Thomas F. Pettigrew on a Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory
Fast Moving Front Commentary, November 2010
|
Article: A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory
Authors: Pettigrew, TF;Tropp, LR |
Thomas F. Pettigrew talks with ScienceWatch.com and answers a few questions about this month's Fast Moving Fronts paper in the field of Psychiatry/Psychology.
Why do you think your paper is highly
cited?
I believe there are several reasons. First, it is the first complete meta-analysis done of this huge research literature (1,400 papers total, with 515 useable). Second, the subject—intergroup contact—is a central concern of the discipline of social psychology—both theoretically and for application of practical remedies for improving intergroup relations throughout the world. And the vast range of intergroup conflict situations currently in the world cries out for practical and effective remedies.
Third, the strong evidence provided by the paper of the general success of intergroup contact to reduce prejudice was a pleasant surprise to social psychologists generally as well as to the authors themselves. It further fueled a trend that was already underway for many new studies being conducted on the phenomenon throughout the world—most of which cited this paper when they were published. Finally, the paper was published in the leading and most read of all journals in the discipline—the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Does it describe a new discovery, methodology, or synthesis of knowledge?
Using the well-established method of meta-analysis, the paper basically synthesized a vast research literature for the first time. And it came to a somewhat surprising and welcomed conclusion: 94% of intergroup contact studies find that such contact reduced outgroup prejudice. The mean effect is a highly significant correlation of -.21—with more contact associated with less prejudice.
Moreover, the usual ways such findings can be challenged, such as publication bias, reverse causal sequence (tolerant people have more contact) and other possibilities, were one by one eliminated as alternative explanations for the findings. Indeed, the most rigorous studies tended to show the largest effects.
Would you summarize the significance of your paper in layman's terms?
"Undoubtedly, future research will carry these trends forward. As is typical of scientific advances, the more we learn about intergroup contact, the more complex it becomes with more questions arising for future work."
Supported by the results of 515 studies and 713 independent samples conducted in 38 countries with more than 250,000 subjects, this study firmly established that intergroup contact typically reduces prejudice.
And it showed that this basic effect held true across a variety of social settings and for all types of groups tested—such as racial and ethnic groups, the physically impaired and the unimpaired, the elderly and others, the mentally ill and others, the mentally impaired and unimpaired, and those of different sexual orientations.
Until the publication of this paper and despite the considerable research attention that had been given to the subject, social psychologists were uncertain about the general effects of intergroup contact. This paper answered the question with extensive and solid evidence.
How did you become involved in this research, and how would you describe the particular challenges, setbacks, and successes that you've encountered along the way?
The original theory of intergroup contact was advanced by my graduate mentor, Gordon Allport of Harvard University, in his classic 1954 book, The Nature of Prejudice. As a native Virginian, I was especially interested in ways to combat the racial prejudice and discrimination that I had known throughout my childhood. So I was naturally intrigued by his theory and took my doctoral special examination on contact theory in 1955 under Allport—a half-century before the publication of this paper with Linda Tropp.
The long delay was caused by the absence of enough research on the topic to review. In addition, meta-analytic quantitative techniques—a vast improvement over subjective, qualitative reviews—were not introduced and developed until the last quarter of the 20th century. By the 1990s, the time had come for me to execute what I had long wanted to accomplish—a thorough review of the social science research literature on the subject. It proved to be an arduous task of eight years made possible by a research grant from the National Science Foundation.
And it might not have ever been accomplished were it not for my co-author—Linda Tropp. She was a doctoral student at the University of California at Santa Cruz when the project began in 1998; she is now a tenured Associate Professor in the Psychology Department at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Together, we analyzed and rated the many hundreds of possibly relevant studies importantly aided by a group of eager undergraduates who gathered the articles to be reviewed while learning about meta-analysis.
Where do you see your research leading in the future?
Now that the basic process has been delineated, intergroup contact research has broadened considerably; and it is further specifying more precisely the phenomenon. Going beyond the mere reduction of intergroup prejudice, multiple studies now show that contact's effects are more widespread and generalize further than we initially realized.
Thus, intergroup contact has been recently associated with reduced interactional anxiety, individual threat, and collective threat as well as increased intergroup trust, forgiveness, empathy, perspective taking, and outgroup knowledge—all positive outcomes for improved intergroup relations.
Moreover, studies now indicate considerable generalization of intergroup contact's effects. Reduced prejudice toward the outgroup with whom you had contact can spread to reduced prejudice against other outgroups not involved in the initial contact—the so-called "secondary transfer effect." And just seeing an ingroup friend having positive contact with an outgroup member can also reduce prejudice—the so-called "extended contact effect."
One area that needs further research attention involves when intergroup contact fails, when it actually leads to increased prejudice and conflict. Though it is not the typical result of contact, as the meta-analysis demonstrated, it does happen. Recent research shows this outcome is largely a consequence of extreme threat in the situation when both groups are too fearful to manage to have effective contact. But we need much more work on this obviously critical point for both theory and policy application.
Undoubtedly, future research will carry these trends forward. As is typical of scientific advances, the more we learn about intergroup contact, the more complex it becomes with more questions arising for future work.
Linda Tropp and I have a book being published next year, based largely on this article and our subsequent recent work on contact: When Groups Meet: The Dynamics of Intergroup Contact (T.F. Pettigrew and Linda R. Tropp; Psychology Press, Philadelphia, PA; 2011).
Do you foresee any social or political implications for your research?
Many writers, even some recently, have claimed that intergroup segregation
is the best policy to combat intergroup conflict. This study, as well as
world history, casts serious doubt on this thesis. Group segregation
restricts the very possibility of effective contact. The findings directly
support such social policies as affirmative action and school desegregation
as well as suggesting how best to accomplish optimal contact between
groups.
Thomas F. Pettigrew
Research Professor of Social Psychology
University of California, Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA, USA
KEYWORDS: INTERGROUP PREJUDICE; INTERGROUP CONTACT; META-ANALYSIS; PUBLICATION BIAS; RACIAL-ATTITUDES; FILE DRAWER; INTERRACIAL CONTACT; SOCIAL INTERACTIONS; HYPOTHESIS; PREJUDICE; ANXIETY; EXPOSURE; REDUCTION.