Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 187–199 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Review

Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research§ Thomas F. Pettigrew * University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA Accepted 22 December 2007

Abstract Intergroup contact theory and research has received renewed interest in recent years. And this new work has led to rapid advances. This paper summarizes this progress and points to four future directions for further advances. (1) There is a continuing need to specify the processes of intergroup contact that explain its many effects. This is a call for continued efforts to determine the many mediators and moderators that are involved. (2) A greater focus upon negative contact is required. Cross-group interaction that leads to increased prejudice has not been studied systematically. (3) Rather than just a situational phenomenon, intergroup contact needs to be placed in a longitudinal, multilevel social context. (4) Finally, more direct applications to social policy are needed in which intergroup contact is viewed within specific institutional settings. Preliminary data analyses illustrate the points. # 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Intergroup contact; Prejudice; Cross-group friendship

Contents 1. 2.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. Recent advances of intergroup contact theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Four future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Specifying the processes of intergroup contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. A greater focus upon intergroup contact that leads to negative effects—increased prejudice, distrust, and conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Placing intergroup contact in its longitudinal, multilevel social context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Applying intergroup contact to social policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

187 188 189 189

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

190 193 195 196

1. Introduction Literally hundreds of research papers and book chapters have appeared on intergroup contact during the last few decades. This intense renewed interest in Allport’s (1954) modest ‘‘hypothesis’’ has led to a burgeoning area of the

§

An earlier version of this paper was presented by the author as the opening address at the Contact 50 Conference held at the Ithala Game Park in South Africa, July 6–9, 2006. * Tel.: +1 831 425 4777; fax: +1 831 459 0655. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0147-1767/$ – see front matter # 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.12.002

188

T.F. Pettigrew / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 187–199

social psychology of intergroup relations. The ‘‘hypothesis’’ has expanded into a developed theory (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew, 1998), and shown its applicability to a vast variety of groups and settings. And its primary contention that intergroup contact typically diminishes intergroup prejudice has received solid meta-analytic support (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). A meta-analysis of 516 studies obtained a mean effect size between contact and prejudice of r = 0.21. It also found that 95% of the 516 studies report a negative relationship between contact and prejudices of many types (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). But there is great heterogeneity in effect sizes, with affective measures of prejudice revealing larger effects than such cognitive indicators as stereotypes (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005a). Moreover, majority participants in the contact typically yield larger average effects than minority participants (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005b). More rigorous and recent research yield higher mean r’s—with experimental studies producing a mean effect of r = 0.33 (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006, in press). These results and their policy implications have initiated a focused effort to understand the process and maximize its established effect. Allport’s (1954) original contact hypothesis held four conditions of the contact situation were crucial if prejudice were to be reduced: equal status of the groups in the situation, intergroup cooperation, common goals, and authority support. Meta-analytic testing indicates, however, that these conditions form a package that facilitates the effect but is not essential for reducing prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Cross-group friendship is likely to encompass most of Allport’s conditions. Such friendships can provide extensive contact in multiple social contexts with access to cross-group friendship networks and opportunities for selfdisclosure. And, indeed, research has repeatedly found friendship negatively and substantially related to prejudice (Hamberger & Hewstone, 1997; Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, & Niens, 2006; Levin, van Laar, & Sidanius, 2003; Pettigrew, 1997; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Phinney, Ferguson, & Tate, 1997; Van Dick et al., 2004; Wagner, Christ, Pettigrew, Stellmacher, & Wolf, 2007; Wagner, van Dick, Pettigrew, & Christ, 2003). Indeed, the prejudice reduction related to intergroup friendship may even generalize to other outgroups not involved in the contact situation (Pettigrew, 1997; Van Laar, Levin, Sinclair, & Sidanius, 2005). Selection bias accounts for part of this contact–prejudice link. Prejudiced people avoid contact with the objects of their prejudice, and the unprejudiced may seek such contact. But a range of various methods indicates that the path from contact to prejudice is typically stronger than the path from prejudice to contact (Butler & Wilson, 1978; Irish, 1952; Pettigrew, 1997; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Powers & Ellison, 1995; Van Dick et al., 2004; Wilson, 1996; but see Levin et al., 2003). Longitudinal studies of intergroup contact effects are rare. But the few that exist reveal that optimal contact reduces prejudice over time (Eller & Abrams, 2003, 2004; Levin et al., 2003; Van Laar et al., 2005; Van Laar, Levin, & Sidanius, in press), even when researchers have eliminated the possibility of participant selection (e.g., Sherif, 1966). Thus, diverse methods converge to suggest that, while both sequences operate, the more important effect is typically intergroup contact reducing prejudice. 1.1. Recent advances of intergroup contact theory With all the attention now devoted to the topic, contact theory is advancing rapidly in many new directions. Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) found in their meta-analysis of contact effects that the theory holds equally well for groups other than ethnicities, races, and cultural groups for whom the theory was originally developed. These other types are often stigmatized outgroups, such as homosexuals (Herek & Capitanio, 1996), the homeless (Lee, Farrell, & Link, 2004) and the mentally and physically disabled (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Intergroup contact improving intergroup attitudes, then, is a general phenomenon. Its wide applicability suggests that it may be linked to such basic processes as Zajonc’s (1968) ‘‘mere exposure’’ effect. Researchers have repeatedly shown that greater exposure to targets, in and of itself, can significantly enhance liking for those targets (Bornstein, 1989; Harmon-Jones & Allen, 2001; Lee, 2001; Zajonc, 1968; see also Homans, 1950). Work on the relationship between exposure and liking indicates that uncertainty reduction is an important mechanism underlying these relationships (e.g., Lee, 2001). Stephan, Stephan, and Gudykunst (1999) have begun the task of combining the uncertainty reduction and threat reduction theories. Complementing this view, considerable recent research points to the significance of reducing intergroup threat and anxiety in order to achieve reductions in prejudice from contact—an important mediational finding that the paper will later explore in detail. Especially impressive is the physiological research of Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, and Lickel (2000) and Mendes, Blascovich, Lickel, and Hunter (2002). They note that American college participants who have had wide experience

T.F. Pettigrew / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 187–199

189

with African-Americans show significantly less physiological evidence of anxiety concerning intergroup interaction than those students without such experience (see also Page-Gould, Mendoza-Denton, & Tropp, under review). Studies have also employed a wide variety of dependent variables beyond that of just prejudice reduction—though some critics of contact theory seem unaware of this development (Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2005). This work finds that having outgroup friends can result in positive effects beyond that of simply diminishing prejudice. Hence, participants in cross-group friendships typically perceive greater outgroup variability than others (Islam & Hewstone, 1993; Voci & Hewstone, 2003). Intergroup contact can also induce greater empathy with the outgroup as well as reduce interactional anxiety (Pettigrew & Tropp, in press). Indeed, as described below, reductions in anxiety and increases in empathy may be essential mediators for contact’s other positive effects (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew & Tropp, in press). Recent research in Northern Ireland finds that intergroup friendship can also engender forgiveness and trust even among Catholics and Protestants who have suffered personally from the province’s sectarian violence (Hewstone et al., 2006). Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, and Ropp (1997) introduced another important expansion. They proposed a process of ‘‘extended’’ or indirect contact. With American college students, they presented both correlational and experimental evidence to show that simply having ingroup friends who have outgroup friends relates to diminished prejudice. And this effect has been replicated in Europe. In two Northern Ireland samples, Paolini, Hewstone, and Voci (2004) have shown the prejudice-reducing power of indirect contact. And analyses of German survey data have also uncovered indirect contact effects (Pettigrew, Christ, Wagner, & Stellmacher, 2007; Pettigrew, Stellmacher, Christ, & Wagner, under review-a; Pettigrew, Wagner, & Christ, under review-b). But the changed attitudes produced by indirect contact are not as strong as those from direct contact. For example, they can be changed back more easily. Nevertheless, indirect contact effects are particularly important for those who live in segregated areas and have no outgroup friends (Christ et al., under review-b). The great majority of intergroup contact studies have focused on the effects upon the majority or more powerful, non-stigmatized group in the interaction. But recently a series of intriguing contact studies by Richeson, Shelton and others focus on the minority. They show that African-American students who expect Whites to be prejudiced and those who held prior negative attitudes about Whites reported more negative experiences in interracial contact (Shelton & Richeson, 2006; Shelton, Richeson, & Salvatore, 2005; Shelton, Richeson, Salvatore, & Trawalter, 2005). At least in brief encounters, Black participants liked those Whites best who were trying hard not to be prejudiced—even though they were likely to be more prejudiced (Shelton, Richeson, & Salvatore, 2005; Shelton, Richeson, Salvatore, & Trawalter, 2005). This research, combined with other work (e.g., Chavous, 2005; Richeson & Shelton, 2007; Tropp, 2003), underline the important point that intergroup contact theory must take into account the subjective factors involved for both minority as well as majority members in the interaction. 2. Four future directions for intergroup contact theory and research These recent advances open up new questions and raise the prospect of future advances. This paper addresses what might be – hopefully, at least – future directions for intergroup theory and research. Among many possibilities, four interrelated directions seem both timely and likely: (1) specifying the processes of intergroup contact; (2) a greater focus upon intergroup contact that leads to negative effects—increased prejudice, distrust, and conflict; (3) placing intergroup contact in its longitudinal, multilevel social context; (4) applying contact to social policy. We now consider each of these future thrusts and some initial findings relevant to them. 2.1. Specifying the processes of intergroup contact We now know a great deal about how both majorities and minorities view and react to intergroup contact. Now these rival perspectives must be combined into one dynamic, multilevel model. A start toward this ambitious goal is a clearer specification of the mediators of contact’s effects. Armed with 63 studies and 81 independent samples that have studied the mediation of contact’s effects on prejudice, Pettigrew and Tropp (in press) conducted a series of meta-analyses to test the significance of three widely studied mediators: new knowledge about the outgroup, anxiety reduction, and empathy with the outgroup. Early theorists thought that intergroup contact led to learning about the outgroup, and this new knowledge in turn reduced prejudice. Recent work, however, reveals that this knowledge mediation does exist but is of minor importance.

190

T.F. Pettigrew / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 187–199

Empathy and perspective taking are far more important. Cross-group contact, and especially friendship, enables one to empathize with and take the perspective of the outgroup. With this new view of the outgroup, prejudice declines. This mediation research builds on the work of Batson, Cook, and Sawyer (2005), Batson, Early, and Salvarani (1997), and Batson, Polycarpou, Harmon-Jones, and Imhoff (1997). And this emphasis also fits with McFarland’s (1999) finding with both student and adult samples that restricted empathy is an important third correlate of prejudice together with authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Similarly, Vescio, Sechrist, and Paolucci (2003) found that perspective taking led to more favorable racial views in an experimental setting. Also critical is the reduction of intergroup threat and anxiety (Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, Lickel, & Kowai-Bell, 2001; Islam & Hewstone, 1993; Paolini et al., 2004; Pettigrew, 1998; Stephan et al., 2002, 1999; Voci & Hewstone, 2003). Intergroup anxiety refers to feelings of threat and uncertainty that people experience in intergroup contexts. These feelings grow out of concerns about how they should act, how they might be perceived, and whether they will be accepted (Stephan & Stephan, 1985; see also Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Blascovich et al., 2000; Gudykunst, 1985; Mendes et al., 2002; Richeson & Shelton, 2007). Note that affective mediators (empathy and anxiety reduction) are more important than the cognitive mediator (knowledge), though both play a role. This finding is consistent with other intergroup contact results. Recall that Tropp and Pettigrew (2005a) found that intergroup contact typically reduces the affective components of prejudice more than it does the cognitive components. And intergroup contact both enhances positive emotions and reduces negative emotions toward the outgroup (Christ et al., under review-a; Miller, Smith, & Mackie, 2004). Future intergroup contact theory and research need to develop this area further. More work on the importance of empathy and perspective taking is indicated. Moreover, there are undoubtedly many more potential mediators, such as threat, that need to be systematically explored as mediators. For example, are there mediational differences in the effects of contact for majorities and minorities? Almost all mediational studies of intergroup contact so far have employed only majority participants. 2.2. A greater focus upon intergroup contact that leads to negative effects—increased prejudice, distrust, and conflict In their study of 713 independent samples in contact studies conducted during the 20th Century, Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) found only 34 (<5%) positive relationships—where intergroup contact related to greater prejudice. Yet negative outcomes do occur from threatening contact situations, and this needs far more study. When Williams (1947) and Allport (1954) were fashioning intergroup contact theory, they assumed that most contact did not reduce prejudice. Hence, they sought to specify the positive features of those contact situations that could maximize the potential for contact to promote positive intergroup outcomes. Consequently, explorations of contact theory have focused traditionally on positive factors. But the meta-analytic results reveal that our understanding of intergroup contact is limited by this emphasis on positive contact. Factors that curb contact’s ability to reduce prejudice are now the most problematic theoretically, yet the least understood. These negative factors, ranging from intergroup anxiety (Stephan & Stephan, 1985), to authoritarianism and normative restraints (Pettigrew, Christ, et al., 2007; Pettigrew, Stellmacher, et al., under review-a; Pettigrew, Wagner, et al., under review-b), deserve to become a major focus of future contact research. Such an emphasis would allow a more comprehensive understanding of conditions that both enhance and inhibit the potentially positive effects of contact. We can begin this task by contrasting the social, situational, and personality correlates of positive and negative contact. Here are initial results from analyses conducted using two measures of positive and negative intergroup contact with foreigners who reside in Germany (Pettigrew, Christ, et al., 2007; Pettigrew, Stellmacher, et al., under review-a; Pettigrew, Wagner, et al., under review-b). We compare the two types of contact with data from a 2004 phone survey of a probability sample of 1383 German citizens who are 16 years and older and have no immigration background. This survey, part of a large, 10-year project on prejudice headed by Heitmeyer (2004) of Bielefeld University, Germany, offers a large array of highly relevant indicators of both intergroup contact and prejudice. These resident foreigners began coming to Germany in the 1950s; many are now second- and third-generation, but relatively few have been able to become German citizens. Though they come from many countries, the immigrant prototype consists of Turkish Muslim immigrants. In fact, our anti-Muslim measure correlates highly with an antiforeigner prejudice measure (r = +0.65). There are obviously large differences between Turkish and German cultures; and this situation represents a major example of cross-cultural adaptation and accommodation.

T.F. Pettigrew / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 187–199

191

Table 1 Items used for various measures analyzed Positive intergroup contact (alpha = 0.78) 1. How often has a foreigner helped you—often, sometimes, seldom or never? 2. How often do you have interesting conversations with a foreigner—often, sometimes, seldom or never? 3 and 4. Now think about encounters with foreigners in Germany. How often have you experienced the following feelings—(3) satisfied and (4) cheerful—never, sometimes, often, or very often? Negative intergroup contact (alpha = 0.78) 1. How often has a foreigner pestered you—never, sometimes, often, or very often? 2.–4. Now think about encounters with foreigners in Germany. How often have you experienced the following feelings—(2) angry, (3) irritated and (4) fearful—never, sometimes, often, or very often? Three conditions of contact How would you judge the contacts you have with foreigners living here in Germany—superficial, on an equal footing, and voluntary?—does not apply at all, tends not to apply, tends to apply, fully applies Individual threat (r = 0.68) Foreigners living here pose a threat to my personal liberty and rights—does not apply at all, tends not to apply, tends to apply, fully applies Foreigners living here pose a threat to my personal economic situation—does not apply at all, tends not to apply, tends to apply, fully applies Group threat (r = 0.67) Foreigners living here pose a threat to our personal liberty and rights—does not apply at all, tends not to apply, tends to apply, fully applies Foreigners living here pose a threat to our economic wealth—does not apply at all, tends not to apply, tends to apply, fully applies Political conservatism Thinking of your own political view, would you classify yourself as left, somewhat left, in the middle, rather right, or right? Social dominance scale (alpha = 0.61) Groups at the bottom of our society should stay there—completely disagree, tend to disagree, tend to agree, agree completely Some population groups are more useful than others—completely disagree, tend to disagree, tend to agree, agree completely Some groups are worth less than others—completely disagree, tend to disagree, tend to agree, agree completely Authoritarianism scale (alpha = 0.75) Crime should be punished more harshly—completely disagree, tend to disagree, tend to agree, agree completely To ensure law and order, one should act tougher against outsiders and trouble makers—completely disagree, tend to disagree, tend to agree, agree completely Two of the most important characteristics should be obedience and respect toward one’s superiors—completely disagree, tend to disagree, tend to agree, agree completely Anti-Muslim prejudice (alpha = 0.75) 1. Muslim culture fits well in our Western World (reverse scored)—agree completely, tend to agree, tend to disagree, completely disagrees 2. With so many Muslims living here in Germany, I sometimes feel like a stranger in my own country—completely disagree, tend to disagree, tend to agree, agree completely 3. Muslim migration to Germany should be prohibited—completely disagree, tend to disagree, tend to agree, agree completely 4. I am more mistrustful of Muslim people—completely disagree, tend to disagree, tend to agree, agree completely 5. The many mosques in Germany prove that Islam wants to enlarge its power here—completely disagree, tend to disagree, tend to agree, agree completely

As Table 1 shows four questions tapped positive contact (alpha = 0.78). Another four comparable questions tapped negative contact (alpha = 0.78). In addition, the survey asked the respondents to rate three conditions of their contact— whether it was superficial, on an equal footing, and voluntary? The probability survey also assessed if respondents felt threatened by the resident foreigners—either on the personal or group levels. Table 1 indicates the two items used to gauge personal threat (r = 0.68), and the two parallel items used to gauge group threat (r = 0.67). Also shown is the single item tapping political conservatism. Three items each listed in Table 1, drawn from Sidanius and Pratto (1999) and from Altemeyer (1996), tapped social dominance orientation (alpha = 0.61) and authoritarianism (alpha = 0.75). Finally, the last five items of Table 1 assessed the respondents’ prejudice against Muslims residing in Germany (alpha = 0.78). The findings with the two contact measures suggest that positive and negative intergroup contact have different dynamics. But they are clearly not polar-opposite phenomena. First, the positive and negative contact measures correlate only 0.18 ( p < 0.01). The relationship is restrained by those respondents who have had considerable intergroup contact—most of it positive, some of it negative. Second, as measured by the scales, positive contact

192

T.F. Pettigrew / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 187–199

Table 2 Predictors of positive and negative contact Predictor variables

Positive contact St. Beta

Authoritarianism Social dominance Political conservatism Age Individual threat Collective threat Non-superficial contact Equal Status contact Voluntary contact R2 N

0.068 0.012 0.054 0.029 0.151 0.119 0.194 0.207 0.085

Negative Contact t

p

2.19 0.42 1.94 1.09 4.65 3.41 7.07 7.60 2.97

0.03 0.68 0.052 0.28 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003

0.52 1085

St. Beta 0.034 0.027 0.044 0.221 0.312 0.181 0.012 0.012 0.138

t

p

1.14 0.92 1.63 8.41 9.84 5.35 0.46 0.46 4.99

0.25 0.36 0.10 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.64 0.65 0.001

0.56 1093

Bold indicates statistically significant results that are described in text.

(r = 0.41) is more predictive of anti-Muslim prejudice than negative contact (r = +0.30). Using Blalock’s (1972) formula for comparing correlations within the same sample, this difference is highly significant (t = 22.2, p < 0.001). Third, different types of people tend to be involved in the two types of contact. Table 2 provides the relevant regressions. Respondents low in authoritarianism who are neither threatened by immigrants nor politically conservative are significantly more likely to report positive intergroup contact. By contrast, those reporting negative contact are younger and both individually and collectively threatened by immigrants. Interestingly, social dominance orientation does not contribute to the prediction nor does gender and education. Fourth, the social contexts of the two phenomena differ in important ways. Positive contact occurs at work (r = +0.28, p < 0.001) and especially in neighborhood settings (r = +0.36, p < 0.001). Negative contact is unrelated to neighborhood contact (r = 0.02, n.s.), and only slightly to work contact (r = +0.13, p < 0.01) where employment competition may exist. Table 2 also shows that both types of contact are conditioned by the situational contexts reported by the respondents—as Allport (1954) held in his original hypothesis. Positive contact is significantly and positively related to all three of the measured conditions—non-superficial, equal status and voluntary. Indeed, each of these self-rated conditions significantly mediates the negative relationship between positive contact and anti-Muslim attitudes. That is, each of these self-rated conditions helps to account for the positive contact link with reduced anti-Muslim attitudes: non-superficial (Sobel test = 3.03, p < 0.003), equal status (Sobel test = 4.06, p < 0.0001), and voluntary contact (Sobel test = 4.47, p < 0.0001) (the Sobel test provides the critical ratio; see Preacher & Leonardelli, 2006; Sobel, 1982). By contrast, negative contact is largely related to involuntary encounters in the multivariate context of Table 2— which is consistent with its small links with neighborhood and work contact. Nonetheless, all three contact conditions also mediate the link between negative contact and increased prejudice: non-superficial (Sobel test = 3.10, p < 0.002), equal status (Sobel test = 3.83, p < 0.0002), and voluntary contact (Sobel test = 4.25, p < 0.0001). The only moderating relation uncovered involves equal status. It significantly moderates the association between negative contact and prejudice (interaction t = 3.68, p < 0.001). Thus, for situations judged by the respondents as not involving equal status, the negative contact correlation with anti-Muslim views is only +0.13; but when the situations are judged as being of equal status, the correlation rises to +0.36. This interaction coincides with Table 2’s demonstration of the importance of threat in the links between prejudice and both positive and negative contact—a point stressed by Stephan and Stephan (1985). For both personal and collective threat, positive contact is associated with reduced threat, negative contact with elevated threat. These findings are consistent with our earlier discussion of the importance of interactional anxiety. Finally, the distributions of the responses to the two contact scales differ sharply. This probability sample of German respondents report far more positive than negative intergroup contact (t = 36.2, p < 0.0001). Thus, 85% of the sample reported having interesting conversations with resident foreigners, and 63% reported having been helped on occasion by foreigners. And 65% of the respondents report never having been pestered by a foreigner.

T.F. Pettigrew / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 187–199

193

Some of this difference could be related to social desirability; but the consistency of the findings with the positive and negative contact measures suggests that such a possible effect is small. These sharp frequency differences between positive and negative intergroup interactions are of both theoretical and policy importance. Recall that these differences emerge in a probability sample of the non-immigrant German population. Since negative contacts are often publicized while the far more numerous positive contacts go unrecognized or are not viewed as newsworthy, these results may seem surprising. But the preponderance of positive intergroup contact helps to explain why contact leading to increased prejudice is so relatively rare in the research literature (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). 2.3. Placing intergroup contact in its longitudinal, multilevel social context We noted that the contact research literature suffers from the scarcity of both longitudinal and multilevel studies. When collecting research for their meta-analysis, Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) found that more than 70% of the intergroup contact research of the twentieth century involved participants retrospectively citing prior contact without any data on the longitudinal or situational contexts of this contact. The meta-analysis uncovered only two longitudinal studies and no multilevel studies. Yet such studies are obviously necessary to place the intergroup contact phenomena in their full and evolving social context. Sherif’s (1966) brilliant field study, Robbers’ Cave, offered an initial quasi-experimental field study with positive results for contact theory. The critical point of Sherif’s famous research was that he obtained repeated attitude measures as the contact experiences evolved between his two groups of young boys (Pettigrew, 1991). More recently, several longitudinal studies have been published that also support the theory (Eller & Abrams, 2003, 2004; Levin et al., 2003). Especially impressive is research carried out with five data collection points over a 4-year period with more than 2000 undergraduate students at the University of California at Los Angeles (Levin et al., 2003; Sidanius, van Laar, Levin, & Sinclair, 2004; Van Laar et al., 2005, in press). The study also boasted a quasi-experimental design using randomly assigned roommates of diverse ethnicities. This extensive work provides a model for future research that tests for cumulative effects with overtime data within a particular institutional setting. These investigators found significant reciprocal effects across the years: interethnic friendships reduced prejudice, while initial ingroup bias and intergroup anxiety led to fewer intergroup friends. These are the non-recursive effects between intergroup contact and prejudice that have been uniformly found throughout the contact research literature. But the U.C.L.A. researchers found the path from prejudice to reduced contact and friendship to be somewhat stronger than previous research. Two sets of the U.C.L.A. findings are particularly important. First, randomly assigned roommates from different ethnicities decreased their outgroup prejudices even for outgroups not involved in the roommate relationship. This wide generalization effect had been uncovered previously only in relatively uncontrolled survey data (Pettigrew, 1997). Second, from a multilevel perspective, ingroup organizations on the U.C.L.A. campus typically had negative individual effects. Membership in such groups as fraternities enhanced ingroup contact and a sense of ethnic victimization while it decreased outgroup contact. After controlling for the attitudes students had before university, the U.C.L.A. researchers found that fraternity and sorority membership significantly increased opposition to greater campus diversity and to interethnic dating and marriage. Such organizational membership was also associated with higher scores on a symbolic racism measure. Another way to look at the evolving development of intergroup contact in its social context is to think of it in terms of a stochastic set of cumulative processes involving a series of selection stages. Though best studied with longitudinal data, the point can be illustrated with data from the previously used research survey of Germans conducted in 2004 (Heitmeyer, 2004). Fig. 1 illustrates one such model that employs three separate processes related to neighborhood contact. The first selection process involves those Germans who live in neighborhoods with resident foreigners—obviously a prerequisite for neighborhood contact. Fig. 1 shows that his selection removes 25% of the total sample. But the mere presence of foreigners does not guarantee intergroup contact—the second selection process. And, indeed, 25% of the German respondents who live in mixed areas report having no contact whatsoever with foreigners. Finally, simple intergroup contact does not ensure that intergroup friendship will develop—a major means for such contact to diminish prejudice. Interestingly, this last selection process removes only 18% of the German respondents who do have neighborhood contact.

194

T.F. Pettigrew / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 187–199

Fig. 1. Three selection processes.

Table 3 tests for the predictors of these three selection processes. Education, surprisingly, does not emerge as a significant correlate of any of the three selections—but two social location variables are important. Age proves to be significant at two points; younger respondents are more likely to live in a mixed neighborhood and to make friends with foreigners after neighborhood contact. Gender becomes important in the last two selection stages; males have more contact with foreign neighbors and make more friends. This finding reflects the fact that foreign men are more likely to learn the German language and culture than women, because they are more likely to be in the labor force. Two psychological variables are also implicated in these selection processes. Authoritarianism is highly and negatively related to all three processes. Authoritarians are significantly less likely to be living in an area with Table 3 Predictors of the three selection processes Predictor variables

Respondent’s age Respondent’s gender Authoritarianism Anti-Muslim prejudice N

Are there foreign neighbors? 1st selection process

Contact with foreign neighbors? 2nd selection process

Any foreign friends? 3rd selection process

St. Beta

St. Beta

St. Beta

0.111 0.007 0.111 0.038

t

p

4.10 0.27 3.63 1.24

0.001 0.784 0.001 0.214

1377

0.026 0.087 0.088 0.084

t

p

0.83 2.81 2.49 2.39

0.406 0.005 0.013 0.017

1036

0.111 0.072 0.096 0.208

t

p 3.22 2.08 2.46 5.26

636

0.001 0.038 0.014 0.001

T.F. Pettigrew / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 187–199

195

foreigners, less likely to have contact with them even when they do live in such an area, and less likely to make friends with those foreigners with whom they do have neighborhood contact. In other analyses, intergroup contact has been shown to be a strong, negative mediator of the positive authoritarianism–prejudice relationship (Pettigrew, Christ, et al., 2007; Pettigrew, Stellmacher, et al., under review-a; Pettigrew, Wagner, et al., under review-b). The present data indicate that this mediation consists of authoritarians typically being careful to avoid resident foreigners at multiple levels. Table 3 also reveals the reverse causal sequence in the contact–prejudice link that has so often been found in previous research. Respondents who are highly prejudiced against Muslims on the scale shown in Table 1 are significantly less likely to have contact with their foreign neighbors and significantly less likely to make friends with them even when they do have contact—the second and third selection stages. These findings raise a further question concerning the generality of the prejudice reduction effect of intergroup friendship and positive contact. Table 3 shows that the elderly, females, and authoritarians have reduced intergroup contact and friends. But do these same factors also diminish the effect of reduced intergroup prejudice even when friendship and other positive intergroup contacts are achieved? In other words, do these contact-limiting factors also act as moderators of contact’s relationship with prejudice? For example, do high authoritarians who have positive contact with foreigners reflect less reduction in anti-Muslim attitudes than low authoritarians? The answer from these data is no; once there is positive contact, the reduction in anti-Muslim attitudes is evident for virtually all types of respondents. Although age (interaction t = 0.51, n.s.), gender (interaction t = 0.39, n.s.), and authoritarianism (interaction t = 1.41, n.s.) all limit intergroup contact, they do not influence the power of positive contact to reduce prejudice once such contact is attained. For example, the correlation between positive contact and anti-Muslim prejudice is 0.36 among those low in authoritarianism and 0.39 among those high in authoritarianism. The same lack of moderation by age (interaction t = 0.40, n.s.), gender (interaction t = 0.27, n.s.) and education (interaction t = 1.69, p < 0.10) also exists for negative contact. Such placement of intergroup contact in its evolving social context has direct policy implications. Social policy can facilitate such contact even for those who otherwise attempt to avoid it. And Table 3’s results suggest that such contact, although involuntary, will have beneficial intergroup effects. 2.4. Applying intergroup contact to social policy A final, hoped-for future direction concerns the direct application to social policy of what has been learned about intergroup contact. In Great Britain, Miles Houston has used contact theory effectively to influence the government’s efforts to reduce intergroup conflict in Northern Ireland (personal communication). In the United States, social psychologists have relied heavily upon the theory in court testimony and before public agencies concerning both public school desegregation and affirmative action (Pettigrew, 1967, 1969). During these activities, contact theory led directly to a crucial distinction that has now entered public discourse in the United States. This distinction delineates mere desegregation – just the physical mixing of groups – from genuine integration— situations that approach meeting Allport’s four key conditions of optimal intergroup contact. Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin (2002) and Gurin, Lehman, and Lewis (2004) made a substantial contribution to two critical affirmation action cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. They stressed the beneficial effects of intergroup contact in higher education for both majority and minority students. Their work was widely circulated in the mass media and cited in the High Court’s opinions. But such direct applications of intergroup contact theory are not universally accepted in social science. For example, critics in political science, such as McGarry and O’Leary (1995), claim that intergroup contact is more likely to cause conflict than reduce prejudice. Besides, they argue, reducing prejudice neither moderates intergroup conflict nor leads to needed structural-level changes. These critics appear to ignore the actual contentions of the theory and the massive research literature that supports it. ‘‘Sometimes,’’ write McGarry and O’Leary (1995, p. 210), ‘‘good fences make good neighbors.’’ But consider the repeated failures of ‘‘good fences’’ from the Great Wall of China and Hadrian’s Wall on Scotland’s border to the modern examples of the Berlin Wall, the Green Line of Cyprus, and Israel’s new West Bank Wall. ‘‘Good neighbors’’ hardly resulted from any of these prominent experiments with ‘‘good fences.’’ But we must dig deeper to understand the skepticism of these two political scientists. McGarry and O’Leary focus on the tragic ‘‘troubles’’ between Roman Catholics and Protestants in their native Northern Ireland. They emphasize that contact can, under the hostile normative conditions that have long

196

T.F. Pettigrew / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 187–199

characterized Ulster, actually confirm and enhance rather then allay prejudice. Of course, contact theory amply allows for such negative effects. More fundamentally, McGarry and O’Leary advance two major criticisms: (1) intergroup contact does not typically reduce prejudice—at least not in Northern Ireland; (2) even if it did, the reduction of prejudice is irrelevant to larger structural policy and the reduction in violence and conflict. The first claim is easily refuted by the meta-analysis described earlier which included studies from Northern Ireland (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). We noted also that negative intergroup contact can enhance prejudice. But these instances are far less common than those involving positive intergroup contact and friendship. Moreover, recent studies by social psychologists in Northern Ireland itself repeatedly find that Catholic–Protestant contact typically lessens prejudice at much the same level as intergroup contact in other parts of the globe (e.g., Hewstone et al., 2004; McClenahan, Cairns, Dunn, & Morgan, 1996; Niens, Cairns, & Hewstone, 2002; Paolini et al., 2004). Going further, we noted earlier that even those Northern Irish respondents who just had a co-religion friend who had a friend of the other religion revealed less religious bigotry (Paolini et al., 2004). And intergroup friendship engendered forgiveness and trust even among Catholics and Protestants who have suffered personally from Northern Ireland’s sectarian violence (Hewstone et al., 2006). More important is the second claim of McGarry and O’Leary that intergroup contact is irrelevant to policy. Notice that this claim is an assertion that micro-phenomena (e.g., intergroup prejudice) have little to do with macrophenomena (e.g., intergroup conflict and violence). This is a recurrent debate within sociology as well as between largely micro- and meso-level disciplines such as social psychology and largely macro-level disciplines such as political science. Such claims are dubious on face; the various levels of analysis are in concert, not conflict. It is the task of social science to put the levels together in broader and more useful multilevel models. And some social scientists have accomplished this feat and shown that it is not only possible but imperative if social science findings are to be applied successfully to actual societal problems. For example, Kelman (in press) has shown how the use of problem-solving workshops with multiple group participants can influence national policies and political cultures even in the conflict-ridden Middle East. Specialists in intergroup contact have never claimed that contact constituted a panacea for macro-level conflict. Indeed, they have explicitly rejected such claims (e.g., Hewstone, 2003). But to argue that prejudice has little or nothing to do with intergroup conflict is an extreme position, to say the least. Rather, extensive findings to date reveal that intergroup contact is a necessary but insufficient condition by itself to resolve intergroup conflict. A more valid criticism, however, would be that social psychologists have as yet not placed enough emphasis on transforming intergroup contact theory into an easily applied remedy within specific institutional settings. In particular, practical applications require a multilevel, structural context for intergroup contact policies (Pettigrew, 2006). Just how do you structure optimal contact situations in concrete institutional settings? All three of the previously discussed future directions would contribute answers to this critical question: specifying the processes of intergroup contact, a greater focus upon intergroup contact that leads to negative effects, and placing intergroup contact in its longitudinal, multilevel social context. Clearly, much remains to be done to make contact theory and research more applicable to social policy. References Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imaging how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 751–758. Batson, C. D., Lishner, Cook, J., & Sawyer, S. (2005). Similarity and nurturance: Two possible sources of empathy for strangers. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(1), 15–25. Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., & Imhoff, H. J. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 105–118. Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112. Blalock, H. (1972). Social statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill. Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., & Lickel, B. (2000). Stigma, threat and social interactions. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 307–333). New York, NY: Guilford Press. 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.

T.F. Pettigrew / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 187–199

197

Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 263–289. Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255–343. Butler, J. S., & Wilson, K. L. (1978). The American Soldier revisited: Race relations and the military. Social Science Quarterly, 59(3), 451–467. Chavous, T. M. (2005). An intergroup contact-theory framework for evaluating racial climate in predominantly college campuses. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36(3, 4), 239–257. Christ, O., Mansel, J., Wagner, U., Asbrock, F., Schleuter, E., & Pettigrew, T. F. (under review-a). Emotions as determinants of prejudice and discrimination. Christ, O., Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., Wagner, U., Hughes, J., & Cairns, E (under review-b). The precarious benefits of indirect intergroup contact: Direct contact is necessary for enduring prejudice reduction. Dixon, J. A., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond the optimal strategy: A ‘‘reality check’’ for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 697–711. Eller, A. L., & Abrams, D. (2003). ‘Gringos’ in Mexico: Cross-sectional and longitudinal effects of language school-promoted contact on intergroup bias. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 55–75. Eller, A. L., & Abrams, D. (2004). Come together: Longitudinal comparisons of Pettigrew’s reformulated intergroup contact model and the Common Ingroup Model in Anglo-French and Mexican-American contexts European. Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 229–256. Gudykunst, W. B. (1985). A model of uncertainty reduction in intercultural encounters. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 79–97. Gurin, P., Dey, E. I., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–366. Gurin, P., Lehman, J. S., & Lewis, E. (2004). Defneding diversity: Affirmative action at the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Hamberger, J., & Hewstone, M. (1997). Inter-ethnic contact as a predictor of blatant and subtle prejudice: Test of a model in four West European countries. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 173–190. Harmon-Jones, E., & Allen, J. J. B. (2001). The role of affect in the mere exposure effect: Evidence from physiological and individual differences approaches. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 889–898. Heitmeyer, W. (Ed.). (2004). Deutsche Zustande. Folge 3 [The German situation, Part 3.] Frankfurt am Main. Germany: Suhrkamp Verlag. Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). Some of my best friends: Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412–424. Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact: Panacea for prejudice? Psychologist, 16, 352–355. 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. Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Voci, A., Paolini, S., McLernon, F., Crisp, R. J., et al. (2004). Intergroup contact in a divided society: Challenging segregation in Northern Ireland. In D. Abrams, J. M. Marques, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 265– 292). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Irish, D. P. (1952). Reactions of Caucasian residents to Japanese-American neighbors. Journal of Social Issues, 8, 10–17. 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, 700–710. Kelman, H. (in press). Bridging individual and social change in international conflict: Contextual social psychology in action. In U. Wagner, L. Tropp, G Finchilescu, & C. Tredoux (Eds.), Improving intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Lee, A. Y. (2001). The mere exposure effect: An uncertainty reduction explanation revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1255– 1266. Lee, B. A., Farrell, C. R., & Link, B. G. (2004). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The case of public exposure to homelessness. American Sociological Review, 69, 40–63. 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 and Intergroup Relations, 6, 76–92. McClenahan, C., Cairns, E., Dunn, S., & Morgan, V. (1996). Intergroup friendships: Integrated and desegregated schools in Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 549–558. McFarland, S. (1999). Is authoritarianism sufficient to explain individual differences in prejudice? Unpublished paper delivered at the Oxford, England meeting of the European Association for Experimental Social Psychology. McGarry, J., & O’Leary, B. (1995). Explaining Northern Ireland: Broken images. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Mendes, W. B., Blascovich, J., Lickel, B., & Hunter, S. (2002). Challenge and threat during social interaction with and black men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 939–952. Miller, D. A., Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2004). Effects of intergroup contact and Political predispositions on prejudice: The role of intergroup emotions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 7, 221–237. Niens, U., Cairns, E., & Hewstone, M. (2002). Contact and conflict in Ireland. In O. Hargie & D. Dickson (Eds.), Research the troubles: social science perspectives on the Northern Ireland conflict (pp. 123–140). Edinburgh, Scotland: Mainstream Publishing. Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Tropp, L. R. (under review). From intergroup contact to intergroup closeness: Stress-reducing effects of cross-ethnic friendship. Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, & Voci, A. (2004). Effects of direct and indirect cross-group friendships on judgments of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediating role of an anxiety-reduction mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 770–786.

198

T.F. Pettigrew / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 187–199

Pettigrew, T. F. (1967). The consequences of racial isolation in the public schools: Another look. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, National conference on equal educational opportunity in America’s Cities (pp. 692–722). Washington, DC, US: Government Printing Office. Pettigrew, T. F. (1969). Racially separate or together? Journal of Social Issues, 25(1), 43–69. Pettigrew, T. F. (1991). The importance of cumulative effects: A neglected emphasis of Sherif’s work. In D. Granberg & G. Sarup (Eds.), Social judgment and intergroup relations: Essays in honor of Muzafer Sherif (pp. 89–103). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 173–185. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. Pettigrew, T. F. (2006). Commentary: The advantages of multi-level approaches. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 615–620. Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J. (2007). Direct and indirect intergroup contact effects on prejudice: A normative interpretation International. Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(4), 41–425. Pettigrew, T. F., Stellmacher, J., Christ, O., & Wagner, U. (under review-a). Why does authoritarianism predict prejudice? The mediators of a global phenomenon. 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. (in press). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology. Pettigrew, T. F., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (under review-b). The contrasting contexts of positive and negative intergroup contact. Phinney, J. S., Ferguson, D. L., & Tate, J. D. (1997). Intergroup attitudes among ethnic minority adolescents: A causal model. Child Development, 68, 955–969. Powers, D. A., & Ellison, C. G. (1995). Interracial contact and Black racial attitudes: The contact hypothesis and selectivity bias. Social Forces, 74, 205–226. Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2006). Calculation for the Sobel test: An interactive calculation tool for mediation tests. Retrieved August 21, 2006 at http://www.psych.ku/preacher/sobel/sobel.htm. Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2007). Negotiating interracial interactions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 316–320. Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2006). Ethnic minorities’ racial attitudes and contact experiences with people. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(1), 149–164. Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., & Salvatore, J. (2005). Expecting to be the target of prejudice: Implications for interethnic interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(9), 1189–1202. Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., Salvatore, J., & Trawalter, S. (2005). Ironic effects of racial bias during interracial interactions. Psychological Science, 16(5), 397–402. Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sidanius, J., van Laar, C., Levin, S., & Sinclair, S. (2004). Ethnic enclaves and the dynamics of social identity on the college campus: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 96–110. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Stephan, W. G., Boniecki, K. A., Ybarra, O., Bettencourt, A., Ervin, K. S., Jackson, L. A., et al. (2002). The role of threats in the racial attitudes of Blacks and s. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1242–1254. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–175. Stephan, W. G., Stephan, C. W., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1999). Anxiety in intergroup relations: A comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and integrated threat theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 613–628. Tropp, L. R. (2003). The psychological impact of prejudice: Implications for intergroup contact. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 131– 149. Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005a). Differential relationships between intergroup contact and affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(8), 1145–1158. Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005b). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16, 651–653. Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., Wolf, C., Petzel, T., et al. (2004). The role of perceived importance in intergroup contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 211–227. Van Laar, C., Levin. S., & Sidanius, J. (in press). Ingroup and outgroup contact: A longitudinal study of the effects of cross-ethnic friendships. Roommate relationships and participation in segregated organizations. In U. Wagner, L. Tropp, G. Finchilescu, & C. Tredoux (Eds.), Improving intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Van Laar, C., Levin, S., Sinclair, S., & Sidanius, J. (2005). The effect of university roommate contact on ethnic attitudes and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(4), 329–345. Vescio, T. K., Sechrist, G. B., & Paolucci, M. P. (2003). Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 455–472. Voci, A., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 37–54. Wagner, U., Christ, O., Pettigrew, T. F., Stellmacher, J., & Wolf, C. (2007). Prejudice and minority proportion: Contact instead of threat effects. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(4), 380–390.

T.F. Pettigrew / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (2008) 187–199

199

Wagner, U., van Dick, R., Pettigrew, T. F., & Christ, O. (2003). Ethnic prejudice in East and West Germany: The explanatory power of intergroup contact. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 22–36. Williams, R. M., Jr (1947). The reduction of intergroup tensions. New York: Social Science Research Council. Wilson, T. C. (1996). Prejudice reduction or self-selection? A test of the contact hypothesis. Sociological Spectrum, 16, 43–60. Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73–90. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(Monograph Supplement, No. 2, part 2), 1–27.