When Groups Meet: The Dynamics of Intergroup Contact

By T. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp. 2011

614 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7a3532f05680cdbd6644bdef439c9c77fae99018

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

With malice toward none and charity for some: ingroup favoritism enables discrimination. (2014, unknown): “Among 1,351 individual tests of effects of intergroup contact on intergroup relations (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; 2011) not even one of these employed a measure of ingroup favorability as a dependent variable.”
Consequences of Diversity for Social Cohesion and Prejudice: The Missing Dimension of Intergroup Contact (2015, background): “…effects of contact in many different contexts, under many different conditions, and on many different outcome measures, including trust (for reviews see especially Pettigrew & Tropp’s, 2006, meta-analysis; see also Hewstone & Swart, 2011; Hodson, Hewstone, & Swart, 2013; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).”
How do we get people into contact? Predictors of intergroup contact and drivers of contact seeking (2020, background): “…between members of different social groups reflects positively on a number of outcomes relevant to harmonious intergroup relations, such as outgroup attitudes, empathy, and intergroup trust (e.g., Hewstone & Swart, 2011; Lemmer &Wagner, 2015; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011, Marinucci et al., in press).”
The Racial and Economic Context of Trump Support (2018, background): “Intergroup contact, in turn, has the potential to attenuate perceptions of group threat (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011) as well as to lower levels of in-group identification through the process of deprovincialization (Verkuyten et al., 2010).”
Positive intergroup contact, negative intergroup contact, and threat as predictors of cognitive and affective dimensions of prejudice (2015, background): “Additionally, many negative experiences occur in situations that are involuntary and threatening (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011) and negative contact experience relate to expectations that future contact will be negative (Gómez, Tropp, & Fernández, 2011).”
Intergroup contact and intergroup conflict. (2014, unknown): “Moreover, the contact-prejudice link is significantly weaker for members of disadvantaged groups (r .18) than it is for members of dominant groups (r .23; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005b; see also Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).”
Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact (2014, background): “A great deal of research has focused on direct, face-to-face contact as an effective prejudice reduction strategy (Hewstone & Swart, 2011; Hodson & Hewstone, 2013; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).”
Preventing prejudice and improving intergroup attitudes: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent training programs (2014, background): “The first most prominent theoretical concept is founded on the intergroup contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).”
How Peer Norms of Inclusion and Exclusion Predict Children's Interest in Cross‐Ethnic Friendships (2014, background): “Consistent with a long tradition of research on intergroup contact (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011), many studies now indicate that contact—and particularly crossethnic friendships—can predict positive intergroup attitudes among children and adolescents (Binder et al., 2009; Feddes, Noack, & Rutland,…”
Positive and extensive intergroup contact in the past buffers against the disproportionate impact of negative contact in the present (2014, background): “…have provided a more positive report on intergroup contact than suggested in related disciplines (sociology, political science, and human geography; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011), one that disagrees with global trends of increased intergroup friction under increased social diversity (Quillian, 1995).”
Seeking and avoiding intergroup contact: Future frontiers of research on building social integration (2018, background): “This theoretical, methodological, and empirical progress has reinvigorated optimism among contact experts and policy makers about contact's applicability (Bergmann, 2016; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2013).”
The Single Factor Fallacy: Implications of Missing Critical Variables from an Analysis of Intergroup Contact Theory1 (2017, background): “This effect weakens majority members’ resolve to maintain the discriminatory status quo and encourages the minority to believe that protest could succeed (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).”