Relationships Between Intergroup Contact and Prejudice Among Minority and Majority Status Groups

By Linda R. Tropp, T. Pettigrew. Psychology Science, 2005

821 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4e3ffb5f9cd92d69fcfb6f30bd99df04e8100623

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Experiencing the Unexpected: Toward a Model of College Diversity Experiences and Attitude Change (2011, background): “Most often, studies have examined how the interactions of White students or adults across race affect their racial attitudes or biases (for meta-analyses, see Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006, 2008; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005).”
Improving intergroup relations through direct, extended and other forms of indirect contact (2011, background): “Moreover, Gómez et al. found that the effects of direct contact on improving intergroup attitudes were weaker for minority-group than majoritygroup members (a typical finding; see, for example, Binder et al., 2009; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005).”
E pluribus unum: Dual identity and minority group members' motivation to engage in contact, as well as social change (2011, neutral): “Much of the work on improving intergroup relations has focused on the responses of advantaged-group members toward disadvantaged-group members (e.g., 72% of contact research, Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005).”
Positive and negative intergroup contact: Interaction not asymmetry (2018, background): “…that none of the above research has investigated asymmetry effects among minority groups, a significant lacuna in view of the fact that such groups tend to report having more intergroup contact experiences while also showing rather weaker contact effects overall (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005).”
How Much Diversity is Enough? The Curvilinear Relationship Between College Diversity Interactions and First-Year Student Outcomes (2013, background): “It is worth noting that meta-analyses of the literature on intergroup contact and prejudice have found that experimental studies yield effect sizes that are equal to or larger than those for survey and field studies (Pettigrew and Tropp 2006; Tropp and Pettigrew 2005).”
Longitudinal effects of contact on intergroup relations: The role of majority and minority group membership and intergroup emotions (2010, background): “These results extend the existing literature by showing that the quality of contact is especially relevant for majority group members and may thus be responsible for the typically stronger contact effects found among majorities than among minorities (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005).”
Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity (2007, background): “In general, Tropp and Pettigrew (2005) found that intergroup contact was significantly more effective at reducing intergroup bias for majority group members (mean r¼7.23) than it was for minority group members (mean r¼7.18).”
Cross-Group Friendships and Intergroup Attitudes (2011, methodology): “Similar to Tropp and Pettigrew (2005a), we observed stronger mean effects when the dependent measures tapped affective dimensions of intergroup attitudes (mean r = .263) as compared to those tapping cognitive dimensions of intergroup attitudes (mean r = .177), Q B (1) = 22.78, p .01.7 We also…”
The Single Factor Fallacy: Implications of Missing Critical Variables from an Analysis of Intergroup Contact Theory1 (2017, background): “The last metaanalysis on this question was done more then 10 years ago (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005) and the authors could only find 51 independent samples (7.3% of the total 698 samples identified for research on contact with majority or minority groups), in which contact outcomes were assessed for…”
How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta‐analytic tests of three mediators (2008, positive): “As noted, this ﬁnding is consistent with the growing research literature on the central role of affect in intergroup processes in general and intergroup contact in particular (see Tropp & Pettigrew, 2004, 2005a).”
The Dynamics of Acculturation: An Intergroup Perspective (2011, background): “Ironically, interventions aiming to improve intergroup relations usually focus on only one side of the divide, the majority group (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005).”
An Investigation of Positive and Negative Contact As Predictors of Intergroup Attitudes in the United States, Hong Kong, and Thailand (2015, background): “Majorities, irrespective of culture, face similar challenges that they must contend with in intergroup settings (Devine & Vasquez, 1998; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005).”
College Diversity Experiences and Cognitive Development: A Meta-Analysis (2010, background): “…empirical studies have examined this topic, and several quantitative meta-analyses have recently synthesized the literature linking diversity experiences with intergroup prejudice in general (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006, 2008; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005) and with racial bias in particular (Denson, 2009).”
Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions (2017, background): “…minoritygroup members tend to perceive that they have experienced more discrimination in the past (Tropp, 2007) and anticipate greater prejudice and discrimination on the basis of their group membership (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005), which can attenuate the impact of favorable intergroup contact.”
Changing the ideological roots of prejudice: Longitudinal effects of ethnic intergroup contact on social dominance orientation (2014, background): “Allport’s optimal conditions (e.g., equal status and cooperation) have also been found not to facilitate the effects of intergroup contact among minority members (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005).”