Reducing Conflict The final phase of the experiment involved introducing cooperative tasks that required both groups to work together towards shared goals. This cooperation led to a reduction in conflict and prejudice, highlighting the role of shared objectives in resolving group tensions.

The Robbers Cave experiment supports the Contact Hypothesis by illustrating that under certain conditions, specifically cooperative interaction towards common goals, intergroup contact can reduce prejudice and conflict. It also emphasizes the importance of superordinate goals—objectives that are important to both groups and can only be achieved through their joint efforts.

This experiment has had a profound impact on social psychology, demonstrating that circumstances, goals, and structured interaction can significantly alter behavior and attitudes between groups. It provides empirical evidence for the Contact Hypothesis, showing that positive contact between groups can lead to better relations, provided the right conditions are met.

See Robbers Cave Experiment for more on this social psychology study

Sports Leagues and the Contact Hypothesis

Sports have long been recognized as a powerful tool for promoting unity and social change. Here are some examples of communities using sports leagues to unite rival gangs:

• Chicago’s South Side Church Basketball Program : In Chicago, a church on the South Side initiated a basketball program aimed at bringing together young people from rival gangs. The program provided a safe space for them to interact and engage in friendly competition, fostering a sense of community and reducing violence.
• Midnight Basketball Leagues : Originating in the 1980s, Midnight Basketball Leagues were designed to offer young men in high-crime areas a constructive alternative to unlawful nighttime activities. These leagues often involved individuals from rival neighborhoods or gangs, using the sport as a means to break down barriers and reduce gang-related activities.
• Homeboy Industries in Los Angeles : Founded by Father Greg Boyle, Homeboy Industries is an organization that helps former gang members and previously incarcerated individuals. Among its many programs, it uses sports and recreational activities to build camaraderie and teach teamwork, which can help in dissolving gang affiliations and rivalries.
• Boston’s Gang Alliances and Rivalries : In Boston, during the city’s most violent period, sports team apparel was used to identify gang territories. Efforts have been made to use sports, including basketball leagues, as a way to bridge gaps between rival gangs and reduce violence.

These initiatives demonstrate the potential of sports to create neutral grounds where individuals from conflicting groups can come together, fostering dialogue and understanding through shared interests and goals. It’s a testament to the unifying power of sports and its role in community development and peace-building.

Empirical Support for the Contact Hypothesis

Empirical evidence for the Contact Hypothesis is extensive and has been gathered from a variety of studies across different contexts. Here are some key findings that support the hypothesis:

• Meta-Analyses : A meta-analysis by Pettigrew and Tropp in 2006, which reviewed over 500 studies, found that intergroup contact typically reduces prejudice. This was true across different types of contact, including face-to-face and virtual interactions ( Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006 ; Paluck, Green, & Green, 2019 ).
• Conditions for Effective Contact : Research has identified specific conditions under which contact is most effective at reducing prejudice. These include equal status between groups, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and support from authorities, laws, or customs ( Allport, 1955 ).
• Virtual Contact : Studies have also explored the impact of virtual contact through the internet on intergroup relations. Findings suggest that even online interactions, when structured effectively, can lead to positive attitude changes ( Amichai-Hamburger, & McKenna, 2006 ).
• Positive Outcomes : Empirical research has shown that contact between members of different social groups can lead to more positive attitudes towards outgroup members, increased empathy and perspective-taking, and reduced anxiety and hostility towards members of other groups.

These pieces of evidence highlight the robust nature of the Contact Hypothesis and its relevance in various settings, from personal interactions to institutional policies aimed at fostering better intergroup relations. The hypothesis continues to be a foundational concept in understanding and improving intergroup dynamics.

Associated Theories

The Contact Hypothesis is closely related to several theories, experiments, and concepts in psychology and social sciences that explore intergroup relations and prejudice reduction. Here are some associated with or similar to the Contact Hypothesis:

• Intergroup Conflict Theories : These theories, including the Realistic Conflict Theory, explore how conflict arises between groups due to competition over resources and how cooperation can reduce hostility.
• Social Identity Theory : This theory posits that a person’s self-concept is based on their group membership, and it explores the dynamics of prejudice based on in-group (us) versus out-group (them) distinctions.
• Common Ingroup Identity Model : This model suggests that if members of different groups can be made to feel part of a single, larger group, intergroup bias can be reduced.
• Jigsaw Classroom Experiment : A cooperative learning technique developed by Elliot Aronson, where students from different racial or ethnic groups work together to complete a task, thereby reducing prejudice and increasing empathy among students 1 .
• Extended Contact Effect : The idea that simply knowing that a member of one’s own group has a friendship with a member of an out-group can reduce prejudice ( Zhou, et al. 2019 ).
• Imagined Contact Hypothesis : This concept suggests that merely imagining a positive interaction with a member of an out-group can reduce prejudice ( Miles & Crisp, 2014 ).
• E-Contact : The use of electronic communication to facilitate positive intergroup contact, which can also contribute to reducing prejudice ( Amichai-Hamburger, & McKenna, 2006 ).

These theories and concepts expand on the principles of the Contact Hypothesis and have been supported by empirical research, demonstrating the power of contact and cooperation in improving intergroup relations and reducing prejudice across various social divides

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

As we conclude our exploration of the Contact Hypothesis, we are reminded of the profound simplicity and potential that lies within the concept of intergroup contact. The hypothesis, grounded in the belief that human connections can transcend boundaries, has been a cornerstone in the field of social psychology, offering a lens through which we can envision a more cohesive society.

The empirical evidence supporting the Contact Hypothesis underscores its relevance and applicability in our increasingly diverse world. Moreover, it challenges us to create environments that foster positive interactions across group lines, to embrace policies that encourage collaboration, and to educate ourselves and others about the benefits of intergroup contact.

In the spirit of Gordon Allport’s pioneering work, let us carry forward the message that through understanding, cooperation, and shared experiences, we can break down the walls of prejudice. The journey towards unity is not without its challenges, but the Contact Hypothesis provides a map to guide us—a map that leads towards empathy, respect, and ultimately, peace among people of all walks of life. As researchers, practitioners, and members of a global community, it is our collective responsibility to continue this journey, armed with knowledge and driven by the hope of a harmonious world.

Last Update: June 16, 2024

Type your email…

References:

Allport, Gordon W. ( 1955 ). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & McKenna, K. ( 2006 ). The Contact Hypothesis Reconsidered: Interacting via the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 11(3), 825-843. DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00037.x

Banaji, Mahzarin R.; Greenwald, Anthony G. ( 2016 ). Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People.  Bantam ; Reprint edition.

Miles, E., & Crisp, R. ( 2014 ). A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(1), 3-26. DOI: 10.1177/1368430213510573

Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A., & Green, D. P. ( 2019 ). The Contact Hypothesis Re-Evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy , 3(2), 129–158. DOI: 10.1017/bpp.2018.25

Pettigrew, T.F. & Tropp, L. R. ( 2006 ). A Meta-Analytic test of Intergroup Contact Theory. Journal of personality and Social Psychology , 90(5): 751-783. DOI: 10.1037%2F0022-3514.90.5.751

Staub, Ervin ( 1992 ). The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence. ‎ Cambridge University Press; Revised ed. edition.

Tavris, Carol; Aronson, Elliot ( 2015 ). Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts. Mariner Books ; Revised, New edition edition.

Zimbardo, Philip ( 2007 ). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. ‎ Random House ; 1st edition.

Zhou, S., Page-Gould, E., Aron, A., Moyer, A., & Hewstone, M. ( 2019 ). The Extended Contact Hypothesis: A Meta-Analysis on 20 Years of Research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(2), 132-160. DOI: 10.1177/1088868318762647

Resources and Articles

Please visit Psychology Fanatic’s vast selection of articles , definitions and database of referenced books .

* Many of the quotes from books come books I have read cover to cover. I created an extensive library of notes from these books. I make reference to these books when using them to support or add to an article topic. Most of these books I read on a kindle reader. The Kindle location references seen through Psychology Fanatic is how kindle notes saves my highlights.

The peer reviewed article references mostly come from Deepdyve . This is the periodical database that I have subscribe to for nearly a decade. Over the last couple of years, I have added a DOI reference to cited articles for the reader’s convenience and reference.

Thank-you for visiting Psychology Fanatic. Psychology Fanatic represents nearly two decades of work, research, and passion.

Topic Specific Databases:

PSYCHOLOGY – EMOTIONS – RELATIONSHIPS – WELLNESS – PSYCHOLOGY TOPICS

Share this:

About the author.

T. Franklin Murphy

Related posts.

More than Meets the Eye

Judging others fail is limited. We never see all the factors. Others are much more than the simplicity we see

Read More »

Self Assessment Skills

Accurate self assessments are the path of self improvement. With proper self assessment skills, we can kindly begin the work of change.

Self-Presentation Theory

Self-Presentation Theory explores how individuals intentionally shape others' perceptions of them. It delves into strategies like self-promotion, ingratiation, and authenticity.

Neuroeconomics

Neuroeconomics, an interdisciplinary field, combines neuroscience, psychology, and economics to understand decision-making processes. It encompasses behavioral biases, the role of emotions, heuristics, social influences, and…

Family Interaction Theories

Family interaction theories offer diverse perspectives on the intricate dynamics within familial bonds, providing valuable insights to navigate challenges, improve communication, resolve conflicts, enhance relationships,…

Internalization: A Cognitive Process

Internalization refers to adopting external beliefs and behaviors into our own identity. It shapes our thoughts, feelings, and actions, impacting mental health and social relationships.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Discover more from psychology fanatic.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology
• Personality
• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Intergroup contact.

• Danielle L. Blaylock Danielle L. Blaylock Queen's University Belfast
•  and  Nina Briggs Nina Briggs Queens University Belfast
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.269
• Published online: 22 February 2023

Formalized by Gordon Allport in 1954, the contact hypothesis posits that positive contact between members of different groups can, under certain conditions, reduce prejudice and promote more harmonious intergroup relations. These conditions include contact situations which promote equal status between group members, encourage the pursuit of common goals, are characterized by cooperation as opposed to competition, and have institutional support or authority sanction. Among social scientists, positive intergroup contact is among the most effective strategies for reducing prejudice, with an impressive research base attesting to its effectiveness across contexts and target-groups using a variety of methodological approaches. The effects of contact are found to generalize from the interaction partner to the wider outgroup, and to other secondary outgroups not directly involved in the contact experience; this is particularly true when group membership is made salient during the encounter. Contact can take a variety of direct forms, from more intense and sustained interactions between close friends to brief encounters between strangers, as well as more indirect forms such as intergroup interactions through various computer-mediated forums, imagined interactions between the self and an outgroup partner, to observation or awareness of interactions involving other ingroup and outgroup members. While several mediators have been suggested, the contact–prejudice relationship appears to be driven by a reduction in negative affect, such as anxiety, and by inducing positive affective processes, such as empathy. Evidence suggests that positive contact can be particularly beneficial for individuals with pre-existing negative attitudes. For members of advantaged groups, positive intergroup contact is associated with a greater support for intergroup equality and social change; however, for disadvantaged groups, positive intergroup contact can lead to a sedative effect where perceived intergroup harmony can reduce perceptions of inequality and dampen the motivation to engage in activity to support social change. Emerging research exploring the effects of negative contact experiences suggests that negative contact can exacerbate intergroup bias through similar and distinct routes as positive contact reduces it. Critics point to methodological concerns and a research base that neglects more complex and nuanced interactions found in the real world, particularly those in historically divided societies. However, recent technological and statistical innovations offer the potential to advance the field’s understanding of how positive intergroup contact can be used to promote a more harmonious society.

• group categorization
• indirect contact
• intergroup interactions
• interventions
• negative contact
• positive contact
• prejudice reduction
• social change

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 28 August 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.80.151.9]
• 185.80.151.9

Character limit 500 /500

This page has been archived and is no longer being updated regularly.

All you need is contact

November 2001, Vol 32, No. 10

A longstanding line of research that aims to combat bias among conflicting groups springs from a theory called the "contact hypothesis." Developed in the 1950s by Gordon Allport, PhD, the theory holds that contact between two groups can promote tolerance and acceptance, but only under certain conditions, such as equal status among groups and common goals. Since the theory's inception, psychologists have added more and more criteria to what is required of groups in order for "contact" to work.

Recently, however, University of California, Santa Cruz research psychologist Thomas Pettigrew, PhD, has turned this research finding on its head. In a new meta-analysis of 500 studies, he finds that all that's needed for greater understanding between groups is contact, period, in all but the most hostile and threatening conditions. There is, however, a larger positive effect if some of the extra conditions are met.

His analysis turned up another unexpected finding that also runs counter to the direction of the field. The reason contact works, his analysis finds, is not purely or even mostly cognitive, but emotional.

"Your stereotypes about the other group don't necessarily change," Pettigrew explains, "but you grow to like them anyway."

Pettigrew is currently submitting his study for review; the basic findings can also be found in a chapter by him and Linda Tropp, PhD, in the book "Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination" (Erlbaum, 2000).

--T. DeANGELIS

Letters to the Editor

• Send us a letter

Doc’s Things and Stuff

Contact Hypothesis | Definition

The Contact Hypothesis is a sociological theory suggesting that under certain conditions, interpersonal interactions between members of different groups can reduce prejudice and increase understanding and tolerance.

Understanding the Contact Hypothesis

Imagine two groups of people who have never really interacted with each other and might even have negative ideas about each other. According to the Contact Hypothesis, if these groups start to meet and interact under the right conditions, their mutual prejudices can decrease. This theory, first proposed by psychologist Gordon Allport in the 1950s, posits that simply bringing people together from different backgrounds can foster greater understanding and reduce discrimination.

Conditions for Effective Contact

Allport specified that for contact to reduce prejudice, certain conditions must be met:

• Equal Status : Both groups must engage on an equal footing, without power imbalances.
• Common Goals : They should have shared objectives or tasks that require cooperation.
• Intergroup Cooperation : The situation should promote collaboration rather than competition between groups.
• Support of Authorities, Law, or Customs : The interaction should be supported and encouraged by societal norms or authorities.

The Role of Personal Interaction

The Contact Hypothesis emphasizes the importance of personal and meaningful interaction between group members. It suggests that getting to know someone as an individual rather than as a faceless member of a group can challenge stereotypes and lead to more positive attitudes. This one-on-one interaction can humanize the ‘other’ group, leading to empathy and understanding.

The Impact of the Contact Hypothesis

The Contact Hypothesis has been influential in various areas, including education, community planning, and workplace diversity initiatives. It’s been applied in efforts to reduce racial and ethnic tensions, improve relations between different religious or cultural groups, and foster better understanding between groups in conflict. This theory has informed policies and practices aimed at creating environments where positive contact can occur.

Challenges and Limitations

While the Contact Hypothesis has shown promise, it’s not a magic solution for all social divisions. In some cases, contact might reinforce prejudices, especially if the interactions are negative or the optimal conditions are not met. Additionally, the theory doesn’t address deeper systemic issues that contribute to group conflict, such as economic inequality or institutionalized discrimination.

The Evolution of the Contact Hypothesis

Over time, researchers have expanded and refined the Contact Hypothesis. Newer variations of the theory explore how indirect contact, such as knowing a friend who has relationships with outgroup members, or extended contact through stories and media, can also reduce prejudice. The role of virtual interactions in today’s digital world is also being examined as a new frontier for the Contact Hypothesis.

The Contact Hypothesis offers a hopeful perspective on reducing prejudice and improving intergroup relations. By creating opportunities for meaningful, cooperative interaction between different groups, this approach can help break down barriers of misunderstanding and bias. While not without its challenges and limitations, the Contact Hypothesis remains a valuable tool in the ongoing effort to build more inclusive and tolerant societies.

References and Further Reading

• Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1993). The contact hypothesis revisited: Black-white interaction and positive racial attitudes .  Social forces ,  71 (3), 781-795.
• Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory .  Annual review of psychology ,  49 (1), 65-85.

This work is licensed under an Open Educational Resource-Quality Master Source (OER-QMS) License .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Find over 25,000 psychological definitions

contact hypothesis

Browse dictionary by letter, psychology term of the day.

August 28th 2024

cryonic suspension

• Best-Selling Books
• Zimbardo Research Fields

The Stanford Prison Experiment

• Heroic Imagination Project (HIP)
• The Shyness Clinic

The Lucifer Effect

Time perspective theory.

• Books by Psychologists
• Famous Psychologists
• Psychology Definitions

Contact Hypothesis: Psychology Definition, History & Examples

The Contact Hypothesis posits that interpersonal interaction between groups can reduce prejudice and intergroup conflict . This concept , rooted in social psychology, suggests that under appropriate conditions, cooperative contact can diminish stereotypes and improve relations among people from diverse backgrounds.

Originating from the work of psychologist Gordon Allport in 1954, the hypothesis has been a foundational framework for understanding and addressing social division. Subsequent empirical research has tested and refined the conditions under which contact reduces animosity, such as equal group status, common goals, and institutional support.

Examples of the Contact Hypothesis in action include integrated education programs and community-building activities.

This introduction outlines the Contact Hypothesis by presenting its definition, tracing its historical development, and illustrating its application through real-world examples.

Table of Contents

The Contact Hypothesis is the idea that when people from different groups interact with each other in certain ways, it can help to reduce prejudice and challenge stereotypes.

It suggests that if people have equal status, common goals, cooperate with each other, and have support from authorities, they are more likely to change their prejudiced attitudes through contact with others.

Many studies have supported this idea and explored the complexities of intergroup interactions.

The Contact Hypothesis, a term in psychology, originated in the midst of the 20th century as a response to the prevalent racial segregation issues. It was first formulated by psychologist Gordon Allport, who proposed that interpersonal contact could effectively reduce prejudice between majority and minority group members, given certain conditions. Allport’s ideas on the Contact Hypothesis were presented in his influential 1954 book, ‘The Nature of Prejudice’, which laid the groundwork for understanding how intergroup contact could bring about attitude changes and reduce intergroup conflict.

Since its inception, the Contact Hypothesis has undergone empirical investigation and has been scrutinized for its applicability in various scenarios and populations. Researchers have systematically tested and refined the theory , exploring different variables that may influence its effectiveness. These variables include factors such as equal status between groups, common goals, and institutional support.

One significant event that contributed to the evolution of the Contact Hypothesis was the landmark desegregation case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. This Supreme Court decision declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, highlighting the need for contact between racial groups to promote integration and reduce prejudice.

Another study that furthered the understanding of the Contact Hypothesis was the Robbers Cave experiment conducted by Muzafer Sherif and colleagues in 1954. This study demonstrated the potential of intergroup contact to reduce hostility and create harmonious relations between groups.

Over the years, further research has expanded our knowledge of the Contact Hypothesis, examining its effectiveness in various contexts, such as racial, ethnic, and cultural relations. The work of notable figures such as Thomas F. Pettigrew, John F. Dovidio, and Samuel L. Gaertner has played a crucial role in advancing the theory and providing empirical evidence for its application.

• In a neighborhood with diverse cultural backgrounds, a community center organizes regular events where residents can come together and engage in activities like cooking classes, sports tournaments, and art workshops. Through these shared experiences, people from different backgrounds have the opportunity to interact and learn from one another, breaking down stereotypes and fostering understanding.
• A company implements a mentorship program where senior employees are paired with junior employees from different departments. By working closely together on projects and tasks, individuals from different backgrounds gain a greater appreciation for each other’s skills and perspectives, leading to improved collaboration and a more harmonious work environment .
• In a school, a teacher organizes a class project that requires students to work in groups with peers who have different strengths and abilities. Through this collaborative project, students develop empathy and understanding for their classmates, realizing that everyone has something valuable to contribute. This experience helps break down social barriers and reduces prejudice among students.
• At a town hall meeting, community members gather to discuss a controversial issue that has divided the town. The facilitator ensures that individuals with opposing viewpoints are given equal opportunities to express their opinions and listen to others. By engaging in respectful dialogue, community members begin to understand each other’s perspectives, leading to increased empathy and a more cohesive community.
• In a sports team, players from diverse backgrounds are encouraged to share their cultural traditions and experiences during team bonding activities. Through these interactions, teammates develop a deeper appreciation for each other’s backgrounds and cultures, fostering a sense of unity and camaraderie on the field.

Related Terms

Understanding the Contact Hypothesis involves familiarizing oneself with several related terms that elucidate its application in social psychology.

Prejudice, a negative attitude towards a person based on their group membership, is a central concept that the Contact Hypothesis aims to reduce.

Stereotype is another pertinent term, referring to an overgeneralized belief about a particular category of people. The efficacy of contact is often measured against changes in stereotypical thinking.

Intergroup anxiety , which denotes the discomfort one might feel when interacting with members of a different group, is a psychological state that the hypothesis posits can be alleviated through increased contact.

Equal status contact emphasizes that for contact to be effective in reducing prejudice, the groups involved must interact on an equal standing.

Other closely linked terms to the Contact Hypothesis include:

• Ingroup bias: This term refers to the tendency of individuals to favor members of their own group over members of other groups. Ingroup bias can contribute to the development and maintenance of prejudice. The Contact Hypothesis aims to reduce ingroup bias by promoting positive interactions between different groups.
• Social norms: These are the shared expectations and rules that guide behavior within a group or society. Social norms can influence prejudice and discrimination by shaping the attitudes and behaviors that are deemed acceptable. The Contact Hypothesis suggests that promoting positive contact between different groups can help shift social norms towards more inclusive and accepting attitudes.
• Empathy: This term refers to the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. Empathy plays a crucial role in reducing prejudice as it allows individuals to connect with and relate to members of different groups. The Contact Hypothesis suggests that increased contact can lead to the development of empathy, which in turn can help break down stereotypes and reduce prejudice.

While these related terms are closely linked to the Contact Hypothesis, they each have a distinct focus and contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence intergroup relations and prejudice reduction.

Consistently, research on the Contact Hypothesis is supported by a robust body of scholarly work, with key studies and theoretical advancements cited across numerous academic articles and books. These references underpin the empirical evidence for the Contact Hypothesis and are critical to advancing the understanding of intergroup relations.

The sources range from seminal works by Gordon W. Allport (Allport, 1954), who originally formulated the hypothesis, to contemporary quantitative meta-analyses that evaluate the conditions and outcomes of intergroup contact (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).

In analyzing these references, scholars scrutinize the methodology and contexts of studies, seeking patterns that affirm or challenge the hypothesis. This rigorous examination ensures that the Contact Hypothesis is not a static concept but a dynamic framework subject to refinement as new data emerges from diverse social contexts.

References:

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. Psychology Press.

These references provide academically credible sources for further reading on the Contact Hypothesis and its foundational studies.

Related posts:

No related posts.

RECOMMENDED POSTS

• Stay Connected
• Terms Of Use

Intergroup Contact Theory

• First Online: 02 July 2019

Cite this chapter

• Oliver Christ 3 &
• Mathias Kauff 3  

176k Accesses

30 Citations

Bringing members of different social groups into contact is thought to be as one of the most promising approaches for improving intergroup relations. Indeed, a plethora of studies has shown that this intergroup contact is an effective means not only to reduce mutual prejudice but also to increase trust and forgiveness. In this chapter, we will first review evidence for the effectiveness of intergroup contact and introduce different forms of intergroup contact – direct (i.e., face-to-face contact) as well as more indirect forms of contact (i.e., extended, vicarious, and imagined contact). We will then discuss moderators (e.g., types of in- and outgroup categorization) and mediators (e.g., intergroup anxiety and empathy) of contact effects as well as potential unintended effects of intergroup contact. Finally, we will summarize research on the effectiveness of intergroup contact interventions and give two examples of such interventions that have been implemented in the context of conflictual intergroup relations (i.e., Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Hutu-Tutsi conflict in Rwanda).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Advancing research and practice of psychological intergroup interventions

Building Social Cohesion Through Intergroup Contact: Evaluation of a Large-Scale Intervention to Improve Intergroup Relations Among Adolescents

Exposition: Engaging Intergroup Relations in a Conflict-Ridden Society

Al Ramiah, A., & Hewstone, M. (2013). Intergroup contact as a tool for reducing, resolving, and preventing intergroup conflict: Evidence, limitations, and potential. American Psychologist, 68 (7), 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032603

Article   Google Scholar  

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice . Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Google Scholar  

Bar-Tal, D. (2007). Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist, 50 (11), 1430–1453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764207302462

Bar-Tal, D. (2013). Intractable conflicts: Socio-psychological foundations and dynamics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Becker, J. C., Wright, S. C., Lubensky, M. E., & Zhou, S. (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 (4), 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213477155

Beelmann, A., & Heinemann, K. S. (2014). Preventing prejudice and improving intergroup attitudes: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent training programs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35 (1), 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2013.11.002

Bigler, R. S., & Hughes, J. M. (2010). Reasons for skepticism about the efficacy of simulated social contact interventions. American Psychologist, 65 (2), 132–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018097

Binder, J. F., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., & Leyens, J.-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 (4), 843–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013470

Blalock. (1984). Contextual-effects models: Theoretical and methodological issues. Annual Review of Sociology, 10 , 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.10.080184.002033

Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281–302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37 , 255–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5

Brown, R., & Paterson, J. (2016). Indirect contact and prejudice reduction: Limits and possibilities. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11 , 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.005

Christ, O., Hewstone, M., Tausch, N., Wagner, U., Voci, A., Hughes, J., & Cairns, E. (2010). Direct contact as a moderator of extended contact effects: Cross-sectional and longitudinal impact on outgroup attitudes, behavioral intentions, and attitude certainty. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36 (12), 1662–1674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210386969

Christ, O., Schmid, K., Lolliot, S., Swart, H., Stolle, D., Tausch, N., … Hewstone, M. (2014). Contextual effect of positive intergroup contact on outgroup prejudice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (11), 3996–4000. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320901111

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions? Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. The American Psychologist, 64 (4), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014718

Crisp, R. J., Stathi, S., Turner, R. N., & Husnu, S. (2009). Imagined intergroup contact: Theory, paradigm and practice. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00155.x

Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15 (4), 332–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411103

Dixon, J. (2017). Concluding thoughts: The past, present and future of research on the contact hypothesis. In L. Vezzali & S. Stathi (Eds.), Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 169–184). London, UK: Routledge.

Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2007). Intergroup contact and attitudes toward the principle and practice of racial equality. Psychological Science, 18 (10), 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01993.x

Dixon, J., Tropp, L. R., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. G. (2010). ‘Let them eat harmony’: Prejudice reduction and the political attitudes of historically disadvantaged groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19 (2), 76–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410363366

Dixon, J. A., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60 (7), 697–711. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.697

Durrheim, K., & Dixon, J. (2018). Intergroup contact and the struggle for social justice. In P. L. Hammack Jr. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of social psychology and social justice (pp. 367–377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 , 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model . New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K. M., & McGlynn, E. A. (2000). Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4 (1), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.98

Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (2), 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.239

Graf, S., & Paolini, S. (2017). Investigating positive and negative intergroup contact: Rectifying a long-standing positivity bias in the literature. In L. Vezzali & S. Stathi (Eds). Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 92–113). New York, NY: Routledge.

Halabi, R., & Sonnenschein, N. (2004). The Jewish-Palestinian encounter in a time of crisis. Journal of Social Issues, 60 (2), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00117.x

Hayward, L., Tropp, L., Hornsey, M., & Barlow, F. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216685291

Hewstone, M. (2009). Living apart, living together? The role of intergroup contact in social integration. Proceedings of the British Academy, 162 , 243–300. https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197264584.003.0009

Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the ‘contact hypothesis’. In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1–44). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Voci, A., Hamberger, J., & Niens, U. (2006). Intergroup contact, forgiveness, and experience of “the troubles” in Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Issues, 62 (1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00441

Hewstone, M., Lolliot, S., Swart, H., Myers, E., Voci, A., Al Ramiah, A., & Cairns, E. (2014). Intergroup contact and intergroup conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peache Psychology, 20 (1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035582

Hodson, G., Turner, R. N., & Choma, B. L. (2017). Individual differences in intergroup contact propensity and prejudice reduction. In L. Vezzali & S. Stathi (Eds.), Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 8–30). London, UK: Routledge.

IOM. (2017). World migration report 2018 . New York, NY: United Nations. https://doi.org/10.18356/f45862f3-en

Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19 , 700–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196005

Kauff, M., Green, E. G. T., Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., & Christ, O. (2016). Effects of majority members’ positive intergroup contact on minority members’ support for ingroup rights: Mobilizing or demobilizing effects? European Journal of Social Psychology, 46 (7), 833–839. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2194

Kenworthy, J. B., Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2005). Intergroup contact: When does it work, and why? In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 278–292). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773963.ch17

Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B., Jr., Bahník, S., Bernstein, M. J., … Nosek, B. A. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A “many labs” replication project. Social Psychology, 45 (3), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178

Lee, Y.-T., & Jussim, L. (2010). Back in the real world. American Psychologist, 65 (2), 130–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018195

Lemmer, G., & Wagner, U. (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 (2), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2079

Levin, S., van Laar, C., & Sidanius, J. (2003). The effects of ingroup and outgroup friendships on ethnic attitudes in college: A longitudinal study. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6 (1), 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001013

Lolliot, S., Fell, B., Schmid, K., Wölfer, R., Swart, H., Voci, A., … Hewstone, M. (2014). Measures of intergroup contact. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 652–683). London, UK: Academic Press.

Maoz, I. (2004). Coexistence is in the eye of the beholder: Evaluating intergroup encounter interventions between Jews and Arabs in Israel. Journal of Social Issues, 60 (2), 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00119.x

Maoz, I. (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 (1), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343310389506

Maoz, I., Bar-On, D., & Yikya, S. (2007). “They understand only force”: A critical examination of the eruption of verbal violence in a Jewish-Palestinian dialogue. Peace and Conflict Studies, 14 , 27–48.

Miles, E., & Crisp, J. (2014). A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis. Group Processes & Intergroup, 17 (1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213510573

Paluck, E. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (3), 574–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0011989.supp

Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60 , 339–367. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607

Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A., & Green, D. P. (2018). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy , 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49 , 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65

Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32 (3), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.12.002

Pettigrew, T. F. (2009). Probing the complexity of intergroup prejudice. International Journal of Psychology, 44 (1), 40–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590802057936

Pettigrew, T. F. (2016). In pursuit of three theories: Authoritarianism, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact. Annual Review of Psychology, 67 , 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033327

Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25 , 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250106

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. M. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact . Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2005). Differential relationships between intergroup contact and affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 (10), 1145–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205274854

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38 (6), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504

Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35 (3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Reicher, S. (2007). Rethinking the paradigm of prejudice. South Africa Journal of Psychology, 37 (4), 820–834. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630703700410

Saguy, T., Shchori-Eyal, N., Hasan-Aslih, S., Sobol, D., & Dovidio, J. F. (2017). The irony of harmony: Past and new development. In L. Vezzali & S. Stathi (Eds.), Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 53–71). London, UK: Routledge.

Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20 , 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02261.x

Shani, M. (2015). A theory and practice of coexistence: Improving coexistence orientation through mixed-model encounters between Jews and Palestinians in Israel . http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:579-opus-1004658

Shani, M., & Boehnke, K. (2017). The effect of Jewish-Palestinian mixed-model encounters on readiness for contact and policy support. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23 (3), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000220

Shelton, J. N., Dovidio, J. F., Hebl, M., & Richeson, J. A. (2009). Prejudice and intergroup interaction. In S. Demoulin, J.-P. Leyens, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 21–38). New York, NY: Psychology Press Swart.

Swart, H., Hewstone, M., Christ, O., & Voci, A. (2011). Affective mediators of intergroup contact: A three-wave longitudinal study in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101 (6), 1221–1238. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024450

Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J., & Cairns, E. (2009). Intergroup Trust in Northern Ireland. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35 (1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208325004

Tausch, T., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J. B., Psaltis, C., Schmid, K., Popan, J. R., … Hughes, J. (2010). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: Alternative accounts and underlying processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99 (2), 282–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018553

Trawalter, S., Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2009). Predicting behavior during interracial interactions: A stress and coping approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13 (4), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309345850

Tropp, L. R., Hawi, D. R., Van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2012). Cross-ethnic friendships, perceived discrimination, and their effects on ethnic activism over time: A longitudinal investigation of three ethnic minority groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51 (2), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02050.x

Tropp, L. R., & Mallett, R. K. (2011). Charting new pathways to positive intergroup relations. In L. R. Tropp & R. K. Mallett (Eds.), Moving beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive intergroup relations (pp. 3–17). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Differential relationships between intergroup contact and affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 (8), 1145–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205274854

Turner, R. N., & West, K. (2012). Behavioural consequences of imagining intergroup contact with stigmatized outgroups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15 , 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211418699

Vezzali, L., Andrighetto, L., & Saguy, T. (2016). When intergroup contact can backfire: The content of intergroup encounters and desire for equality. Under review.

Vezzali, L., Crisp, R. J., Stathi, S., & Giovannini, D. (2015). Imagined intergroup contact facilitates intercultural communication for college students on academic exchange programs. Social Psychology, 18 (1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214527853

Vezzali, L., Hewstone, M., Capozza, D., Giovannini, D., & Wölfer, R. (2014). Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology, 25 (1), 314–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.982948

Vezzali, L., & Stathi, S. (2017). The present and the future of the contact hypothesis and the need for integrating research fields. In L. Vezzali & S. Stathi (Eds.), Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 1–7). London, UK: Routledge.

Vezzali, L., Stathi, S., Crisp, R. J., Giovannini, D., Capozza, D., & Gaertner, S. L. (2015). Imagined intergroup contact and common ingroup identity: An integrative approach. Social Psychology, 46 , 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000242

Wagner, U., Christ, O., & van Dick, R. (2002). Die empirische Evaluation von Präventionsprogrammen gegen Fremdenfeindlichkeit [The empirical evaluation of prevention programs for xenophobia]. Journal für Konflikt- und Gewaltforschung, 4 , 101–117.

Wagner, U., Christ, O., & Heitmeyer, W. (2010). Anti-immigration bias. In J.F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P Glick, & V. Esses (Eds.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 361–378). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.

Wagner, U., & Hewstone, M. (2012). Intergroup contact. In L. R. Tropp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 193–209). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Wölfer, R., Christ, O., Schmid, K., Tausch, N. Buchallik, F. M., Vertovec. S., & Hewstone, M. (2019). Indirect contact predicts direct contact: Longitudinal evidence and the mediating role of intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116 (2), 277–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000146

Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73

Wright, S. C., & Lubensky, M. (2009). The struggle for social equality. Collective action vs. prejudice reduction. In S. Demoulin, J. P. Leyens, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Zhou, S., Page-Gould, E., Aron, A., & Hewstone, M. (2018). The extended contact hypothesis: A meta-analysis on 20 years of research. Personality and Social Psychology Review . https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318762647

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany

Oliver Christ & Mathias Kauff

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver Christ .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien/Knowledge Research Center and University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

Kai Sassenberg

Department of Psychology, Social Psychology program group, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Michael L. W. Vliek

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Christ, O., Kauff, M. (2019). Intergroup Contact Theory. In: Sassenberg, K., Vliek, M.L.W. (eds) Social Psychology in Action. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_10

Published : 02 July 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-13787-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-13788-5

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

CONTACT HYPOTHESIS

the theory that individuals belonging to one class can come to be less biased against people belonging to other classes simply by elevating the amount of communication they have with them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts

What Happens At An ADHD Assessment

A Quick Look at the History Behind Hypnosis

A Brief History of Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control

A Deep Dive into the Social Psychology of Leadership

Counseling Approaches to Client Care: Theories to Apply in Practice

The Future Of Education: Can You Earn A Psychology Degree Online?

Insomnia & Mental Illness: What is the Correlation?

Stop Guessing: Here Are 3 Steps to Data-Driven Psychological Decisions

Getting Help with Grief: Understanding Therapy & How It Can Help

Exploring the Psychology of Risk and Reward

Understanding ADHD in Women: Symptoms, Treatment & Support

Meeting the Milestones: A Guide to Piaget's Child Developmental Stages

Popular psychology terms, medical model, hypermnesia, affirmation, brainwashing, backup reinforcer, message-learning approach, affiliative behavior, behavioral sequence, basic anxiety.

Imagined Contact Hypothesis

The COVID-19 pandemic wasn’t just a tough time in world history - it was also specifically a dividing and polarizing time in American history. The country was gearing up for one of the most contentious elections that anyone could remember. Divisions were drawn between Democrats and Republicans; “pro-maskers” and “anti-maskers,” people who waited for the COVID-19 vaccination and those who only believed it would cause more harm. And what’s worse, there was little contact between these two groups. The isolation and separation of people to their individual homes may have saved lives and reduced the spread of COVID-19, but it definitely pushed us further apart.

America is not new to groups being separated. From the 18th century until the 1960s, the country was segregated. Entire cities were divided, and not just in the soda fountains or the bathrooms. White people might live or go to school on one side of the highway (like they did in Austin, Texas ) while people of color lived and went to school on the other side.

We know how dangerous this type of segregation and separation is. Warring political parties get nothing done to help their constituents. People who are considered “lesser” than the privileged or more powerful groups face a higher risk of discrimination, bullying, or downright violence. Separating different groups based on race, sex, political party, sexual orientation, religion, or ethnicity is simply harmful.

Psychologists know that, despite the harm caused by ingroups and outgroups, this has been a part of human existence since our species first appeared on Earth. They also know, through decades of research, that there is a way to reduce ingroup and outgroup biases and create a society where people from all groups can live and work together without threats of violence or fighting.

And this solution isn’t as complicated as you might think. In fact, it starts with just thinking.

Intergroup Contact Theory

Before we talk about thinking your way into a more inclusive world, let’s talk about Intergroup Contact Theory. In 1954, Gordon Allport introduced this idea in his book, The Nature of Prejudice. The idea is simple: contact between two groups could reduce prejudice between the people within those groups.

This idea doesn’t discriminate. It can work to reduce racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ageism, or ableism. And although it sounds simple, you can probably think of some examples from your real life in which a family member or a friend changed their opinions about minority groups after interacting with someone in that group. Maybe a friend’s parents came around to support gay marriage after your friend came out to them, or a colleague changed their opinion on the existence of whether privilege exists after talking to someone who doesn’t have said privilege.

But even if you can’t think of an example yourself, psychology has your back. Plenty of studies on intergroup contact theory show that positive contact between people in different groups can help to reduce prejudice. In 2003, for example, studies showed that white athletes who played team sports with Black athletes held less prejudice than white athletes who played individual sports. Large analyses of studies on this topic show that even when contact is “unstructured,” that contact is likely to reduce prejudice among all “outgroups,” including the LGBTQ community, people of color, and people with disabilities.

It seems that the best way to reduce any prejudice you have is to go out and have contact with the people you have prejudices about!

What About Negative Contact?

Of course, you might find yourself thinking about all the times your family got in Facebook fights with someone on the other side of the political aisle. It’s important to note that while psychologists believe that negative contact can be more powerful than positive contact, positive contact is more likely to happen in person. Intentionally going out into the world, meeting new people, and talking to them about their experiences is the best way to reduce prejudice and become a more inclusive person.

This Isn’t Always Possible

This wasn’t always a possibility in the COVID-19 pandemic. The whole point of lockdowns was to stay home and keep everybody safe! Plus, decades of segregation, redlining and other factors don’t always encourage intermingling between ingroups and outgroups. You may not know or hang out with people who have a different religion than you, who identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, or who are of a different race or social class than you. So what do you do then? Well, you might be surprised to know that just imagining these positive interactions can help reduce prejudice, too.

Imagined Contact Theory

That’s right! In 2008, researchers took the Intergroup Contact Theory one step further. What would happen if people simply imagined that they were having positive interactions with someone in an “outgroup?”

They attempted to answer the question like this: researchers separated different groups of participants into two groups. One group was instructed to think about a positive interaction with an elderly person. The other group was instructed to think about an empty field. Once the exercise was over, the researchers measured the potential for prejudice against the elderly among the participants.

As it turned out, the groups who had imagined the positive interaction with the elderly reported lower prejudice against the elderly than the groups who were told just to think about an empty field. There were no elderly people involved in the study - just imagination.

Through further studies of imagined contact theory, researchers have found that simply imagining positive interactions with people can help you improve your attitude, increase your desire for contact with others, and improve how you work within groups. Having trouble with a group project at school? Imagine it going well before you head to class. Worried about how you will interact with your family during your next Thanksgiving dinner? Imagine an evening of laughs and good conversation. Frustrated at people who might be on the other side of the aisle than you? Picture yourselves sitting down and having a conversation in which you both see eye to eye. You might just be more willing to have that conversation.

The Power of Imagination

Sure, this can sound pretty crazy, but the mind does some pretty crazy things. In fact, many psychologists would agree that this exercise is so powerful because the mind has trouble knowing the difference between what is real and what is imagined. We scream and cry when we have nightmares. Reliving trauma in our minds can be just as harmful as experiencing it for the first time. Imagination isn’t just a silly thing that we do when we are children or we are bored - the thoughts we have can make an impact.

One way to look at the Imagined Contact Theory is to think about manifestation. When we want to manifest something, we picture it over and over in our minds. We repeat affirmations that we don’t necessarily believe. And while picturing a new car in our minds won’t make a car appear in front of us, it will put us in the right mindset to work for that car, save money for that car, and look for opportunities to get that car.

Imagined contact theory can do the same thing. Simply imagining a positive interaction with anyone won’t change who they are. But when you are prepared to have a positive interaction with someone, you might let small things go, give people the benefit of the doubt, or try to see things from their point of view. We do these things for the people we love - why can’t we do them for the people that we used to judge?

Guided Meditations Can Help

This can still feel like a strange practice to try. If you don’t know where to begin, try out a loving-kindness meditation. This type of Buddhist meditation asks you to send love and positivity out to yourself, people you love, people you don’t always love, and all people of the world. This isn’t always easy to do, but starting by sending love to people that you already love can help you ease into this practice and spread the love even further.

The same approach can be taken with imagined contact. First, think about walking through a nice park on a warm, sunny day. Imagine that you come into contact with friends or family that you love. Picture a lovely conversation between all of you - everyone is laughing and smiling. Next, picture in your mind that someone in the group introduces someone who you might be skeptical about at first. But everyone in the group is accepting and welcoming of them. As the conversation continues, all of you laugh together. Everyone keeps an open mind, shares, and has positive feelings at the end of the day.

See, how hard was that? This simple exercise can help you before interacting with anyone who might make you uncomfortable or nervous for whatever reason. Manifest positive interactions with imagined contact!

Related posts:

• The Psychology of Long Distance Relationships
• Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI Test)
• Operant Conditioning (Examples + Research)
• Variable Interval Reinforcement Schedule (Examples)
• Concrete Operational Stage (3rd Cognitive Development)

Reference this article:

About The Author

Free Personality Test

Free Memory Test

Free IQ Test

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use