INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES
A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory
Thomas F. Pettigrew
University of California, Santa Cruz
Linda R. Tropp
Boston College
The present article presents a meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. With 713 independent samples
from 515 studies, the meta-analysis finds that intergroup contact typically reduces intergroup prejudice.
Multiple tests indicate that this finding appears not to result from either participant selection or publication
biases, and the more rigorous studies yield larger mean effects. These contact effects typically generalize to
the entire outgroup, and they emerge across a broad range of outgroup targets and contact settings. Similar
patterns also emerge for samples with racial or ethnic targets and samples with other targets. This result
suggests that contact theory, devised originally for racial and ethnic encounters, can be extended to other
groups. A global indicator of Allport’s optimal contact conditions demonstrates that contact under these
conditions typically leads to even greater reduction in prejudice. Closer examination demonstrates that these
conditions are best conceptualized as an interrelated bundle rather than as independent factors. Further, the
meta-analytic findings indicate that these conditions are not essential for prejudice reduction. Hence, future
work should focus on negative factors that prevent intergroup contact from diminishing prejudice as well as
the development of a more comprehensive theory of intergroup contact.
Keywords: intergroup prejudice, intergroup contact, meta-analysis
For decades, researchers and practitioners have speculated about
the potential for intergroup contact to reduce intergroup prejudice.
Some writers thought contact between the races under conditions
of equality would only breed “suspicion, fear, resentment, disturbance,
and at times open conflict” (Baker, 1934, p. 120). Others
proposed that interracial experiences could lead to “mutual understanding
and regard” (Lett, 1945, p. 35) and that when groups “are
isolated from one another, prejudice and conflict grow like a
disease” (Brameld, 1946, p. 245; see also Watson, 1946).
Early studies of intergroup contact provided preliminary tests of
these proposals and revealed encouraging trends. After the U.S.
Merchant Marine began desegregating, Brophy (1946) found that
the more voyages the White seamen took with Blacks, the more
positive their racial attitudes became. Likewise, White police
officers who worked with Black colleagues later objected less to
having Blacks join their police districts, teaming with a Black
partner, and taking orders from Black officers (Kephart, 1957).
As studies of intergroup contact grew in number, the Social Science
Research Council asked Robin Williams, Jr., a Cornell University
sociologist, to review research on group relations. Williams’s (1947)
monograph, The Reduction of Intergroup Tensions, offers 102 testable
“propositions” on intergroup relations that include an initial formulation
of intergroup contact theory. In particular, he noted that intergroup
contact would maximally reduce prejudice when the two
Thomas F. Pettigrew, Department of Psychology, University of California,
Santa Cruz; Linda R. Tropp, Department of Psychology, Boston
College.
A preliminary report of this research, which included the first 203
studies collected, appeared in Pettigrew and Tropp (2000). The National
Science Foundation supported this research (SBR-9709519), with Thomas
F. Pettigrew and Stephen Wright serving as coinvestigators. Though listed
alphabetically, the co-authors shared equally in the preparation of this
manuscript and in their work on this 8-year project. An earlier version of
this paper won the Gordon W. Allport Intergroup Research Prize awarded
by the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues in 2003.
We thank Stephen Wright and the following dedicated research assistants at
the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Boston College for their invaluable
assistance: Rebecca Boice, Geoffrey Burcaw, Susan Burton, Darcy Cabral,
Robert Chang, Daniel Cheron, Vanessa Lee, Kimberly Lincoln, Peter
Moore, Danielle Murray, Neal Nakano, Rajinder Samra, Michael Sarette,
Christine Schmitt, Amanda Stout, and Gina Vittori. We are grateful to the
library staffs of the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Boston College
for their help with tracking down hundreds of relevant journal articles in a wide
assortment of specialized journals. We thank Makiko Deguchi, Greg Kim,
Adele Kohanyi, Daphne Malinsky, and Mark Pettigrew for their help in
translating research articles. We also thank Sue Duval, Blair Johnson, David
Kenny, and Jack Vevea for their statistical advice and assistance and Jack
Dovidio, Samuel Gaertner, Miles Hewstone, and Brian Mullen for their
comments on earlier versions of this article. In addition, we wish to express our
deep appreciation for the many researchers who dug into their files to find the
detailed data needed to compute effect sizes.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Thomas
F. Pettigrew, Department of Psychology, Social Sciences II, University of
California, Santa Cruz, California 95064 or to Linda R. Tropp, Department
of Psychology, McGuinn Hall, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
02467. E-mail: pettigr@ucsc.edu or tropp@bc.edu
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2006, Vol. 90, No. 5, 751–783
Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association 0022-3514/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
751
groups share similar status, interests, and tasks and when the situation
fosters personal, intimate intergroup contact.
Researchers then began to test the theory more rigorously. Field
studies of public housing provided the strongest evidence and
marked the introduction of large-scale field research into North
American social psychology. In a notable example of this work,
Deutsch and Collins (1951) interviewed White housewives across
different public housing projects with a design that Campbell and
Stanley (1963) later labeled “quasi-experimental.” Two housing
projects in Newark assigned Black and White residents to separate
buildings. Two comparable housing projects in New York City
desegregated residents by making apartment assignments irrespective
of race or personal preference. The authors found that White
women in the desegregated projects had far more optimal contact
with their Black neighbors. Moreover, they held their Black neighbors
in higher esteem and expressed greater support for interracial
housing. Further research extended this work, showing that equalstatus
interracial contact in public housing related to more positive
feelings and intergroup attitudes for both Blacks and Whites (Wilner,
Walkley, & Cook, 1952; Works, 1961).
Armed with Williams’s initial effort and the rich findings of the
housing studies, Allport (1954) introduced the most influential
statement of intergroup contact theory in The Nature of Prejudice.
His formulation of intergroup contact theory maintained that contact
between groups under optimal conditions could effectively
reduce intergroup prejudice. In particular, Allport held that reduced
prejudice will result when four features of the contact
situation are present: equal status between the groups in the situation;
common goals; intergroup cooperation; and the support of
authorities, law, or custom.
Allport’s formulation of intergroup contact theory has inspired
extensive research over the past half century (Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew
& Tropp, 2000). These investigations range across a variety of
groups, situations, and societies. Going beyond a focus on racial and
ethnic groups, investigators have tested the theory with participants of
varying ages and with target groups as diverse as elderly, physically
disabled, and mentally ill participants. Contact studies also have used
a wide variety of research methods and procedures, including archival
research (e.g., Fine, 1979), field studies (e.g., Deutsch & Collins,
1951), laboratory experiments (e.g., Cook, 1969, 1978), and surveys
(e.g., Pettigrew, 1997; Sigelman & Welch, 1993). In addition to
spanning many disciplines, contact theory has been usefully applied to
a host of pressing social issues ranging from the racial desegregation
of schools (Pettigrew, 1971) and the resolution of ethnopolitical
conflicts (Chirot & Seligman, 2001) to explaining regional differences
in prejudice (Wagner, van Dick, Pettigrew, & Christ, 2003) and the
educational mainstreaming of physically and mentally disabled children
(Harper & Wacker, 1985; Naor & Milgram, 1980).
Past Reviews of the Intergroup Contact Literature
Past reviews of this vast literature have often reached conflicting
conclusions regarding the likely effects of intergroup contact.
Numerous reviews show general support for contact theory, suggesting
that intergroup contact typically reduces intergroup prejudice
(Cook, 1984; Harrington & Miller, 1992; Jackson, 1993;
Patchen, 1999; Pettigrew, 1971, 1986, 1998). However, other
reviews reach more mixed conclusions. Amir (1969, 1976) conceded
that contact under optimal conditions tends to reduce prejudice
among participants, but he stressed that these reductions in
prejudice may not generalize to entire outgroups. Moreover, Amir
(1976) noted that contact under unfavorable conditions “may increase
prejudice and intergroup tension” (p. 308). Likewise,
Forbes (1997), a political scientist, concluded that intergroup contact
often lowers prejudice at the individual level of analysis but
fails to do so at the group level of analysis. Hence, he argued that
contact can cure individual prejudice but not group conflict.1
Stephan (1987) acknowledged that intergroup contact has the
potential to reduce prejudice, but he emphasized the complexity
involved in the link between intergroup contact and prejudice. For
example, characteristics of the contact setting, the groups under
study, and the individuals involved may all contribute to enhancing
or inhibiting contact’s effects (see also Patchen, 1999; Pettigrew,
1998; Riordan, 1978).
Additional reviews have been more critical regarding the potential
for contact to promote positive intergroup outcomes. Ford
(1986) examined 53 papers (from six journals) on contact. He
found support for the contact hypothesis to be, at best, “premature”
and that the research presented in these papers was “grossly
insufficient in representing the various settings of daily life” (Ford,
1986, p. 256). McClendon (1974) suggested that “contact research
has been rather unsophisticated and lacking in rigor” (p. 47) and
concluded that this body of work “would not lead [one] to expect
a widespread reduction in prejudice” (p. 52).
Such conflicting views regarding the effects of contact have led
some social psychologists to discard contact theory. Indeed, as
Hopkins, Reicher, and Levine (1997) asserted, some believe that
“the initial hopes of contact theorists have failed to materialize” (p.
306). However, three major shortcomings of these past reviews
may account for their divergent conclusions.
Incomplete Samples of Relevant Papers
Whereas there have been literally dozens of partial reviews of
the contact literature, we are not aware of any review of this vast
literature that attempts to encompass the entire relevant research
base. Instead, past reviews have typically been restricted to a
particular set of groups, such as racial or ethnic groups (e.g.,
Patchen, 1999), or a particular contact setting, such as interracial
housing (e.g., Cagle, 1973) or schools (e.g., Carithers, 1970).
Further examination also reveals that these reviews covered a
mean of less than 60 research articles each, compared with the
hundreds of studies that comprise the contact research literature.
Thus, past reviews offer only limited views regarding the effects of
intergroup contact.
Absence of Strict Inclusion Rules
With no inclusion rules, these previous reviews used sharply
contrasting definitions of intergroup contact. For example, some
reviews included studies that used intergroup proximity, rather
than established contact, as the independent variable. This procedure
may contribute considerable error to the analysis and obscure
the test of contact’s influence on prejudice.
1
Many social psychologists would take issue with Forbes’s distinction.
If reductions in prejudice generalize broadly from contact, the group level
of analysis is necessarily involved (Brown & Hewstone, 2005).
752 PETTIGREW AND TROPP
Nonquantitative Assessments of Contact Effects
Moreover, none of the previous reviews used fully quantitative
assessments of contact effects. Instead, authors of past reviews
have tended to offer subjective judgments of the contact–prejudice
relationship that are based on their own readings of a subset of the
research literature. Although this approach can be useful, selection
biases and differing interpretations of the literature limit the ability
to reach definitive conclusions about contact’s effects. Thus, quantitative
approaches to research synthesis are preferred, as they
provide a means for examining replicable patterns of effects across
the full accumulation of relevant studies (Johnson & Eagly, 2000;
Rosenthal, 1991).
Given these limitations of past reviews and the diverse nature of
contact research, the evaluation of this literature requires a metaanalytic
approach. Yet, to our knowledge, no investigators have
conducted such an analysis of this vast and rich research literature.
Thus, a central goal of the present research was to assess the
overall effect between intergroup contact and prejudice on the
basis of the population of empirical studies that constitute the
research literature of the 20th century. With a quantitative means
of analyzing a far greater number of relevant studies chosen by
strict inclusion rules, we aim to determine more conclusively than
past reviews the overall relationship between intergroup contact
and prejudice.
The present article reports on such an effort, utilizing 515
individual studies with 713 independent samples and 1,383 nonindependent
tests. Combined, 250,089 individuals from 38 nations
participated in the research. Along with including more than 300
additional studies, this work extends an earlier preliminary analysis,
presented in Pettigrew and Tropp (2000), in several important
theoretical and empirical directions.
Testing and Reinterpreting Allport’s Optimal Conditions
Whereas intergroup contact theory has traditionally held that
Allport’s optimal conditions are essential, we propose that Allport’s
conditions facilitate contact’s reduction of intergroup prejudice.
Social psychology has shown repeatedly that greater exposure
to targets can, in and of itself, significantly enhance liking for
those targets (Bornstein, 1989; Harmon-Jones & Allen, 2001; Lee,
2001; Zajonc, 1968; see also Homans, 1950). Moreover, studies
with social targets have shown that the enhanced liking that results
from exposure can generalize to greater liking for other related, yet
previously unknown, social targets (Rhodes, Halberstadt, & Brajkovich,
2001). Applying this work to intergroup contact research,
the mere exposure perspective suggests that, all things being equal,
greater contact and familiarity with members of other groups
should enhance liking for those groups. Thus, in the present
analysis, we test whether intergroup contact is associated with less
prejudice even when Allport’s conditions are not established in the
contact situation, as well as whether these conditions significantly
enhance the degree to which contact promotes positive intergroup
outcomes.
Extending our earlier, preliminary analysis (Pettigrew & Tropp,
2000), we examine these issues in three ways. Initially, we use a
global indicator of Allport’s conditions: structured programs designed
to achieve optimal conditions. We test whether including
this indicator in the contact situation is necessary to produce
positive intergroup outcomes and whether it typically enhances the
positive effects of contact. To check for the consistency of these
effects, we then compare the results for our full sample with those
subsets of cases that either do or do not involve racial and ethnic
contact. In addition, for the subset of 134 samples that feature a
structured situation boasting many of Allport’s proposed conditions,
we rate each condition separately and examine the average
effect sizes associated with each condition.
Ruling Out Alternative Explanations for
Contact–Prejudice Effects
The present analysis also includes additional tests that allow us
to test more effectively four alternative explanations for contact–
prejudice effects.
Participant Selection and the Causal Sequence Problem
A potential participant selection bias could limit the interpretation
of many studies of intergroup contact (Pettigrew, 1998).
Instead of optimal contact reducing prejudice, the opposite causal
sequence could be at work. Prejudiced people may avoid, and
tolerant people may seek, contact with outgroups.
Statistical methods borrowed from econometrics allow researchers
to compare roughly the reciprocal paths (contact lowers prejudice
vs. prejudice decreases contact) with cross-sectional data. As
shown directly in other research (e.g., Herek & Capitanio, 1996),
these methods reveal that prejudiced people do indeed avoid
intergroup contact. But the path from contact to reduced prejudice
is generally much stronger (Butler & Wilson, 1978; Pettigrew,
1997; Powers & Ellison, 1995; Van Dick et al., 2004). Longitudinal
studies also have revealed that optimal contact reduces
prejudice over time (e.g., Eller & Abrams, 2003, 2004; Levin, van
Laar, & Sidanius, 2003), even when researchers have eliminated
the possibility of participant selection (e.g., Sherif, 1966). Thus,
various methods suggest that, although both sequences operate, the
more important effect is that of intergroup contact reducing
prejudice.2
In the present analysis, we respond to this concern by concentrating
on intergroup situations that severely limit choice (see Link
& Cullen, 1986). By eliminating the possibility of initial attitudes
leading to differential contact, such research provides a clearer
indication of the causal relationship between intergroup contact
and prejudice. We make use of this method in our analyses by
coding samples for the extent to which participants could choose to
engage in the contact. Of course, experiments limit choice through
randomization of subjects to condition. But our choice rating is not
simply a surrogate variable for experimental designs. Almost half
of our quasi-experimental samples, and even 31 samples with
weaker designs, allowed no participant choice.
The File Drawer: Publication Bias Problem
Another major potential threat to the interpretation of our results
pertains to the file drawer problem that besets all literature reviews
(Begg, 1994; Rosenthal, 1991). Published studies may form a
2
See Irish (1952) and Wilson (1996) for other methods that reach the
same conclusion.
753META-ANALYTIC TEST OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY
biased subset of the relevant studies actually conducted, as the
statistical significance of a study’s results may influence the probability
of it being submitted and published. Indeed, investigators
have demonstrated this bias in both the social science and medical
research literatures (Coursol & Wagner, 1986; Dickersin, 1997;
Dickersin, Min, & Meinert, 1992; Easterbrook, Berlin, Gopalan, &
Mathews, 1991; Glass, McCaw, & Smith, 1981; Lipsey & Wilson,
1993; Rotton, Foos, Van Meek, & Levitt, 1995; Shadish, Doherty,
& Montgomery, 1989; Smith, 1980; Sommer, 1987). Researchers
may be reluctant to send in studies with modest or countertheory
findings. And journals may publish studies with large effects and
reject studies with small or no effects. Thus, reviews may systematically
overestimate effect sizes, as they rely heavily on published
work.
Estimating publication bias is a difficult task, but numerous
investigators have directed considerable attention to the problem in
recent years. The many tests for bias are based on particular
assumptions and consequently have their unique strengths and
shortcomings (Sutton, Song, Gilbody, & Abrams, 2000). In the
present research, we investigated this potentially serious problem
from multiple directions by using a variety of tests and thereby
extend our analysis beyond our initial findings (Pettigrew &
Tropp, 2000).
First, following Rosenthal (1991), we calculated a fail-safe
index. Though often criticized, this technique is one of the most
widely used methods for crudely gauging publication bias (Sutton,
Song, et al., 2000). It reveals how many missing studies that
average no relationship between contact and prejudice (Z ϭ .00)
would be required to raise the significance levels above the .05 or
.01 level of confidence. But this focus is the index’s basic weakness.
It assumes that the missing studies will average to no effect.
Thus, the fail-safe index underestimates publication bias to the
extent that the average of the missing studies runs counter to the
hypothesis being tested.
Other rough, initial tests involve the relationship between sample
size and effect size. We can test for the possibility of publication
bias in several ways. Two preliminary methods are simply
to correlate sample sizes with effect sizes and to develop a funnel
graph consisting of a scatter diagram with the two variables (Light
& Pillemer, 1984). A nonsignificant correlation and a symmetrical
funnel graph each suggest minimal publication bias.
The funnel graph in turn relates to two additional methods of
testing for publication bias. The “trim-and-fill” technique detects
potentially missing studies by adjusting for funnel plot asymmetry
(Duval & Tweedie, 2000a, 2000b; Sutton, Duval, Tweedie,
Abrams, & Jones, 2000). The general linear model approach of
Vevea and Hedges (1995) focuses on the absence of small studies.
It assumes that random effects are distributed normally and that the
survival probability of a given study can be described by a stop
function around such critical probability points as .05 and .01. It
should be noted, however, that such funnel graph methods tend to
overestimate publication bias (Sterne & Egger, 2000).
Finally, we also tested directly whether this particular literature
suffers from the file drawer problem. We compared the effect sizes
between intergroup contact and prejudice from published sources
(journals and books) and unpublished sources (graduate dissertations,
conference papers, and other unpublished manuscripts). This
method also makes a critical assumption, namely, that the unpublished
studies that we uncovered constitute a random sample of
unpublished research on the topic. For this and other reasons, the
power of this direct approach, as Begg (1994) noted, is “directly
proportional to the assiduousness of the search” (p. 405). Thus, we
expended great effort in obtaining as many unpublished manuscripts
as possible. We uncovered 88 unpublished contact studies,
70% of which are graduate dissertations.
The Generalization of Effects Problem
A third issue concerns the generalization of contact effects—an
issue not fully addressed by Allport (1954; see Pettigrew, 1998).
Critics generally concede that intergroup contact often leads to
improved attitudes among the participants. But the critical question
is whether these altered attitudes generalize beyond the immediate
situation to new situations, to the entire outgroup, or even to
outgroups not involved in the contact (Pettigrew, 1997, 1998).
Such generalization is crucial to the useful application of contact
theory. If the changes wrought by contact are limited to the
particular situation and the immediate outgroup participants, the
practical value of the theory is obviously severely restricted.
Hence, we examine whether each test of the link between contact
and prejudice involves some generalization beyond the immediate
contact situation and participants.
Rigor of Research Studies
A final test of validity involves the relationship between indices
of research rigor and the magnitude of the contact–prejudice effect
sizes. If less rigorous research was largely responsible for the
average effect size between contact and prejudice, we would
hesitate to accept it as established. But if the more rigorous studies
produce stronger contact effects, it would lend credibility to the
results. Meta-analysts have checked on this issue with a variety of
generally accepted indices of rigor. We used five rated variables:
type of study, type of contact measure, type of control group,
quality of the contact measure, and quality of the prejudice
measure.
Study and Participant Characteristics as Moderators of
Contact–Prejudice Effects
In addition to examining variables of theoretical and methodological
interest, we also identify and analyze other possible
sources of variability in the contact–prejudice relationship. With
our extensive set of contact studies, we consider a range of study
and participant characteristics that may moderate the relationship
between contact and prejudice. In addition to the aforementioned
indicators of research rigor, we examine contact–prejudice effects
in relation to the date of publication, the study setting, and the
geographical area in which the research was conducted. We also
inspect contact–prejudice effects in relation to participant characteristics
such as age, gender, and the types of groups involved in
the contact.
Method
Inclusion Criteria
We define intergroup contact as actual face-to-face interaction between
members of clearly defined groups. From this definition flow several
inclusion criteria.
754 PETTIGREW AND TROPP
Criterion 1. Because our focus is on the relationship between intergroup
contact and prejudice, we consider only those empirical studies in
which intergroup contact acts as the independent variable and intergroup
prejudice as the dependent variable. Eligible studies include both experimental
studies that test for the effects of contact on prejudice and correlational
studies that use contact as a correlate or predictor of prejudice.
Criterion 2. Only research that involves contact between members of
discrete groups is included. This rule ensures that we examine intergroup
outcomes of contact rather than interpersonal outcomes.
Criterion 3. The research must report on some degree of direct intergroup
interaction. For inclusion, the intergroup interaction must be observed
directly, reported by participants, or occur in focused, long-term
situations where direct contact is unavoidable (e.g., small classrooms).
This third rule eliminates a variety of studies that are often cited in
previous summaries of contact research. In particular, it excludes research
that uses rough proximity or group proportions to infer intergroup interaction.
As Festinger and Kelley (1951) made clear a half century ago,
proximity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for social contact. One
cannot assume contact from the opportunity for contact, such as living in
an intergroup neighborhood with no report of actual interaction (e.g.,
Hamilton & Bishop, 1976; Hood & Morris, 2000). Our rare exceptions
carefully demonstrated that the intergroup proximity correlated highly with
actual contact, as it did in Deutsch and Collins’s (1951) famous interracial
housing study.
This rule also omits investigations that attempt to gauge contact with
indirect measures such as information about an outgroup (e.g., Taft, 1959).
We also excluded studies that asked about attitudes toward contact, unless
the researchers directly linked such indicators to prior intergroup experience
(e.g., Ford, 1941). In addition, this rule eliminates research that
categorizes participants into groups that do not directly interact, as is the
case in many minimal group studies (e.g., Otten, Mummendey, & Blanz,
1996; Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971).
This inclusion rule is important and differs from many prior reviews of
this literature. The extensive research by Catlin (1977) on the impact of
interracial dormitories at the University of Michigan illustrates the rule’s
operation. Catlin found only small relationships between interracial living
and prejudice, but we did not enter these aggregate results into our files.
However, Catlin also checked on the racial attitudes of White students who
reported on whether they had Black acquaintances. We used these results
because cross-racial “acquaintance” directly specifies face-to-face contact.
Criterion 4. The prejudice dependent variables must be collected on
individuals rather than simply as a total aggregate outcome. Thus, studies
concerning the relationships between contact and prejudice were included
only if they used individuals as the unit of analysis such that prejudice
scores could be examined in relation to individuals’ contact experiences.
Locating Relevant Studies
To locate studies that meet our inclusion rules, we used a wide variety
of search procedures. First, we conducted computer searches of the psychological
(PsychLIT and PsycINFO), sociological (SocAbs and SocioFile),
political science (GOV), education (ERIC), dissertation (UMI Dissertation
Abstracts), and general research periodical (Current Contents)
abstracts published through December 2000. These searches used 54 different
search terms ranging from single words (e.g., contact, interracial) to
combined terms (e.g., age ϩ intergroup contact, disabled ϩ contact).
Across the various databases, we conducted three types of searches: by title
words, by keyword, and by subject. Following the “descendancy approach”
described by Johnson and Eagly (2000), we used the Social Sciences
Citation Index to check on later citations of seminal contact studies.
To reach the “invisible college” of intergroup contact researchers, we
wrote personal letters to researchers who published relevant research and
sent for pertinent unpublished conference papers. Reference lists from
located studies and previous reviews proved a rich source. We also repeatedly
requested relevant materials through e-mail networks of social psychologists
in Australia, Europe, and North America. These methods
yielded 526 papers (reporting 515 studies), written between 1940 and the
end of 2000, that meet our inclusion criteria. These studies yield 713
independent samples and 1,383 individual tests. Most of the studies comprise
journal articles published during the past 3 decades (median year of
publication ϭ 1986). Slightly more than half of the samples (51%) focused
on racial or ethnic target groups. In addition to conducting analyses for the
full set of samples, we conducted analyses with this subset exclusively as
well as with the remaining subset that used nonracial and nonethnic targets.
Whereas 38 different countries contribute data, the United States provides
71% of the studies. Survey and field research constitute 71% of the studies,
quasi-experiments 24%, and true experiments 5%. The research typically
used college students or adult participants of both sexes who reported on
their intergroup contact.
Several prototypical studies predominate. The principal prototype is a
questionnaire or survey study. This research uses retrospective reports of
personal contact with the outgroup. A quite different prototype uses experiments
that involve an intergroup contact intervention and checks to see
whether the treatment influences the participants’ prejudice. A final prototype
uses various quasi-experimental designs. These studies mirror the
experimental research, but they lack randomization of participants to
condition in between-groups designs. These three basic prototypes shaped
the research moderators and other techniques that we use in the
meta-analysis.
Computation and Analysis of Effect Sizes
Whereas most past meta-analytic studies in social psychology have used
fixed effects models (Johnson & Eagly, 2000), the nature of the contact
research literature makes a random effects model more appropriate for our
analysis.3
This model holds that part of the differences in effects across
studies is essentially random and involves unidentifiable sources (Hedges,
1994; Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; Mosteller & Colditz,
1996; Raudenbush, 1994; Rosenthal, 1995). As Cook et al. (1992) concluded,
this approach is “particularly attractive when considering (1) studies
that are quite heterogeneous, (2) treatments that are ill-specified, and/or
(3) effects that are complex and multidetermined” (p. 310). Because all
three of these conditions hold for much of the intergroup contact literature,
we used a random effects model. An additional advantage of using the
random effects approach is that it allows our findings to be generalized to
other contact studies beyond those used in our analysis. This choice is a
conservative procedure that markedly reduces the probability levels
obtained.
We report Pearson’s r as our indicator of effect size throughout our
analysis. If the studies do not report this measure, we derived it from other
statistics by using the conversion formulas provided by Johnson (1993). A
negative mean effect size indicates that greater intergroup contact is
associated with lower prejudice.
If researchers reported a relationship as nonsignificant, we conservatively
assigned a value of .00 for the effect size. Rosenthal (1995) has
questioned this procedure as too conservative and likely to yield misleadingly
low effect size estimates. He has recommended that meta-analysts
conduct principal analyses both with and without these studies—a procedure
that we follow in our summary analyses, although only 17 (2.4%) of
our samples are involved. We also follow the suggestion of Johnson and
Eagly (2000) and omit these samples when we fit our moderator models to
the effect sizes. The small number of samples involved means that they
affect only slightly the total effect size.
3
Although a fixed effects approach was used in our preliminary analyses
(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000), we have now revised our analytic strategy to
use a random effects model.
755META-ANALYTIC TEST OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY
We used two primary units of analysis: independent samples and individual
tests. The use of independent samples is helpful because they are
more numerous than are studies and allow detailed comparisons. Tests are
especially numerous and allow us to compare effect sizes for even more
detailed factors. But multiple tests reported for a single sample violate
assumptions of independence, and we have an average of almost two tests
per sample. Thus, we used tests as our unit of analysis for just one potential
moderator (type of generalization) that can be measured at this level only.
For each category of effect sizes, we calculated the mean effect size,
weighted for sample size. Thus, the larger and more reliable samples
contribute proportionately more to the mean. The homogeneity of each set
of effect sizes was examined by calculating the homogeneity statistic Q
that has an approximate chi-square distribution with kϪ1 degrees of
freedom, where k is the number of effect sizes (Hedges & Olkin, 1985).
Weighting by sample size, however, posed a problem. Five especially
large studies constitute only 1% of our study file but 28% of the total
number of participants. To keep these few studies from having such
enormous influence on the results, we capped their study sizes at 5,000,
sample sizes at 3,000, and tests at 2,000 participants. Whereas these caps
are arbitrary, only seven samples and 17 tests are involved. As Table 1
shows, omitting the studies that report only “nonsignificant” effects and
applying these sample size caps results in only trivial differences of the
average effect size across studies, samples, and tests for both fixed effects
models and random effects models.
Ratings for Studies and Samples
We rated and recorded 16 separate variables at their appropriate levels of
analysis. Tables 2–5 and 11–12 provide the particular categories used for
the ratings of each of these variables, and the Appendix supplies the ratings
for each sample.
Ratings of study characteristics include the date and source of publication
and whether it used a within- or between-subjects design. In addition,
we rated research quality in several ways. We established ratings for the
type of study (e.g., survey, quasi-experiment, or experiment). We also rated
the type of control group used in studies with between-subjects designs
(e.g., no, some, or considerable earlier contact with the outgroup). We
found that many of these control groups actually had prior contact with the
target group; such “leakage” obviously renders these groups as less adequate
controls. Another indicator of research rigor checked on the type of
contact measure used (e.g., whether the contact was assumed from longterm
situations in which contact was unavoidable, reported by the participants,
or directly observed by the researchers). The quality of the measures
for contact and prejudice was rated according to whether they consisted of
either a single item, a multi-item scale with unreported or low reliability
(␣ Ͻ .70), a multi-item scale with high reliability (␣ Ն .70), an experimental
manipulation (for contact indicators only), or other forms.
The ratings of participant characteristics included age, sex, and geographical
area of the study and the kind of target group involved (e.g.,
racial or ethnic, elderly, mentally ill). Additional ratings focused on the
contact situation, including the setting of the contact (e.g., educational,
residential, laboratory) and whether participants had any choice in participating
in the contact. Another rating concerned the type of generalization
involved (e.g., to outgroup members within the situation, to the whole
outgroup, across situations, or to other outgroups).
Two independent judges achieved kappas above .80 for all ratings of
these variables (after we collapsed error-prone adjacent rating categories).
Thus, if a four-category variable had a disproportionately large number of
Table 1
Summary of Effect Sizes for Contact and Prejudice
Level of analysis r 95% CL Z k N
Studies
All studies
Fixed Ϫ.225 Ϫ.23/Ϫ.22 Ϫ113.96*** 515 250,089
Randoma
Ϫ.205 Ϫ.22/Ϫ.19 Ϫ27.12*** 515 250,089
With data correctionsb
Fixed Ϫ.209 Ϫ.21/Ϫ.20 Ϫ94.92*** 500 202,742
Randoma
Ϫ.210 Ϫ.22/Ϫ.20 Ϫ28.93*** 500 202,742
Samples
All samples
Fixed Ϫ.225 Ϫ.23/Ϫ.22 Ϫ114.15*** 713 250,089
Randoma
Ϫ.210 Ϫ.22/Ϫ.20 Ϫ31.22*** 713 250,089
With data correctionsb
Fixed Ϫ.210 Ϫ.21/Ϫ.21 Ϫ94.96*** 696 199,830
Randoma
Ϫ.215 Ϫ.23/Ϫ.20 Ϫ32.24*** 696 199,830
Tests
All tests
Fixed Ϫ.218 Ϫ.22/Ϫ.22 Ϫ154.96*** 1,383 494,912
Randoma
Ϫ.214 Ϫ.22/Ϫ.20 Ϫ39.83*** 1,383 494,912
With data correctionsb
Fixed Ϫ.204 Ϫ.21/Ϫ.20 Ϫ127.15*** 1,365 381,723
Randoma
Ϫ.217 Ϫ.23/Ϫ.21 Ϫ38.31*** 1,365 381,723
Note. These analyses were conducted with Fisher’s z-transformed r values. Mean effects and confidence limits
listed in this table have been transformed back to the r-metric from the z-transformed estimates obtained in these
analyses. r ϭ correlation coefficient representing the mean effect size; 95% CL ϭ the 95% confidence limits of
r; Z ϭ z test for the mean effect sizes; p ϭ probability of z test; k ϭ number of samples associated with the mean
effect size; N ϭ total number of participants.
a
Random effects variance components (based on Fisher’s z-transformed r values) ranged from .019 to .024 for
studies and samples and from .030 to .036 for tests.
b
Data corrections involved capping especially large numbers of participants (5,000 for studies, 3,000 for
samples, 2,000 for tests) and excluding 15 nonsignificant studies from the analysis.
*** p Ͻ .001.
756 PETTIGREW AND TROPP
errors at Categories 2 and 3, we combined Categories 2 and 3 to form a
three-category rating. The median kappa for all ratings was .86. All
discrepancies between the raters were resolved through further discussion.
We also conducted ratings to examine whether the contact situation
approached the optimal context specified by Allport’s key conditions. We
began by attempting to rate each of Allport’s four conditions individually
for each study. However, this procedure proved impossible given the lack
of information about situational characteristics provided by the vast majority
of our 515 studies. Reliable ratings were largely unattainable for all
but a subset of the studies that directly addressed the characteristics of the
contact.
Consequently, we conducted comparisons by using a global measure of
Allport’s contentions. This procedure actually offers a more direct test of
the original theory, as Allport advanced his four conditions as a necessary
package for positive contact effects rather than as a listing of variables that
must be considered individually. In particular, we rated for all samples
whether the contact situations involved structured programs designed to
approximate Allport’s optimal conditions.4
Next, for the 134 samples with contact in the context of structured
programs, we attempted to conduct more fine-grained ratings for each of
Allport’s conditions. Though these research studies often implemented the
conditions together, we used “yes” and “no” ratings to discern whether the
program clearly and explicitly (a) focused participants on common goals,
(b) emphasized a cooperative environment, (c) presented the groups with
equal status, and (d) demonstrated authority sanction for the contact.
Ratings of these variables by two independent judges yielded kappas
between .76 and .97, with a median kappa of .84.
Results
Examining the Overall Pattern of Effects: Does
Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice?
Table 1 reveals the inverse association between intergroup contact
and prejudice for all studies, samples, and tests for both fixed
effects analyses and random effects analyses. The mean estimates
for the contact–prejudice effect size are consistent across units of
analysis, data corrections, and types of analysis. With random
effects analysis, the 515 studies, 713 samples, and 1,383 tests yield
mean rs that range from Ϫ.205 to Ϫ.214. Our data corrections of
eliminating the studies, samples, and tests that did not provide
precise effect sizes and capping the largest studies, samples, and
tests made little difference. It is these files—with the 17 “nonsignificant”
samples removed and the largest samples and tests
capped—that we use in the following analyses. The fixed effects
analyses and random effects analyses show similar mean effect sizes,
although, as expected, the Zs of the random effects analyses are
sharply reduced. We use the random effects model for all subsequent
analyses. In sum, the initial answer to our query is that intergroup
contact generally relates negatively and significantly to prejudice.5
Though in most empirical contexts, psychologists would consider
this effect size to be “small” to “medium” in magnitude
(Cohen, 1988), we should emphasize several points. First, given
the large number of samples, the effect is highly significant (p Ͻ
.0001). Second, 94% of the samples show an inverse relationship
between contact and prejudice. A scatter plot of the effect sizes by
sample size reveals that the effects center around an average r of
approximately Ϫ.21, which corresponds closely to the overall
mean effect size (see Figure 1). Finally, we later note markedly higher
mean effect sizes for subsets of samples from rigorous studies.
At the same time, these effect sizes are highly heterogeneous
across the samples (Qw(695) ϭ 4,990.44, p Ͻ .0001). Indeed, even
when we remove the results of one fifth of the samples that are the
largest outliers, highly significant heterogeneity remains. Such
vast heterogeneity is, of course, precisely what intergroup contact
theory predicts. These studies are highly diverse as to research
methods, participants, situations, and targets, all of which are
potential moderators of the link between contact and prejudice. As
with most meta-analyses, the ultimate thrust of our analysis is not
so much the gross effect sizes but more so the moderating variables
that suggest the conditions under which intergroup contact
reduces prejudice. Before turning to this task, however, we first
test for four threats to validity that provide alternative explanations
for the findings shown in Table 1.
Tests for Threats to Validity
The causal sequence problem: Examining choice to engage in
contact. The negative link between contact and prejudice may
largely reflect the avoidance of contact by prejudiced people. If
this is so, the effect sizes for those studies that provided participants
with choice as to whether to engage in the intergroup contact
4
As a secondary, indirect indicator of Allport’s conditions, we recorded
whether cross-group friendship served as the measure of contact. Friendship
typically involves cooperation and common goals as well as repeated
equal-status contact over an extended period and across varied settings
(Pettigrew, 1997). Many researchers have pointed to the role intimacy can
play in reducing prejudice (Amir, 1976; Patchen, 1999; Williams, 1947),
such that close, cross-group relationships may be especially likely to
promote positive intergroup outcomes. Thus, together with a focus on
Allport’s optimal conditions for contact, we also examined the effects of
cross-group friendships.
5
With a more stringent criterion for examining contact effects, we
conducted supplementary analyses that excluded the 39 cases in which
some degree of intergroup contact was assumed. Mean effect sizes for the
remaining cases were Ϫ.209 for studies (Ϫ.214 with data corrections) and
Ϫ.221 for samples (Ϫ.220 with data corrections).
Figure 1. Scatter plot of mean contact–prejudice effect sizes (r) in
relation to sample size.
757META-ANALYTIC TEST OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY
should reveal larger effect sizes than do those that provided no
such choice. In other words, only the studies with choice risk
having a participant selection bias. Table 2 provides the results
relevant to this issue.
Note that the no-choice samples provide a significantly larger
mean effect size (mean r ϭ Ϫ.280) than do those samples in which
participants had some choice (mean r ϭ Ϫ.190), QB(1) ϭ 20.58,
p Ͻ .0001, or full choice (mean r ϭ –.218), QB(1) ϭ 8.98, p Ͻ .01.
The fact that the no-choice studies were, in general, of higher
quality magnifies this difference between these three types of
studies. The basic correlation between choice and effect size, r ϭ
Ϫ.086, p Ͻ .05, becomes nonsignificant, r ϭ .005, p ϭ .89, when
we partial out four indicators of research quality.6
But the key
finding is that the studies that allow the participant selection bias
to operate do not typically yield the larger effect sizes that would
be predicted by participant selection bias.
The file drawer problem: The application of multiple tests.
First, we apply Rosenthal’s (1991) fail-safe index. According to
our uncorrected effect size estimate for all samples based on the
random effects model (see Table 1), it would require more than
1,200 missing samples that average no effect to erase the significance
of the intergroup contact and prejudice association at the 5%
level of confidence. This figure is considerably larger than the 713
samples uncovered by our intensive 6-year search. Next, we check
on publication bias by determining that the relationship between
sample sizes and effect sizes is not significant for either the
original set of 713 samples, r ϭ Ϫ.02, p ϭ .67, or the 696 samples
included in our analysis, r ϭ .04, p ϭ .33. Large samples provide
more reliable results, and this lack of a relationship between
sample size and effect size is a crude indicator of limited publication
bias.
Figure 1 provides a scatter diagram using the two variables. The
graph roughly resembles a funnel, as is suggested by Light and
Pillemer (1984). Most important, the funnel is not sharply skewed,
and the mean effect remains approximately the same regardless of
sample size. Hence, the mean (r ϭ Ϫ.216), median (r ϭ Ϫ.205),
and mode (r ϭ Ϫ.210) of the distribution of samples are similar.
The more symmetrical the funnel, the more it suggests that publication
bias is not a major problem with this dataset.
Duval and Tweedie’s (2000a, 2000b) “trim-and-fill” method
was used to adjust for missing studies by focusing on funnel plot
asymmetry. With Z as the effect size and with the random effects
model, Duval used her technique to estimate that about 72 (10.3%)
samples were missing. When she filled in for these missing data,
the effect size estimate increased to a Z of Ϫ.245, with 95%
confidence limits of Ϫ.258 to Ϫ.231. This result suggests a mean
effect that is comparable to those reported in Table 1.
Contradicting these results in part is an analysis that uses Vevea
and Hedges’s (1995) general linear model approach. Vevea kindly
conducted this analysis for us and found that the sample file was
missing numerous small studies with small effects. After adjustment
for these cases, his method did not find a significant overall
relationship between contact and prejudice (Z ϭ Ϫ.02, ns). However,
for those 118 samples with between-groups designs and
strong controls, the adjusted effect size did reach statistical significance
(mean Z ϭ Ϫ.109, one-tailed, p Ͻ .02).
Finally, as a direct test for publication bias, we compare (in
Table 2) the negative mean effect sizes between intergroup contact
and prejudice from published sources (journals and books) and
unpublished sources (dissertations, conference papers, and other
unpublished manuscripts). Note that the unpublished work has a
6
The four rated variables for research quality included ratings of study
type, quality of the contact and prejudice measures, and the quality of the
control groups, as detailed later in the text.
Table 2
Testing Threats to Validity for Contact–Prejudice Effect Sizes
Variable r 95% CL Z k N QB
Participant choice (samples)
No choice Ϫ.280 Ϫ.31/Ϫ.25 Ϫ16.13*** 116 15,133
Some choice Ϫ.190 Ϫ.21/Ϫ.17 Ϫ18.45*** 279 95,267
Full choice Ϫ.218 Ϫ.24/Ϫ.20 Ϫ21.51*** 301 89,430
Between-classes effect 21.52***
Publication source (samples)
Published Ϫ.211 Ϫ.23/Ϫ.20 Ϫ28.38*** 577 162,085
Unpublished Ϫ.237 Ϫ.27/Ϫ.21 Ϫ14.51*** 119 37,745
Between-classes effect 2.17
Type of generalization (tests)
Within situation Ϫ.231 Ϫ.26/Ϫ.20 Ϫ13.03*** 152 31,554
Across situations Ϫ.244 Ϫ.33/Ϫ.15 Ϫ5.20*** 17 7,553
Whole outgroup Ϫ.213 Ϫ.22/Ϫ.20 Ϫ36.08*** 1,164 333,608
To other outgroupsa
Ϫ.190 Ϫ.28/Ϫ.10 Ϫ3.89*** 18 3,396
Between-classes effect 1.61
Note. These analyses were conducted with Fisher’s z-transformed r values. Mean effects and confidence limits
listed in this table have been transformed back to the r-metric from the z-transformed estimates obtained in these
analyses. Random effects variance components (based on Fisher’s z-transformed r values) ranged from .022 to
.023 for analyses based on samples and was .032 for the analysis based on tests. As in Table 1, r ϭ correlation
coefficient representing the mean effect size; 95% CL ϭ the 95% confidence limits of r, Z ϭ z test for the mean
effect sizes; p ϭ probability of z test; k ϭ number of samples associated with the mean effect size; N ϭ total
number of participants; QB ϭ between-classes test of homogeneity.
a
Homogeneity can be obtained with less than 20% of the cases trimmed.
*** p Ͻ .001.
758 PETTIGREW AND TROPP
slightly larger mean effect size between contact and prejudice
(mean r ϭ Ϫ.237) than does published work (mean r ϭ Ϫ.211)
although this difference is not significant, QB(1) ϭ 2.17, p ϭ .14.
Thus, all but one of our indicators suggest that a file drawer
publication bias does not pose a major threat to the results of Table
1. However, the one notable exception—the results of Vevea and
Hedges’s (1995) test—lends caution in interpreting the following
findings. But even this test uncovers a significant relationship
between intergroup contact and diminished prejudice in studies
that use between-groups designs with strong controls.
The generalization of effects problem. Do contact effects extend
beyond the immediate situation? The summary results shown
in Table 2 provide an affirmative answer. A total of 152 tests
examined effects within the contact situation and focused exclusively
on outgroup members directly involved in the contact. As
shown in Table 2, their average effects correspond closely with the
mean effects of our full analysis (mean r ϭ Ϫ.231).
Most of the tests, however, concerned generalized effects of
contact on prejudice toward the entire outgroup. These 1,164 tests
provide an average effect that is not significantly weaker than the
effects obtained for individual outgroup members within the contact
situation (mean r ϭ Ϫ.213), QB(1) ϭ .94, p ϭ .33. In addition,
only 17 of the tests, drawn from nine samples, checked on contact’s
effects on prejudice across situations (but see Gathing, 1991;
Nesdale & Todd, 1998, 2000). These few tests rendered considerable
generalization (mean r ϭ Ϫ.244). Finally, 18 additional
tests checked on contact effects on prejudice toward outgroups not
involved in the contact. This rarely considered form of generalization
also operates (mean r ϭ Ϫ.190).7
Taken together, these
results suggest a far wider generalization net of contact effects than
is commonly thought.
Research rigor: Examining multiple tests. An additional test
of validity involves the relationship between indices of research
rigor and the magnitude of the contact–prejudice effect sizes.
Results from five rated variables reveal that greater research rigor
is routinely associated with larger effect sizes. Put differently, the
less rigorous studies sharply reduce the overall relationships observed
between contact and prejudice.
Study type. One measure of research rigor involves the type of
study. Table 3 shows that samples tested with true experiments
(mean r ϭ Ϫ.336) yield significantly larger effects than do those
tested with either quasi-experiments (mean r ϭ Ϫ.237), QB(1) ϭ
6.72, p Ͻ .01, or surveys and field studies (mean r ϭ Ϫ.204),
QB(1) ϭ 15.99, p Ͻ .001. Note that contact’s effects on prejudice
in experiments (r ϭ Ϫ.336) approach what Cohen (1988) described
as a “large” effect size for psychological data (d ϭ Ϫ.713).
In addition to demonstrating differences in effect sizes associated
with research rigor, this result is relevant to the causal sequence
problem discussed previously. True experiments, with their random
assignment of participants to condition, remove the possibility of a
selection bias operating in those who participate in intergroup contact.
Quality of control groups used. Another indicator of research
rigor concerns the quality of control groups used in the research
with between-subjects designs. Table 3 shows that for the samples
with between-subjects designs, the less contact the control group
had with the target outgroup prior to the study, the larger the mean
effect sizes. Thus, the samples with control groups that had no
7
We excluded 14 other tests from one study that attained even larger
effects because it used “intergroup friends” as its contact measure (Pettigrew,
1997).
Table 3
Type of Study, Control Group, and Contact Measure as Moderators for Contact–Prejudice Effect
Sizes
Variable r 95% CL Z k N QB
Type of study (samples)
Surveys and field studies Ϫ.204 Ϫ.22/Ϫ.19 Ϫ26.53*** 492 180,386
Quasi-experimentsa
Ϫ.237 Ϫ.27/Ϫ.21 Ϫ15.64*** 168 16,497
Experimentsa
Ϫ.336 Ϫ.40/Ϫ.27 Ϫ9.94*** 36 2,947
Between-classes effect 18.51***
Type of control group (samples)
Within design Ϫ.221 Ϫ.24/Ϫ.20 Ϫ23.58*** 365 116,091
No contact control Ϫ.244 Ϫ.27/Ϫ.21 Ϫ15.60*** 119 33,817
Some contact controla
Ϫ.209 Ϫ.24/Ϫ.18 Ϫ14.69*** 156 35,155
Extensive contact controla
Ϫ.138 Ϫ.18/Ϫ.09 Ϫ5.96*** 56 14,767
Between-classes effect 15.78***
Type of contact measure (samples)
Observed contacta
Ϫ.246 Ϫ.27/Ϫ.22 Ϫ19.50*** 249 25,247
Self-reported contact Ϫ.210 Ϫ.23/Ϫ.19 Ϫ25.29*** 408 162,292
Assumed contact Ϫ.132 Ϫ.18/Ϫ.08 Ϫ4.75*** 39 12,291
Between-classes effect 16.44***
Note. These analyses were conducted with Fisher’s z-transformed r values. Mean effects and confidence limits
listed in this table have been transformed back to the r-metric from the z-transformed estimates obtained in these
analyses. Random effects variance components (based on Fisher’s z-transformed r values) were .022 for each
analysis. r ϭ correlation coefficient representing the mean effect size; 95% CL ϭ the 95% confidence limits of
r, Z ϭ z test for the mean effect sizes; p ϭ probability of z test; k ϭ number of samples associated with the mean
effect size; N ϭ total number of participants; QB ϭ between-classes test of homogeneity.
a
Homogeneity can be obtained with less than 20% of the cases trimmed.
*** p Ͻ .001.
759META-ANALYTIC TEST OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY
prior outgroup contact (mean r ϭ Ϫ.244) had a higher mean effect
than did samples with controls that had either some prior outgroup
contact (mean r ϭ Ϫ.209), QB(1) ϭ 2.77, p ϭ .09, or extensive
prior outgroup contact (mean r ϭ Ϫ.138), QB(1) ϭ 10.71, p ϭ
.001. In addition, samples with within-subject designs had an
average effect size (mean r ϭ Ϫ.221) that did not differ significantly
from that of all between-subjects samples combined (mean
r ϭ Ϫ.217), QB(1) ϭ 0.07, p ϭ .79.
Type of contact measure. Table 3 shows differences in mean
effects between samples with contrasting contact measures. Samples
with directly observed contact yield the highest mean effect
(mean r ϭ Ϫ.246). Significantly smaller effects were obtained
from samples that used self-report measures of contact (mean r ϭ
Ϫ.210), QB(1) ϭ 6.39, p ϭ .01, or assumed contact from a close,
ongoing situation in which some degree of contact was unavoidable
(mean r ϭ Ϫ.132), QB(1) ϭ 11.82, p Ͻ .001.8
Quality of contact and prejudice measures. The quality of the
contact and prejudice indicators is highly influential. Multiple-item
measures with low or unreported reliabilities render weaker effects
than do other measures. This finding is important because, as
shown in Table 4, contact researchers have often used these
measures. Moreover, for contact indicators, the samples tested
with reliable multiple-item measures or experimentally manipulated
contact (mean r ϭ Ϫ.296) provide significantly larger effect
sizes than do those with other measures combined (mean r ϭ
Ϫ.189), QB(1) ϭ 53.22, p Ͻ .0001. For prejudice indicators, the
samples tested with unreliable multiple-item measures provide
smaller effects (mean r ϭ Ϫ.190) than does each of the other types
of measures: single items (mean r ϭ Ϫ.233), QB(1) ϭ 2.89, p Ͻ
.09, reliable multi-item scales (mean r ϭ Ϫ.246), QB(1) ϭ 16.38,
p Ͻ .0001, and other reliable measures of the dependent variables
(mostly high interrater reliability; mean r ϭ Ϫ.293), QB(1) ϭ 6.60,
p Ͻ .01. Note also in Table 4 that the quality of the contact
measures is more closely related to the effect sizes than is the
quality of the prejudice measures.
Evaluating the Role of Allport’s Conditions
Having addressed the major threats to validity, we can proceed with
an investigation of more specific questions relevant to our research
goals. Of particular interest are tests of whether Allport’s stated
conditions contribute to positive contact outcomes and whether such
conditions are necessary for positive outcomes to occur.
Global test: Structured optimal contact. Our global predictor
involves the issue of whether the contact consisted of a structured
program that the researchers designed to establish Allport’s optimal
conditions in the contact situation. Table 5 shows that the 134
samples with optimal contact conditions yield significantly greater
reductions of prejudice (mean r ϭ Ϫ.287) than do the other
samples (mean r ϭ Ϫ.204), QB(1) ϭ 20.19, p Ͻ .0001.9
Is this result largely a function of Allport’s optimal conditions,
or does it merely reflect other aspects of this subset of contact
research? We addressed this question by conducting a regression
analysis that includes as predictors the structured program test of
Allport’s conditions and our strongest methodological moderators:
the type of study, the quality of the contact and prejudice measures,
8
It should be noted that ratings for type of contact measure are strongly
associated with ratings for the type of study, r ϭ .66, p Ͻ .001.
9
In addition, a less direct test of Allport’s conditions involves tests for
intergroup friendship. Only 4 of the 134 samples that experienced optimal
structured contact used friends as the measure of contact. Yet, paralleling
the findings for optimally structured contact, the 154 tests that used
intergroup friendship as the measure of contact (mean r ϭ Ϫ.246) showed
a significantly stronger effect than did the remaining 1,211 tests (mean r ϭ
Ϫ.212), QB(1) ϭ 4.42, p Ͻ .05.
Table 4
Quality of Contact and Prejudice Indicators as Moderators for Contact–Prejudice Effect Sizes
Variable r 95% CL Z k N QB
Quality of contact measure (samples)
Single item Ϫ.195 Ϫ.22/Ϫ.17 Ϫ14.95*** 151 64,927
Multiple items (␣ Ͻ .70) Ϫ.195 Ϫ.22/Ϫ.17 Ϫ16.31*** 182 72,187
Multiple items (␣ Ն .70) Ϫ.298 Ϫ.33/Ϫ.26 Ϫ14.59*** 60 22,289
Experimental manipulation Ϫ.295 Ϫ.33/Ϫ.26 Ϫ17.08*** 129 10,168
Other Ϫ.175 Ϫ.20/Ϫ.15 Ϫ12.64*** 174 30,259
Between-classes effect 54.94***
Quality of prejudice measure (samples)
Single itema
Ϫ.233 Ϫ.28/Ϫ.18 Ϫ8.83*** 44 11,508
Multiple items (␣ Ͻ .70) Ϫ.190 Ϫ.21/Ϫ.17 Ϫ21.05*** 384 110,407
Multiple items (␣ Ն .70) Ϫ.246 Ϫ.27/Ϫ.22 Ϫ22.13*** 241 76,469
Othera
Ϫ.293 Ϫ.37/Ϫ.22 Ϫ7.23*** 27 1,446
Between-classes effect 20.86***
Note. These analyses were conducted with Fisher’s z-transformed r values. Mean effects and confidence limits
listed in this table have been transformed back to the r-metric from the z-transformed estimates obtained in these
analyses. Random effects variance components (based on Fisher’s z-transformed r values) ranged from .020 to
.022 for each analysis. r ϭ correlation coefficient representing the mean effect size; 95% CL ϭ the 95%
confidence limits of r, Z ϭ z test for the mean effect sizes; p ϭ probability of z test; k ϭ number of samples
associated with the mean effect size; N ϭ total number of participants; QB ϭ between-classes test of
homogeneity.
a
Homogeneity can be obtained with less than 20% of the cases trimmed.
*** p Ͻ .001.
760 PETTIGREW AND TROPP
and the adequacy of the control group.10
Table 6 reveals significant
relationships between ratings on the structured program variable and
the methodological moderators. Samples with structured programs
tended to use more rigorous procedures, more reliable measures, and
better controls. An inverse variance weighted regression analysis was
then conducted with SPSS macros, developed by Wilson (2002),
which provide the appropriate parameters and probability values for
meta-analytic data (see also Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).
Table 7 displays the regression results. Ratings of the quality of the
contact and prejudice measures and the adequacy of the control
groups all relate significantly to the magnitude of the contact–
prejudice effect sizes. To further demonstrate the combined importance
of these three methodological predictors, we formed a subset of
77 samples that boasted the most rigorous category for each of these
variables. The mean effect for this rigorous subset (r ϭ Ϫ.323)
proved far stronger than did that of the remaining, less rigorous
samples (r ϭ Ϫ.202), QB(1) ϭ 35.96, p Ͻ .0001. Thus, when
properly tested with rigorous measures and research procedures, studies
of contact–prejudice relationships typically yield larger effects.
Nonetheless, the structured program indicator of Allport’s conditions
remains a significant predictor of contact–prejudice effects (␤ ϭ
Ϫ.099, p Ͻ .03) even when entered with these methodological moderators.
As such, this multivariate model provides a stronger test for
Allport’s theory of intergroup contact than do the univariate comparisons
for structured programs. Still, mean comparisons reported in
Table 5 indicate that the inverse relationship between contact and
prejudice persists—though not as strongly—even when the contact
situation is not structured to match Allport’s conditions.
Specific tests of individual conditions. We conducted a series
of tests with ratings of individual contact conditions for the 134
samples with structured programs. These cases were rated as
having authority sanction, an unsurprising finding that was virtually
assured by the implementation of programs designed to promote
Allport’s conditions.
As a first step, we conducted mean comparisons between samples
that were rated as with or without each of the three remaining
conditions (i.e., common goals, cooperation, and equal status).
These tests showed no significant differences in mean contact–
prejudice effects for samples rated with and without common
goals, QB(1) ϭ 1.89, p ϭ .17, cooperation, QB(1) ϭ 0.03, p ϭ .86,
or equal status, QB(1) ϭ 0.70, p ϭ .40. We also compared samples
that included all four of Allport’s conditions with those that did not
include all four conditions, and we found no significant differences
in mean contact–prejudice effects, QB(1) ϭ 1.48, p ϭ .22. Additional
analyses indicated that ratings of common goals, cooperation,
and equal status were highly correlated with each other (rs
ranging from .51 to .63, p Ͻ .001), with 72% of the samples rated
as having at least three of Allport’s four optimal conditions. We
then conducted inverse weighted regression analyses (see Lipsey
& Wilson, 2001; Wilson, 2002) to test common goals, cooperation,
and equal status as predictors for contact–prejudice effect sizes.
The models revealed no significant effects for these three conditions
when either entered simultaneously as predictors (␤s ranging
from .02 to .18, p Ͼ .15) or when entered separately alongside our
methodological moderators (␤s ranging from .05 to .06, p Ͼ .50).
Given that none of the three conditions emerged as a significant,
independent predictor, additional analyses were conducted to examine
whether authority sanction might play a special role in predicting the
contact–prejudice effect sizes. For this analysis, samples rated as
having only authority sanction (k ϭ 31) were compared with samples
rated as having two or more of Allport’s conditions (k ϭ 103) as well
as with the remaining samples in our analysis (k ϭ 564). Results show
that the mean effect for samples with only authority sanction (mean
r ϭ Ϫ.286) did not differ significantly from the mean effect for
samples with two or more of Allport’s conditions (mean r ϭ Ϫ.290),
QB(1) ϭ 0.01, p ϭ .93, whereas both of these groups showed
significantly stronger effects than did the remaining samples in our
analysis (mean r ϭ Ϫ.204), QB(1) ϭ 6.10, p Ͻ .05, and QB(1) ϭ 16.18,
p Ͻ .001.
Subset Analyses for Racial or Ethnic Samples and Other
Samples
To check for consistency in general patterns of effects, we
conducted additional analyses examining contact–prejudice rela-
10
For the regression analyses, ratings of the quality of the contact and
prejudice measures were dichotomized such that ratings would indicate
either high reliability (e.g., multi-item scale with high reliability, experimental
manipulation, high interrater reliability) or low reliability (e.g.,
single-item measure, multi-item measure with low or unknown reliability).
Ratings of the control measure were trichotomized: (a) the control group
had no prior contact or the sample used a within-subject design, (b) the
control group had some prior contact, or (c) the control group had extensive
prior contact with the outgroup.
Table 5
Structured Programs as a Moderator for Contact–Prejudice Effect Sizes
Variable r 95% CL Z k N QB
Structured programs (samples)
Programa
Ϫ.287 Ϫ.32/Ϫ.25 Ϫ16.09*** 134 10,400
No program Ϫ.204 Ϫ.22/Ϫ.19 Ϫ28.11*** 562 189,430
Between-classes effect 20.19***
Note. These analyses were conducted with Fisher’s z-transformed r values. Mean effects and confidence limits
listed in this table have been transformed back to the r-metric from the z-transformed estimates obtained in these
analyses. The random effects variance components (based on Fisher’s z-transformed r values) was .022 for this
analysis. r ϭ correlation coefficient representing the mean effect size; 95% CL ϭ the 95% confidence limits of
r, Z ϭ z test for the mean effect sizes; p ϭ probability of z test; k ϭ number of samples associated with the mean
effect size; N ϭ total number of participants; QB ϭ between-classes test of homogeneity.
a
Homogeneity can be obtained with less than 20% of the cases trimmed.
*** p Ͻ .001.
761META-ANALYTIC TEST OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY
tionships across two subsets of cases. As approximately half of the
samples in our analysis (51%) involved contact between racial and
ethnic groups, we analyze these cases and the remaining cases as
two separate subsets. Contact theory was originally developed to
address racial and ethnic prejudices, but recent decades have
witnessed a massive use of the theory for a range of different target
groups. Is this expansion of contact theory justified? And do these
nonracial and nonethnic samples yield meta-analytic patterns that
are similar to those for racial and ethnic samples?
Comparisons across the racial and ethnic subsets and the nonracial
and nonethnic subsets yield virtually identical mean estimates of
contact–prejudice effect sizes (mean r ϭ Ϫ.218 and Ϫ.220, respectively),
QB(1) ϭ 0.027, p ϭ .87. Table 8 presents results for each
subset in relation to our four strongest methodological moderators.
Higher quality of the contact and prejudice measures tend to show
larger average effect sizes for samples in both subsets. At the same
time, study type and type of control group proved especially important
for the nonracial and nonethnic samples, whereas quality of the
prejudice measures proved particularly important for the racial and
ethnic samples. Overall, however, the patterns of results observed for
these subsets largely reflect those obtained in the full analysis.
We then examined contact–prejudice effects for each subset in
relation to the global indicator of Allport’s conditions (see Table
9). Structured programs developed in line with Allport’s conditions
enhanced contact–prejudice effects for both subsets of cases,
though the effects tended to be stronger among the nonracial and
nonethnic samples, QB(1) ϭ 19.67, p Ͻ .001, than among the
racial and ethnic samples, QB(1) ϭ 2.62, p ϭ .11. At the same
time, no significant differences in mean contact–prejudice effects
emerged between structured program samples with racial and ethnic
targets and nonracial and nonethnic targets, QB(1) ϭ 1.23, p ϭ .27.
Paralleling our analysis of the full sample, regression analyses
then examined the structured program variable and four methodological
moderators as predictors for contact–prejudice effects in
each subset (see Table 10). These analyses reveal some variability
in the degree to which the different methodological indicators
predict the contact–prejudice effects. In addition, the structured
program variable testing Allport’s contentions consistently
emerges as a marginally significant predictor of contact–prejudice
effects for both the racial and ethnic samples, ␤ ϭ Ϫ.112, p ϭ
.069, and the remaining samples, ␤ ϭ Ϫ.105, p ϭ .094.
Overall, then, results from both subsets closely resemble the
findings from the full analysis. Moreover, although there are some
slight differences associated with methodological factors, the preponderance
of the evidence indicates similar patterns of effects
across the two subsets of samples.
Supplementary Analyses of Participant and Study
Moderators
A final set of analyses examines several additional participant
and study variables as potential moderators for contact–prejudice
effects.11
Target group. Extending our analysis of the intergroup contexts
under study, Table 11 presents mean effect sizes for the many
types of target groups studied in the contact literature. We consistently
find significant relationships between intergroup contact
11
Comparisons of samples with and without Allport’s conditions were
not conducted in relation to these variables because they would have
involved tests with extremely small numbers of cases.
Table 6
Correlation Matrix and Descriptive Statistics of Predictor Variables
Predictor variable 1 2 3 4 5
1. Type of study (3) —
2. IV quality (2) .539*** —
3. DV quality (2) .016 .219*** —
4. Type of control (3) .058 Ϫ.009 Ϫ.106** —
5. Program (2) .570*** .390*** .102** .095* —
M 1.34 1.27 1.39 1.39 1.19
SD .57 .45 .49 .63 .40
Note. Numbers in parentheses represent the number of levels for each variable. For type of study, 1 ϭ survey
or field study, 2 ϭ quasi-experiment, 3 ϭ experiment; for independent variable (IV) and dependent variable
(DV) quality, 1 ϭ other, 2 ϭ reliable indicator; for type of control, 1 ϭ within-subjects design or betweensubjects
design with no prior contact, 2 ϭ some prior contact, 3 ϭ considerable prior contact; for program, 1 ϭ
no structured program, 2 ϭ structured program.
* p Ͻ .05. ** p Ͻ .01. *** p Ͻ .001.
Table 7
Summary of Inverse Variance Weighted Regression Model
Predicting Contact–Prejudice Effect Sizes
Predictor variable B SE ␤ Z p
Model
summary
Type of study .001 .017 .002 .035 .972
IV quality Ϫ.088 .018 Ϫ.206 Ϫ4.775 .000
DV quality Ϫ.031 .014 Ϫ.084 Ϫ2.231 .026
Type of control .034 .010 .121 3.303 .001
Program Ϫ.053 .024 Ϫ.099 Ϫ2.219 .027
R2
.10***
QModel 77.29***
k 696
Note. This analysis was conducted with Fisher’s z-transformed r values.
The random effects variance component for this analysis (based on Fisher’s
z-transformed r values) was .020. B ϭ raw regression coefficient; SE ϭ
standard error for the regression coefficient; ␤ ϭ standardized regression
coefficient; Z ϭ z test for the regression coefficient; p ϭ probability of z test;
R2
ϭ proportion of variance accounted for; QModel ϭ test of whether the
regression model explains a significant portion of variability across effect sizes
(see Wilson, 2002); k ϭ number of samples included in the analysis.
*** p Ͻ .001.
762 PETTIGREW AND TROPP
andprejudice across contexts, though the magnitudes of the
contact–prejudice effect sizes vary in relation to different target
groups. The largest effects emerge for samples involving contact
between heterosexuals and gay men and lesbians (mean r ϭ
Ϫ.271). These effects are significantly larger than are those for the
other samples combined (mean r ϭ Ϫ.211), QB(1) ϭ 5.34, p ϭ
.02. Research focused on contact with the physically disabled
(mean r ϭ Ϫ.243) also provides a larger-than-average effect size.
The most studied target groups, racial and ethnic groups (mean r ϭ
Ϫ.214), and research on contact with the mentally disabled (mean
r ϭ Ϫ.202) yield average effects. But research with other target
groups generally produces smaller effects. In particular, samples
concerning contact with the mentally ill and the elderly combined
(mean r ϭ Ϫ.183) render significantly lower mean effects than do
the other target groups combined (mean r ϭ Ϫ.221), QB(1) ϭ
4.51, p ϭ .03.
Table 8
Indicators of Research Rigor as Moderators for Contact–Prejudice Effect Sizes Among Racial and Ethnic Samples and Nonracial and
Nonethnic Samples
Variable
Racial and ethnic samples Nonracial and nonethnic samples
r 95% CL Z k QB r 95% CL Z k QB
Type of study
Surveys and field studies Ϫ.215 Ϫ.23/Ϫ.20 Ϫ22.05*** 299 Ϫ.186 Ϫ.21/Ϫ.16 Ϫ15.26*** 193
Quasi-experiments Ϫ.211 Ϫ.26/Ϫ.16 Ϫ8.25*** 54 Ϫ.251 Ϫ.29/Ϫ.22 Ϫ13.49*** 114
Experiments Ϫ.221 Ϫ.34/Ϫ.09 Ϫ3.37*** 9 Ϫ.377 Ϫ.44/Ϫ.31 Ϫ9.67*** 27
Between-classes effect 0.03 27.89***
Quality of contact measure
Single item Ϫ.210 Ϫ.25/Ϫ.17 Ϫ10.98*** 65 Ϫ.184 Ϫ.22/Ϫ.15 Ϫ10.40*** 86
Multiple items (␣ Ͻ .70) Ϫ.201 Ϫ.23/Ϫ.17 Ϫ14.34*** 128 Ϫ.181 Ϫ.22/Ϫ.14 Ϫ8.29*** 54
Multiple items (␣ Ն .70) Ϫ.323 Ϫ.36/Ϫ.28 Ϫ14.00*** 44 Ϫ.226 Ϫ.30/Ϫ.15 Ϫ5.76*** 16
Experimental manipulation Ϫ.236 Ϫ.30/Ϫ.17 Ϫ6.77*** 32 Ϫ.314 Ϫ.35/Ϫ.28 Ϫ15.24*** 97
Other Ϫ.170 Ϫ.20/Ϫ.14 Ϫ9.52*** 93 Ϫ.181 Ϫ.22/Ϫ.14 Ϫ8.52*** 81
Between-classes effect 31.85*** 34.98***
Quality of prejudice measure
Single item Ϫ.235 Ϫ.29/Ϫ.18 Ϫ8.24*** 34 Ϫ.225 Ϫ.34/Ϫ.11 Ϫ3.63*** 10
Multiple items (␣ Ͻ .70) Ϫ.182 Ϫ.20/Ϫ.16 Ϫ15.77*** 210 Ϫ.200 Ϫ.23/Ϫ.17 Ϫ14.09*** 174
Multiple items (␣ Ն .70) Ϫ.259 Ϫ.29/Ϫ.23 Ϫ16.37*** 105 Ϫ.235 Ϫ.26/Ϫ.21 Ϫ15.03*** 136
Other Ϫ.344 Ϫ.44/Ϫ.24 Ϫ6.31*** 13 Ϫ.235 Ϫ.35/Ϫ.12 Ϫ3.91*** 14
Between-classes effect 23.73*** 2.97
Type of control group
Within design Ϫ.228 Ϫ.25/Ϫ.21 Ϫ19.59*** 217 Ϫ.209 Ϫ.24/Ϫ.18 Ϫ13.68*** 148
No contact control Ϫ.166 Ϫ.22/Ϫ.11 Ϫ6.25*** 39 Ϫ.284 Ϫ.32/Ϫ.25 Ϫ14.96*** 80
Some contact control Ϫ.220 Ϫ.26/Ϫ.18 Ϫ11.16*** 73 Ϫ.197 Ϫ.23/Ϫ.16 Ϫ9.86*** 83
Extensive contact control Ϫ.179 Ϫ.24/Ϫ.12 Ϫ5.99*** 33 Ϫ.081 Ϫ.15/Ϫ.01 Ϫ2.28* 23
Between-classes effect 6.56 29.93***
Note. These analyses were conducted with Fisher’s z-transformed r values. Mean effects and confidence limits listed in this table have been transformed
back to the r-metric from the z-transformed estimates obtained in these analyses. Random effects variance components (based on Fisher’s z-transformed
r values) ranged from .019 to .024. r ϭ correlation coefficient representing the mean effect size; 95% CL ϭ the 95% confidence limits of r, Z ϭ z test
for the mean effect sizes; p ϭ probability of z test; k ϭ number of samples associated with the mean effect size; QB ϭ between-classes test of
homogeneity.
* p Ͻ .05. *** p Ͻ .001.
Table 9
Structured Programs as a Moderator for Contact–Prejudice Effect Sizes Among Racial and Ethnic Samples and Nonracial and
Nonethnic Samples
Variable
Racial and ethnic samples Nonracial and nonethnic samples
r 95% CL Z k QB r 95% CL Z k QB
Program Ϫ.262 Ϫ.32/Ϫ.20 Ϫ8.30*** 40 Ϫ.299 Ϫ.34/Ϫ.26 Ϫ13.80*** 94
No program Ϫ.210 Ϫ.23/Ϫ.19 Ϫ22.37*** 322 Ϫ.194 Ϫ.22/Ϫ.17 Ϫ17.21*** 240
Between-classes effect QB(1) ϭ 2.62 19.67***
Note. These analyses were conducted with Fisher’s z-transformed r values. Mean effects and confidence limits listed in this table have been transformed
back to the r-metric from the z-transformed estimates obtained in these analyses. Random effects variance components for these analyses (based on Fisher’s
z-transformed r values) were .022. r ϭ correlation coefficient representing the mean effect size; 95% CL ϭ the 95% confidence limits of r, Z ϭ z test for
the mean effect sizes; p ϭ probability of z test; k ϭ number of samples associated with the mean effect size; QB ϭ between-classes test of homogeneity.
*** p Ͻ .001.
763META-ANALYTIC TEST OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY
Age. Table 11 also shows that the effects obtained with children
(mean r ϭ Ϫ.239) and college students (mean r ϭ Ϫ.231) do
not significantly differ from those obtained with adolescents (mean
r ϭ Ϫ.208), QB(1) ϭ 1.20 and 1.37, respectively, p Ͼ .20. At the
same time, effects for children are marginally stronger, QB(1) ϭ
3.59, p ϭ .06, and effects for college students are significantly
stronger, QB(1) ϭ 5.49, p Ͻ .05, than are those obtained for adults
(mean r ϭ Ϫ.197). That college students yield significantly stronger
average effects than do adults is consistent with Sears’s (1986)
contentions that college students are generally more open to
change than are older adults.
Sex. Participants’ sex proves to be a minor factor in interpreting
contact–prejudice effects (see Table 11). The difference between
all-male and all-female samples is not significant, QB(1) ϭ 0.70, p ϭ .40.
Table 10
Summary of Inverse Variance Weighted Regression Model Predicting Contact–Prejudice Effect Sizes Among Racial and Ethnic
Samples and Nonracial and Nonethnic Samples
Predictor variable
Racial and ethnic samples Nonracial and nonethnic samples
B SE ␤ Z p Statistic B SE ␤ Z p Model summary
Type of study .062 .027 .147 2.29 .022 Ϫ.036 .022 Ϫ.112 Ϫ1.61 .108
IV quality Ϫ.095 .025 Ϫ.216 Ϫ3.79 .000 Ϫ.068 .027 Ϫ.162 Ϫ2.53 .011
DV quality Ϫ.059 .020 Ϫ.161 Ϫ2.93 .003 Ϫ.023 .020 Ϫ.059 Ϫ1.14 .256
Type of control Ϫ.003 .014 Ϫ.010 Ϫ.18 .857 .064 .015 .213 4.16 .000
Program Ϫ.073 .040 Ϫ.112 Ϫ1.82 .069 Ϫ.049 .029 Ϫ.105 Ϫ1.68 .094
R2
.10*** .15***
QModel 40.45*** 59.74***
k 362 334
Note. These analyses were conducted with Fisher’s z-transformed r values. Random effects variance components (based on Fisher’s z-transformed r
values) ranged from .019 to .020. B ϭ raw regression coefficient; SE ϭ standard error for the regression coefficient; ␤ ϭ standardized regression coefficient;
Z ϭ z test for the regression coefficient; p ϭ probability of z test; R2
ϭ proportion of variance accounted for; QModel ϭ test of whether the regression model
explains a significant portion of variability across effect sizes (see Wilson, 2002); k ϭ number of samples included in the analysis; IV ϭ independent
variable; DV ϭ dependent variable.
*** p Ͻ .001.
Table 11
Participant Predictors of Contact–Prejudice Effect Sizes Across Samples
Variable r 95% CL Z k N QB
Target groups
Sexual orientation Ϫ.271 Ϫ.32/Ϫ.22 Ϫ10.49*** 42 12,059
Physically disabled Ϫ.243 Ϫ.28/Ϫ.21 Ϫ12.91*** 93 15,584
Race, ethnicity Ϫ.214 Ϫ.23/Ϫ.20 Ϫ23.62*** 362 133,249
Mentally disableda
Ϫ.207 Ϫ.26/Ϫ.15 Ϫ7.16*** 40 6,116
Mentally illa
Ϫ.184 Ϫ.23/Ϫ.14 Ϫ8.41*** 66 17,218
Elderly Ϫ.181 Ϫ.23/Ϫ.13 Ϫ6.73*** 54 6,424
Othera
Ϫ.192 Ϫ.25/Ϫ.13 Ϫ6.27*** 39 9,180
Between-classes effect 11.95
Age of participants
Children (1–12 years) Ϫ.239 Ϫ.28/Ϫ.20 Ϫ11.30*** 82 10,207
Adolescents Ϫ.208 Ϫ.24/Ϫ.18 Ϫ12.68*** 114 45,602
College students Ϫ.231 Ϫ.25/Ϫ.21 Ϫ20.50*** 262 46,553
Adults Ϫ.197 Ϫ.22/Ϫ.18 Ϫ17.81*** 238 97,468
Between-classes effect 6.68
Sex of participants
Femalesa
Ϫ.214 Ϫ.26/Ϫ.17 Ϫ9.06*** 63 13,183
Malesa
Ϫ.185 Ϫ.23/Ϫ.14 Ϫ7.56*** 59 15,598
Both or undetermined Ϫ.218 Ϫ.23/Ϫ.20 Ϫ29.58*** 574 171,049
Between-classes effect 1.83
Note. These analyses were conducted with Fisher’s z-transformed r values. Mean effects and confidence limits
listed in this table have been transformed back to the r-metric from the z-transformed estimates obtained in these
analyses. Random effects variance components (based on Fisher’s z-transformed r values) were 0.23 for each
analysis. r ϭ correlation coefficient representing the mean effect size; 95% CL ϭ the 95% confidence limits of
r; Z ϭ z test for the mean effect sizes; p ϭ probability of z test; k ϭ number of samples associated with the mean
effect size; N ϭ total number of participants. QB ϭ between-classes test of homogeneity.
a
Homogeneity can be obtained with less than 20% of the cases trimmed.
*** p Ͻ .001.
764 PETTIGREW AND TROPP
Geographic area. With 72% of our samples conducted in the
United States, it is important to determine whether there are
significant differences in effect sizes in contact research conducted
elsewhere. A general test across the six geographical areas revealed
no significant differences in effects, QB(5) ϭ 1.88, p ϭ .87
(see Table 12). And a focused test shows that there is virtually no
difference in effect sizes between U.S. (mean r ϭ Ϫ.215) and
non–U.S. samples (mean r ϭ Ϫ.217), QB(1) ϭ .01, p ϭ .90.
Contact setting. Various research settings relate significantly
to the size of the effects (see Table 12). Although there likely are
differences in intensity and duration of contact among these settings,
their discrepant mean effects are suggestive. The smallest
mean effect results from intergroup contact through tourism and
travel. Though based on only 13 samples from nine studies, this
tourism effect size (mean r ϭ Ϫ.113) is significantly smaller than
is that of the other samples combined (mean r ϭ Ϫ.217), QB(1) ϭ
3.84, p Ͻ .05. By contrast, the largest mean effects emerge from
contact that occurs in recreational and laboratory settings. The 48
samples studied in these settings provide a mean effect (mean r ϭ
Ϫ.287) that is significantly larger than that of the other settings
combined (mean r ϭ Ϫ.211), QB(1) ϭ 6.86, p Ͻ .01.
Date of study. Though early samples studied prior to 1960
uncovered slightly larger average effects (mean r ϭ Ϫ.228), the
dominant trend is for recent research to reveal greater mean effects
than does earlier work. Thus, the 415 samples tested after 1979
yield a significantly larger average effect (mean r ϭ Ϫ.236) than
do the 281 samples tested prior to 1980 (mean r ϭ Ϫ.184),
QB(1) ϭ 15.59, p Ͻ .0001. It is tempting to speculate how major
events, such as American racial conflict in the 1960s, might have
shaped this difference. However, the difference across the two
time periods is explained largely by the increased rigor of modern
research. Relative to earlier work, contact research since 1979 has
used more rigorous measures and procedures, as indicated by the
quality of the contact measure, ␹2
(1) ϭ 13.70, p Ͻ .001, the
quality of the prejudice measure, ␹2
(1) ϭ 52.62, p Ͻ .001, and the
quality of the controls used in the research, ␹2
(2) ϭ 12.14, p Ͻ .01.
When these indicators of research rigor are controlled, the difference
in effect sizes between the early and late intergroup contact
samples is sharply reduced but remains statistically significant,
␤ ϭ Ϫ.08, p Ͻ .05.
Discussion
These meta-analytic findings shed important light on long-standing
debates in the contact literature concerning the central questions of
whether contact reduces prejudice and the role that Allport’s conditions
play in promoting positive intergroup outcomes.
Table 12
Study Predictors of Contact–Prejudice Effect Sizes Across Samples
Variable r 95% CL Z k N QB
Geographic area of research
United States Ϫ.215 Ϫ.23/Ϫ.20 Ϫ26.81*** 501 133,598
Europe Ϫ.217 Ϫ.25/Ϫ.18 Ϫ10.96*** 80 36,799
Israela
Ϫ.196 Ϫ.26/Ϫ.13 Ϫ5.42*** 24 6,808
Canada Ϫ.232 Ϫ.30/Ϫ.16 Ϫ6.19*** 21 4,732
Australia and New Zealanda
Ϫ.259 Ϫ.34/Ϫ.18 Ϫ6.11*** 16 3,704
Africa, Asia, Latin America Ϫ.205 Ϫ.25/Ϫ.16 Ϫ8.45*** 54 14,189
Between-classes effect 1.88
Research setting
Laboratorya
Ϫ.273 Ϫ.35/Ϫ.19 Ϫ6.25*** 22 1,754
Recreationala
Ϫ.299 Ϫ.37/Ϫ.23 Ϫ7.60*** 26 2,168
Work, organizational Ϫ.224 Ϫ.27/Ϫ.18 Ϫ10.20*** 73 16,608
Educational Ϫ.213 Ϫ.24/Ϫ.19 Ϫ16.72*** 209 52,980
Residentiala
Ϫ.202 Ϫ.25/Ϫ.16 Ϫ8.48*** 57 8,778
Tourism, travel Ϫ.113 Ϫ.22/Ϫ.01 Ϫ2.08* 13 2,211
Mixed and other Ϫ.213 Ϫ.23/Ϫ.19 Ϫ21.82*** 296 115,331
Between-classes effect 11.14
Date of publication
Prior to 1960 Ϫ.228 Ϫ.27/Ϫ.19 Ϫ10.12*** 57 19,667
1960–1969a
Ϫ.176 Ϫ.21/Ϫ.14 Ϫ9.18*** 83 16,350
1970–1979 Ϫ.169 Ϫ.20/Ϫ.14 Ϫ11.24*** 141 44,297
1980–1989 Ϫ.233 Ϫ.26/Ϫ.21 Ϫ16.81*** 165 37,217
1990–2000 Ϫ.238 Ϫ.26/Ϫ.22 Ϫ21.82*** 250 82,299
Between-classes effect 21.15***
Note. These analyses were conducted with Fisher’s z-transformed r values. Mean effects and confidence limits
listed in this table have been transformed back to the r-metric from the z-transformed estimates obtained in these
analyses. Random effects variance components (based on Fisher’s z-transformed r values) ranged from .022 to
.023 for each analysis. r ϭ correlation coefficient representing the mean effect size; 95% CL ϭ the 95%
confidence limits of r, Z ϭ z test for the mean effect sizes; p ϭ probability of z test; k ϭ number of samples
associated with the mean effect size; N ϭ total number of participants; QB ϭ between-classes test of
homogeneity.
a
Homogeneity can be obtained with less than 20% of the cases trimmed.
* p Ͻ .05. *** p Ͻ .001.
765META-ANALYTIC TEST OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY
Does Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice?
The meta-analytic results clearly indicate that intergroup contact
typically reduces intergroup prejudice. Synthesizing effects from
696 samples, the meta-analysis reveals that greater intergroup
contact is generally associated with lower levels of prejudice
(mean r ϭ Ϫ.215). Moreover, the mean effect rises sharply for
experiments and other rigorously conducted studies. In addition,
94% of the samples in our analysis show an inverse relationship
between intergroup contact and prejudice.
Additional findings suggest that these relationships between
contact and prejudice are not artifacts of either participant selection
or publication bias. Consistent with past research, the particularly
strong effects observed for experimental studies confirm
that contact can cause meaningful reductions in prejudice. Moreover,
the investigations that allowed no choice for their participants
to avoid the intergroup contact yield a slightly larger mean
effect size in reducing prejudice than do studies that allowed
choice. In addition, of the six tests we conducted to test for
publication bias, all but one indicate that this bias is not a serious
threat to the validity of our results, and the one exception still
revealed a significant contact–prejudice effect among the most
rigorous research studies.
Results from our analysis also show that intergroup contact
effects typically generalize beyond participants in the immediate
contact situation. Indeed, the generalization of contact’s effects
appears to be far broader than what many past commentators have
thought. Not only do attitudes toward the immediate participants
usually become more favorable, but so do attitudes toward the
entire outgroup, outgroup members in other situations, and even
outgroups not involved in the contact. This result enhances the
potential of intergroup contact to be a practical, applied means of
improving intergroup relations.
The findings also reveal that intergroup contact may be useful
for reducing prejudice in a variety of intergroup situations and
contexts. The patterns of contact–prejudice effects observed for
racial and ethnic samples closely resemble those observed for the
remaining samples in our analysis. Moreover, although we observe
variability in the magnitude of contact–prejudice effects across
different intergroup contexts, the relationships between contact
and prejudice remain significant across samples involving different
target groups, age groups, geographical areas, and contact
settings. These results support the recent extension of intergroup
contact theory to a variety of intergroup contexts, beyond its
original focus on racial and ethnic groups. In sum, our metaanalytic
results provide substantial evidence that intergroup contact
can contribute meaningfully to reductions in prejudice across
a broad range of groups and contexts.
What Role Do Allport’s Conditions Play in Helping
Contact to Reduce Prejudice?
Results from the meta-analysis also offer important insights
regarding the role of Allport’s conditions in reducing prejudice
through intergroup contact. Consistent with much of the intergroup
contact literature (see Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998), those samples
that experienced carefully structured contact situations designed
to meet Allport’s optimal conditions achieved a markedly
higher mean effect size than did other samples. Moreover, a
multivariate model shows that structured contact predicted stronger
contact–prejudice effects, beyond that explained by multiple
indices of research rigor. This trend emerged for racial and ethnic
samples as well as for the remaining samples in our analysis.
Taken together, these results show that establishing Allport’s optimal
conditions in the contact situation generally enhances the
positive effects of intergroup contact.
At the same time, Allport’s conditions are not essential for
intergroup contact to achieve positive outcomes. In particular, we
found that samples with no claim to these key conditions still show
significant relationships between contact and prejudice. Thus, Allport’s
conditions should not be regarded as necessary for producing
positive contact outcomes, as researchers have often assumed
in the past. Rather, they act as facilitating conditions that enhance
the tendency for positive contact outcomes to emerge.
Moreover, further examination of Allport’s conditions suggests
that institutional support may be an especially important condition
for facilitating positive contact effects. Although the present analysis
offers a relatively crude test, samples with structured programs
showed significantly stronger contact–prejudice effects than
the remaining samples, irrespective of whether they were rated as
having conditions beyond authority support. At the same time, it is
important to note that our ratings of authority support were conducted
in the context of structured programs designed to approximate
optimal conditions for positive intergroup contact. Hence,
although authority support appears to play an important role, this
condition should not be conceived of or implemented in isolation.
Institutional support for contact under conditions of competition or
unequal status can often enhance animosity between groups,
thereby diminishing the potential for achieving positive outcomes
from contact (see Sherif, 1966). Thus, consistent with Allport’s
original contentions, we believe that optimal conditions for contact
are best conceptualized as functioning together to facilitate positive
intergroup outcomes rather than as entirely separate factors.
Moving Toward a Reformulation of Intergroup Contact
Theory
Combined with other recent empirical advances, these metaanalytic
findings suggest new ways of thinking about the likely
effects of intergroup contact. We posit that the process underlying
contact’s ability to reduce prejudice involves the tendency for
familiarity to breed liking. Emphasized by Homans (1950) and
demonstrated experimentally by Zajonc (1968), this phenomenon
leads to the prediction that intergroup contact will induce liking
under a wide range of conditions. Research has consistently found
evidence for the relationship between exposure and liking with a
range of targets (e.g., Bornstein, 1989; Harmon-Jones & Allen,
2001; Lee, 2001) and across varied research settings (e.g., Moreland
& Zajonc, 1977; Zajonc & Rajecki, 1969). Moreover, recent
work has demonstrated that the increases in liking that derive from
exposure can generalize to greater liking for related, yet unknown,
targets (Rhodes et al., 2001); this is comparable to the generalization
of contact’s effects to unknown outgroup members.
These mere exposure findings also help to explain why Allport’s
optimal conditions prove not to be essential for the positive effects
of contact to emerge. Although 94% of the 713 samples in our
analysis showed an inverse relationship between intergroup contact
and prejudice, only 19% of the samples involved contact
766 PETTIGREW AND TROPP
situations structured in line with Allport’s conditions.12
Consider
two relevant examples: Van Dyk (1990) found that rural
Afrikaans-speaking White housewives who had close contact with
their African domestic workers had more favorable attitudes toward
Africans in general (r ϭ Ϫ.09). Conducted during the tense
final days of South Africa’s apartheid policy, this contact situation
sharply violates Allport’s key conditions. Likewise, Crain and
Weisman (1972) found that adult African Americans who reported
having played with Whites as children were less anti-White (r ϭ
Ϫ.08), although they had experienced racially segregated neighborhoods
and elementary schools. Like these examples, many of
the meta-analysis’ studies conspicuously lack Allport’s key conditions
for positive contact outcomes and yet report some reduction
in prejudice.
In turn, these trends beg the following question: If Allport’s
optimal conditions are not essential for achieving positive intergroup
outcomes, then what might be necessary? An answer to this
central question is forming from the confluence of several new
lines of contemporary research.
Work on the relationship between familiarity and liking suggests
that uncertainty reduction is an important mechanism underlying
these relationships (e.g., Lee, 2001). Complementing this
view, emerging perspectives have pointed to the significance of
reducing intergroup anxiety to achieve reductions in prejudice
from contact (Dijker, 1987; Islam & Hewstone, 1993; Stephan &
Stephan, 1985; Stephan et al., 2002). 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, Mendes, Hunter, & Lickel, 2000;
Gudykunst, 1985; Mendes, Blascovich, Lickel, & Hunter, 2002).
Indeed, Stephan, Stephan, and Gudykunst (1999) have begun the task
of combining the uncertainty reduction and threat reduction theories.
A rapidly growing research literature supports this fresh perspective.
Studies have shown repeatedly that contact can reduce
feelings of threat and anxiety about future cross-group interactions
(Blair, Park, & Bachelor, 2003; Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter,
Lickel, & Kowai-Bell, 2001; Islam & Hewstone, 1993; Paolini,
Hewstone, Cairns, & Voci, 2004; Stephan & Stephan, 1985).
Moreover, recent studies have demonstrated that intergroup anxiety
mediates the relationships between intergroup contact and
prejudice (e.g., Paolini et al., 2004; Stephan et al., 2002; Voci &
Hewstone, 2003). Thus, more positive contact outcomes can be
achieved to the extent that anxiety is reduced (Brown & Hewstone,
2005). Reducing negative feelings such as anxiety and threat
represents an important means by which intergroup contact diminishes
prejudice.13
Directions for Future Research
These findings, along with recent work on familiarity and liking,
suggest a new orientation for future theory and research on intergroup
contact. In particular, social psychologists must grant
greater attention to the negative factors that deter intergroup contact
from diminishing prejudice. 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 reduce prejudice
and promote positive intergroup outcomes. Ever since, explorations
of contact theory have focused largely on positive factors.
But the meta-analytic data reveal that the knowledge gained from
past contact research is limited by its primary emphasis on positive
features of the contact situation. 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, Wagner, Stellmacher, & Christ,
2006), 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.
New developments also suggest that the effects of these factors
are likely to be moderated by the degree to which group membership
is salient during contact. Voci and Hewstone (2003) have
shown that anxiety mediates the relationship between contact and
prejudice when group salience is high but that such mediation is
less pronounced when group salience is low.
Other studies have demonstrated that contact effects are more
likely to generalize when group membership is salient (Brown &
Hewstone, 2005). Indeed, this Hewstone and Brown (1986) contention
may explain why the meta-analytic results reveal such
widespread generalization. It is likely that the demands of the contact
research situation (or the need for reflection by those reporting on past
contact) led to high group salience in most of the studies.
These advances raise the possibility of the development of a
model considerably more complex and complete than Allport’s
original “contact hypothesis.” Contemporary research has examined
a range of additional mediators of contact effects, including
perspective taking (Craig, Cairns, Hewstone, & Voci, 2002),
broadened views of the ingroup (e.g., Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000;
Pettigrew, 1998; Sherif, 1966), and the perceived importance of
the contact (Van Dick et al., 2004). The search for mediators has
also involved an expanded investigation of contact effects. Beyond
the influence of contact on prejudice, researchers have tested the
effects of intergroup contact on such variables as intergroup differentiation
and outgroup variability (Islam & Hewstone, 1993;
Oaker & Brown, 1986; Paolini et al., 2004), ingroup pride (London
& Linney, 1993), and a willingness to trust and forgive the outgroup
(Hewstone et al., 2005).
12
It is possible that this result could reflect a selection bias involving the
intergroup situations researchers choose to study. But this type of situational
selection bias appears highly unlikely. Our file contains many
studies, such as the examples just described, where the contact situation is
far less than optimal. More important, most of the studies in this metaanalysis
involve survey and questionnaire research. Here, the subjects
report on whatever intergroup contact they have had. Thus, there is limited
information regarding the contact conditions, and the researchers had no
control over the situations involved.
13
Not all contact experiences are positive, of course. Although most of
the contact studies in our analysis focused on positive contact outcomes,
some recent work has shown that negative intergroup experiences can
enhance feelings of anxiety and threat and hinder the development of
positive orientations toward the outgroup (Plant, 2004; Plant & Devine,
2003; Stephan & Stephan, 1985; Tropp, 2003).
767META-ANALYTIC TEST OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY
Given the current state of the research literature, there is little
need to demonstrate further contact’s general ability to lessen
prejudice. Results from the meta-analysis conclusively show that
intergroup contact can promote reductions in intergroup prejudice.
Moreover, the meta-analytic findings reveal that contact theory
applies beyond racial and ethnic groups to embrace other types of
groups as well. As such, intergroup contact theory now stands as
a general social psychological theory and not as a theory designed
simply for the special case of racial and ethnic contact.
Still, continued advances in understanding intergroup contact
require more extensive longitudinal research. To date, findings
from longitudinal studies typically have shown the persistence of
the prejudice reduction achieved by contact (e.g., Eller & Abrams,
2003; Levin et al., 2003). But such studies are rare. In addition to
learning about the persistence of contact effects, it is necessary to
determine the effects of long-term intergroup contact. Similar to
mere exposure effects, we predict that, with continued contact, the
reduction of prejudice would asymptote at some point and provide
few further gains.
In addition, more elaborate models are needed to integrate and
account for these varied intergroup contact effects. Some such models
have begun to emerge (e.g., Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Gaertner &
Dovidio, 2000; Pettigrew, 1998), many of which use complex structural
models (e.g., Eller & Abrams, 2003; Paolini et al., 2004; Van
Dick et al., 2004; Voci & Hewstone, 2003; Wagner et al., 2003). For
the future, multilevel models that consider both positive and negative
factors in the contact situation, along with individual, structural, and
normative antecedents of the contact, will greatly enhance researchers’
understanding of the nature of intergroup contact effects. And as
the contact literature continues to expand rapidly with rigorous methods
and attention to theory, we anticipate that the future will witness
the development of such comprehensive models of intergroup contact.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley.
Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological
Bulletin, 71, 319–342.
Amir, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and
race relations. In P. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Towards the elimination
of racism (pp. 245–308). New York: Pergamon Press.
Baker, P. E. (1934). Negro–White adjustment. New York: Association Press.
Begg, C. B. (1994). Publication bias. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.),
The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 399–409). New York: Sage.
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.
Blair, I. V., Park, B., & Bachelor, J. (2003). Understanding intergroup
anxiety: Are some people more anxious than others? Group Processes
and Intergroup Relations, 6(2), 151–169.
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: 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.
Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis
of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 263–289.
Brameld, T. (1946). Minority problems in the public schools. New York:
Harper.
Brophy, I. N. (1946). The luxury of anti-Negro prejudice. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 9, 456–466.
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.
Cagle, L. T. (1973). Interracial housing: A reassessment of the equal-status
contact hypothesis. Sociology and Social Research, 57, 342–355.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasiexperimental
designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Carithers, M. W. (1970). School desegregation and racial cleavage, 1954–
1970: A review of the literature. Journal of Social Issues, 26, 25–47.
Catlin, J. B. (1977). The impact of interracial living on the racial attitudes
and interaction patterns of White college students. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Michigan.
Chirot, D., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2001). Ethnopolitical warfare: Causes,
consequences, and possible solutions. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cook, S. W. (1969). Motives in a conceptual analysis of attitude-related
behavior. In J. Brigham & T. Weissbach (Eds.), Racial attitudes in
America: Analyses and findings of social psychology (pp. 250–260).
New York: Harper and Row.
Cook, S. W. (1978). Interpersonal and attitudinal outcomes in cooperating
interracial groups. Journal of Research and Development in Education,
12, 97–113.
Cook, S. W. (1984). Cooperative interaction in multiethnic contexts. In N.
Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of
desegregation (pp. 155–185). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Cook, T. D., Cooper, H., Cordray, D. S., Hartman, H., Hedges, L. V.,
Light, R. J., et al. (1992). Some generic issues and problems for metaanalysis.
In T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartman, L. V.
Hedges, R. J., Light, et al. (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A
casebook (pp. 283–320). New York: Sage.
Coursol, A., & Wagner, E. E. (1986). Effect of positive findings on
submission and acceptance rates: A note on meta-analysis bias. Professional
Psychology, 17, 136–137.
Craig, J., Cairns, E., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2002). Young people’s
attitudes to and contact with members of the religious out-group. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Ulster.
Crain, R. L., & Weisman, C. S. (1972). Discrimination, personality, and
achievement. New York: Seminar Press.
Deutsch, M., & Collins, M. (1951). Interracial housing: A psychological
evaluation of a social experiment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Dickersin, K. (1997). How important is publication bias? A synthesis of
available data. AIDS Education and Prevention, 9(Suppl. A), 15–21.
Dickersin, K., Min, Y. I., & Meinert, C. L. (1992). Factors influencing the
publication of research results: Follow up of applications submitted to
two institutional review boards. Journal of the American Medical Association,
267, 867–872.
Dijker, A. J. M. (1987). Emotional reactions to ethnic minorities. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 305–325.
Duval, S. J., & Tweedie, R. L. (2000a). A nonparametric “trim and fill”
method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of
the American Statistical Association, 95, 89–98.
Duval, S. J., & Tweedie, R. L. (2000b). Trim and fill: A simple funnelplot-based
method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in metaanalysis.
Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463.
Easterbrook, P. J., Berlin, J. A., Gopalan, R., & Mathews, D. R. (1991).
Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet, 337, 867–872.
Eller, A. L., & Abrams, D. (2003). “Gringos” in Mexico: Cross-sectional
768 PETTIGREW AND TROPP
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.
Festinger, L., & Kelley, H. (1951). Changing attitudes through social
contact. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social
Research.
Fine, G. A. (1979). The Pinkston settlement: An historical and social
psychological investigation of the contact hypothesis. Phylon, 40, 229–
242.
Forbes, H. D. (1997). Ethnic conflict: Commerce, culture, and the contact
hypothesis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ford, R. N. (1941). Scaling experience by a multiple-response technique:
A study of White–Negro contacts. American Sociological Review, 6,
9–23.
Ford, W. S. (1986). Favorable intergroup contact may not reduce prejudice:
Inconclusive journal evidence, 1960–1984. Sociology and Social Research,
70, 256–258.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The
common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Gathing, L. (1991). Generality vs. specificity of attitudes toward people
with disabilities. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 64, 55–64.
Glass, G. V. J., McCaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social
research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1985). A model of uncertainty reduction in intercultural
encounters. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 79–97.
Hamilton, D. L., & Bishop, G. D. (1976). Attitudinal and behavioral effects
of initial integration of White suburban neighborhoods. Journal of Social
Issues, 32, 47–67.
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.
Harper, D. C., & Wacker, D. P. (1985). Children’s attitudes toward
disabled peers and the effects of mainstreaming. Academic Psychology
Bulletin, 7, 87–98.
Harrington, H. J., & Miller, N. (1992). Research and theory in intergroup
relations: Issues of consensus and controversy. In J. Lynch, C. Modgil,
& S. Modgil (Eds.), Cultural diversity and the schools (Vol. 2, pp.
159–178). London: Falmer.
Hedges, L. V. (1994). Fixed effects models. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges
(Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 285–299). New York: Sage.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis.
New York: Academic Press.
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., & 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). Cambridge,
MA: Basil Blackwell.
Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Voci, A., Paolini, S., McLernon, F., Crisp, R. J.,
et al. (2005). 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. Philadelphia:
Psychology Press.
Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace, &
World.
Hood, M. V., III, & Morris, I. L. (2000). Brother, can you spare a dime?
Racial/ethnic context and the Anglo vote on Proposition 187. Social
Science Quarterly, 81, 194–206.
Hopkins, N., Reicher, S., & Levine, M. (1997). On the parallels between
social cognition and the “new racism.” British Journal of Social Psychology,
36, 305–329.
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 outgroup variability, and outgroup
attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
19, 700–710.
Jackson, J. W. (1993). Contact theory of intergroup hostility: A review and
evaluation of the theoretical and empirical literature. International Journal
of Group Tensions, 23, 43–65.
Johnson, B. T. (1993). DSTAT: Software for the meta-analytic review of
research literatures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Quantitative synthesis of social
psychological research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of
research methods in social psychology (pp. 496–528). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Kephart, W. M. (1957). Racial factors and urban law enforcement. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lee, A. Y. (2001). The mere exposure effect: An uncertainty reduction
explanation revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,
1255–1266.
Lett, H. A. (1945). Techniques for achieving interracial cooperation. Proceedings
of the Institute on Race Relations and Community Organization.
Chicago: University of Chicago and the American Council on Race
Relations.
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.
Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing up: The science of
reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Link, B. G., & Cullen, F. T. (1986). Contact with the mentally ill and
perceptions of how dangerous they are. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 27, 289–303.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological,
educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis.
American Psychologist, 48, 1181–1209.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
London, L. H., & Linney, J. A. (1993). Kids’ College: Enhancing children’s
understanding and acceptance of cultural diversity. Unpublished
manuscript, Loyola University.
McClendon, M. J. (1974). Interracial contact and the reduction of prejudice.
Sociological Focus, 7, 47–65.
Mendes, W. B., Blascovich, J., Lickel, B., & Hunter, S. (2002). Challenge
and threat during social interaction with White and Black men. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 939–952.
Moreland, R. L., & Zajonc, R. B. (1977). Is stimulus recognition a
necessary condition for the occurrence of exposure effects? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 191–199.
Mosteller, F., & Colditz, G. A. (1996). Understanding research synthesis
(meta-analysis). Annual Review of Public Health, 17, 1–23.
Naor, M., & Milgram, R. M. (1980). Two preservice strategies for preparing
regular class teachers for mainstreaming. Exceptional Children, 47,
126–129.
Nesdale, D., & Todd, P. (1998). Intergroup ratio and the contact hypothesis.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1196–1217.
Nesdale, D., & Todd, P. (2000). Effect of contact on intercultural acceptance:
A field study. Intergroup ratio and the contact hypothesis. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 341–360.
Oaker, G., & Brown, R. (1986). Intergroup relations in a hospital setting:
A further test of social identity theory. Human Relations, 39, 767–778.
Otten, S., Mummendey, A., & Blanz, M. (1996). Intergroup discrimination
in positive and negative outcome allocations: Impact of stimulus va-
769META-ANALYTIC TEST OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY
lence, relative group status, and relative group size. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 568–581.
Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & 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 anxietyreduction
mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,
770–786.
Patchen, M. (1999). Diversity and unity: Relations between racial and
ethnic groups. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1971). Racially separate or together? New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1986). The contact hypothesis revisited. In H. Hewstone
& R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp.
169–195). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
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., & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce
prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing
prejudice and discrimination: Social psychological perspectives (pp.
93–114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pettigrew, T. F., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2006). Why
does authoritarianism predict prejudice? The mediators of a global
phenomenon. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Plant, E. A. (2004). Responses to interracial interactions over time. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1458–1471.
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (2003). The antecedents and implications of
interracial anxiety. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,
790–801.
Powers, D. A., & Ellison, C. G. (1995). Interracial contact and Black racial
attitudes: The contact hypothesis and selectivity bias. Social Forces, 74,
205–226.
Raudenbush, S. W. (1994). Random effects models. In H. Cooper & L. V.
Hedges (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis (pp. 301–321). New
York: Sage.
Rhodes, G., Halberstadt, J., & Brajkovich, G. (2001). Generalization of
mere exposure effects to averaged composite faces. Social Cognition,
19, 57–70.
Riordan, C. (1978). Equal-status interracial contact: A review and revision
of the concept. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 161–
185.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Rev.
ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin,
118, 183–192.
Rotton, J., Foos, P. W., Van Meek, L., & Levitt, M. (1995). Publication
practices and the file drawer problem: A survey of published authors.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 1–13.
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a
narrow database on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515–530.
Shadish, W. R., Doherty, M., & Montgomery, L. M. (1989). How many
studies are in the file drawer? An estimate from the family/marital
psychotherapy literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 589–603.
Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1993). The contact hypothesis revisited:
Black–White interaction and positive racial attitudes. Social Forces, 71,
781–795.
Smith, M. L. (1980). Publication bias and meta-analysis. Evaluation in
Education, 4, 22–24.
Sommer, B. (1987). The file drawer effect and publication rates in menstrual
cycle research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 233–242.
Stephan, W. G. (1987). The contact hypothesis in intergroup relations. In
C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Group
processes and intergroup relations (Vol. 9, pp. 13–40). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
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 Whites. 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
intercultural relations: A comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management
theory and integrated threat theory. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 23, 613–628.
Sterne, J. A. C., & Egger, M. (2000). High false positive rates for trim and
fill method. British Journal of Medicine. Retrieved February 5, 2004,
from http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/ 320/7249/1574#EL1.
Sutton, A. J., Duval, S. J., Tweedie, R. L., Abrams, K. R., & Jones, D. R.
(2000). Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on metaanalysis.
British Journal of Medicine, 320, 1574–1577.
Sutton, A. J., Song, F., Gilbody, S. M., & Abrams, K. R. (2000). Modeling
publication bias in meta-analysis: A review. Statistical Methods in
Medical Research, 9, 421–445.
Taft, R. (1959). Ethnic stereotypes, attitudes, and familiarity: Australia.
Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 177–186.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social
categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 1, 149–178.
Tropp, L. R. (2003). The psychological impact of prejudice: Implications
for intergroup contact. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6,
131–149.
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 Dyk, A. C. (1990). Voorspellers van etniese houdings in Јn noue
kontaksituasie [Determinants of ethnic attitudes in a close contact situation].
South African Journal of Psychology, 20, 206–214.
Vevea, J. L., & Hedges, L. V. (1995). A general linear model for estimating
effect size in the presence of publication bias. Psychometrika, 60,
419–435.
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., 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.
Watson, G. (1946). Unity for action. Jewish Affairs, 1, 3–22.
Williams, R. M., Jr. (1947). The reduction of intergroup tensions. New
York: Social Science Research Council.
Wilner, D. M., Walkley, R. P., & Cook, S. W. (1952). Human relations in
interracial housing: A study of the contact hypothesis. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Wilson, D. B. (2002). SPSS macros for meta-analytic data. Retrieved
January 14, 2002, from http://mason.gmu.edu/ϳdwilsonb/ma.html
Wilson, T. C. (1996). Prejudice reduction or self-selection? A test of the
contact hypothesis. Sociological Spectrum, 16, 43–60.
Works, E. (1961). The prejudice-interaction hypothesis from the point of
view of the Negro minority group. American Journal of Sociology, 67,
47–52.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 9(Monograph Suppl. 2), 1–27.
Zajonc, R. B., & Rajecki, D. W. (1969). Exposure and affect: A field
experiment. Psychonomic Science, 17, 216–217.
770 PETTIGREW AND TROPP
Appendix: Ratings of Samples Included in the Meta-Analysis
Reference Sample r Test Statistic Choice Pub Type B/W Control IV IVQ DVQ Prog Target Age Sex Geo Set N
Abu-Hilal (1986) 1 Ϫ.210 r Ϫ.210 full 2 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 coll b/u 6 m/o 353
Adams (1992) 1 Ϫ.345 r Ϫ.345* full 2 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 42
2 Ϫ.323 r Ϫ.323* full 2 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 26
3 Ϫ.508 r Ϫ.508* full 2 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 51
4 Ϫ.346 r Ϫ.346* full 2 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 67
5 Ϫ.300 r Ϫ.300* full 2 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 58
Aday et al. (1991) 1 Ϫ.311 t Ϫ2.29* none 1 2 B 2 2 4 3 2 2 child b/u 1 m/o 49
Aday et al. (1993) 1 Ϫ.487 t Ϫ3.48 none 1 2 B 2 2 4 3 2 2 adol b/u 1 rec 39
Alderfer et al. (1992) 1 Ϫ.105 F 5.29* some 1 2 B 4 2 99 2 2 1 adult b/u 1 org 477
Aljeaid (1986) 1 Ϫ.330 M/SD p ϭ .000 some 2 1 B 2 1 1 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 edu 296
Allport & Kramer (1946) 1 Ϫ.154 Prop 51/66* full 1 1 B 4 1 2 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 393
Alreshoud & Koeske
(1997) 1 Ϫ.290 r Ϫ.290 full 1 2 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 74
Altrocchi & Eisdorfer
(1961) 1 Ϫ.200 Prop 82/93 some 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 5 coll f 1 edu 49
2 Ϫ.181 Prop 93/100 some 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 5 coll f 1 edu 192
Amir & Ben-Ari (1985) 1 Ϫ.088 t Ϫ.088 full 1 2 W 1 2 99 3 1 1 adult b/u 3 trav 483
Amir & Garti (1977) 1 Ϫ.158 t Ϫ2.80 some 1 1 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 adol f 3 rec 78
2 Ϫ.123 t Ϫ1.16 some 1 1 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 adol f 3 rec 22
Amir et al. (1978) 1 Ϫ.067 t Ϫ2.75* some 1 1 W 1 3 99 2 1 1 adol b/u 3 edu 419
2 ϩ.023 t ϩ1.15* some 1 1 W 1 3 99 2 1 1 adol b/u 3 edu 614
Amsel & Fichten (1988) 1 Ϫ.419 t Ϫ4.95* full 1 1 B 2 1 1 2 1 4 coll b/u 4 m/o 117
Angermeyer &
Matshinger (1997) 1 Ϫ.134 Prop 36/50* some 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 5 adult b/u 2 m/o 1,484
Anthony (1969) 1 Ϫ.361 t Ϫ2.44* full 1 1 B 4 2 4 3 2 4 coll b/u 1 rec 42
Antonak (1981) 1 Ϫ.150 r Ϫ.150* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 4 coll b/u 1 m/o 326
Antonak et al. (1989) 1 Ϫ.132 p .000 full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 6 adult b/u 1 m/o 557
Archie & Sherrill (1989) 1 Ϫ.096 Prop 54/67* some 1 1 B 2 3 99 3 1 4 child b/u 1 edu 229
Arguc (1995) 1 Ϫ.015 r Ϫ.015* some 2 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 1 adult m 2 m/o 96
Arikan & Uysal (1999) 1 Ϫ.054 t Ϫ2.74* some 1 1 W 3 1 1 3 1 5 coll b/u 6 edu 630
Arkar & Eker (1992) 1 Ϫ.092 p .400 none 1 1 B 3 1 1 3 1 5 adult b/u 6 org 84
Aronson & Page (1980) 1 Ϫ.140 p .364* full 1 2 B 2 2 99 2 2 5 coll b/u 1 org 42
Auerbach & Levinson
(1977) 1 ϩ.519 Prop 88/38 none 1 2 B 3 3 99 2 1 2 coll b/u 1 edu 120
Bagget (1981) 1 Ϫ.090 t Ϫ0.68* none 1 2 B 3 2 4 2 2 2 child b/u 1 edu 56
Ballard et al. (1977) 1 Ϫ.339 M/SD p ϭ .051* some 1 2 B 3 2 99 4 2 6 child b/u 1 edu 33
Barnard & Benn (1987) 1 Ϫ.197 F 11.34 some 1 3 W 1 2 4 2 2 1 coll m 1 lab 48
Barnea & Amir (1981) 1 .000 p ns some 1 1 B 4 3 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 3 m/o 209
2 .000 p ns some 1 1 B 4 3 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 3 m/o 209
Basu & Ames (1970) 1 Ϫ.484 r Ϫ.484* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 562
Beh-Pajooh (1991) 1 Ϫ.341 M/SD p ϭ .000* some 1 1 B 2 1 1 2 1 6 coll b/u 2 edu 132
Bekker & Taylor (1966) 1 Ϫ.258 M/SD p ϭ .01 none 1 1 B 2 3 1 2 1 2 coll b/u 1 m/o 100
Belan (1996) 1 Ϫ.077 F 1.75* some 2 1 B 4 1 2 3 1 5 adult b/u 1 m/o 296
Bell (1962) 1 Ϫ.216 t Ϫ2.07* full 1 1 B 3 1 99 2 1 4 adult b/u 1 m/o 110
Benedict et al. (1988) 1 Ϫ.193 r Ϫ.193* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 99 adult b/u 1 m/o 112
2 Ϫ.143 r Ϫ.143* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 99 adult b/u 1 m/o 112
Benedict et al. (1992) 1 –.205 r Ϫ.205* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 99 adult b/u 1 m/o 314
Berg & Wolleat (1973) 1 ϩ.235 M/SD p ϭ .02 some 1 1 B 2 1 2 3 1 1 child b/u 1 m/o 100
Bergmann & Erb (1997) 1 Ϫ.205 Prop 20/40* full 1 1 B 2 1 1 2 1 1 adult b/u 2 m/o 2,102
Bicknese (1974) 1 Ϫ.195 p .25* full 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 2 edu 19
2 Ϫ.108 p .52* full 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 2 edu 18
3 Ϫ.173 p .25* full 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 2 edu 22
Biernat (1990) 1 Ϫ.118 r Ϫ.118* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 res 78
2 Ϫ.275 r Ϫ.275* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 res 90
Biernat & Crandall
(1994) 1 Ϫ.349 r Ϫ.349* full 1 1 W 1 1 3 2 1 99 coll b/u 1 m/o 116
Borus et al. (1973) 1 Ϫ.250 r Ϫ.250 some 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 1 adult m 1 m/o 1,385
Bowman (1979) 1 Ϫ.201 Prop 25/44 full 1 1 B 2 1 2 1 1 3 adult b/u 5 m/o 322
Bradnum et al. (1993) 1 Ϫ.163 M/SD p ϭ .006 none 1 1 B 3 3 99 2 1 1 adol b/u 6 edu 294
2 Ϫ.221 M/SD p ϭ .000 none 1 1 B 3 3 99 2 1 1 adol b/u 6 edu 336
Brewer & Campbell
(1976) 1 Ϫ.089 r Ϫ.089* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 6 m/o 1,500
Brigham (1993) 1 Ϫ.158 r Ϫ.158* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 280
2 Ϫ.361 r Ϫ.361* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 81
Brigham & Barkowitz
(1978) 1 Ϫ.420 r Ϫ.420 full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 76
(Appendix continues)
771META-ANALYTIC TEST OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY
Appendix (continued)
Reference Sample r Test Statistic Choice Pub Type B/W Control IV IVQ DVQ Prog Target Age Sex Geo Set N
2 Ϫ.130 r Ϫ.130 full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 86
Brigham & Malpass
(1985) 1 Ϫ.580 r Ϫ.580 full 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 78
Brigham & Ready
(1985) 2 Ϫ.210 r Ϫ.210 full 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 90
Brink & Harris (1964) 1 Ϫ.202 Prop 18/36 full 1 1 B 3 1 99 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 1,257
Britt et al. (1996) 1 Ϫ.070 r Ϫ.070* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 131
Brockington et al.
(1993) 1 Ϫ.180 r Ϫ.180* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 5 adult b/u 2 m/o 1,987
Brockman & D’Arcy
(1978) 1 Ϫ.131 Prop 51/64 some 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 5 adult b/u 4 m/o 221
Brooks & Fricdrich
(1970) 1 Ϫ.222 Prop 36/58 some 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 99 adult b/u 1 m/o 85
2 Ϫ.143 Prop 23/36 some 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 99 adult b/u 1 m/o 146
Brooks et al. (1973) 1 Ϫ.125 r Ϫ.125 full 1 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 54
2 Ϫ.300 r Ϫ.300 full 1 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 56
Brophy (1945) 1 Ϫ.433 Prop 28/72 none 1 1 B 4 3 99 2 1 1 adult m 1 org 447
Brown (1997) 1 Ϫ.290 r Ϫ.290* some 2 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 190
Brown & Albee (1966) 1 ϩ.245 t ϩ2.73* none 1 1 B 2 3 99 2 1 1 adult m 1 m/o 120
Brown et al. (1986) 1 Ϫ.143 r Ϫ.143* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 4 1 99 adult f 2 org 29
2 Ϫ.238 r Ϫ.238* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 4 1 99 adult m 2 org 16
3 Ϫ.168 r Ϫ.168* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 4 1 99 adult m 2 org 30
4 Ϫ.010 r Ϫ.010* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 4 1 99 adult m 2 org 39
5 Ϫ.010 r Ϫ.010* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 4 1 99 adult m 2 org 33
Brown et al. (1999) 1 Ϫ.450 r Ϫ.450 some 1 1 W 1 1 3 1 1 1 coll b/u 2 m/o 85
2 Ϫ.230 r Ϫ.230 some 1 1 W 1 1 3 1 1 1 coll b/u 2 m/o 217
Brown et al.
(1999/2001) 1 Ϫ.205 M/SD p ϭ .001* full 2 2 B 3 1 2 3 1 1 adult b/u 2 m/o 262
Bucich-Naylor (1978) 1 Ϫ.041 M/SD p ϭ .73* none 2 2 B 4 2 4 3 2 4 child b/u 1 edu 69
Bullock (1976a/1976b/
1978) 1 Ϫ.298 r Ϫ.298* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adol b/u 1 m/o 2,076
2 Ϫ.101 r Ϫ.101* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adol b/u 1 m/o 1,755
Buono (1981) 1 Ϫ.175 r Ϫ.175* full 2 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 res 121
2 ϩ.029 r ϩ.029* full 2 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 res 50
Burgin & Walker (2000) 1 Ϫ.373 Mult p ϭ .000* some 2 2 B 3 1 3 2 1 1 adol f 5 rec 137
Butler & Wilson (1978) 1 Ϫ.156 r Ϫ.156* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 org 1,490
2 Ϫ.131 r Ϫ.131* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 org 3,000
Caditz (1976) 1 Ϫ.131 MW p ϭ .069* full 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 196
Campbell (1958) 1 Ϫ.067 p p ϭ .01* some 1 1 W 1 3 99 3 1 1 adol b/u 1 edu 746
Canter & Shoemaker
(1960) 1 Ϫ.263 M/SD p ϭ .042* some 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 5 coll f 1 org 30
Carlson & Widaman
(1988) 1 Ϫ.290 F 70.4* full 1 1 B 2 2 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 3 trav 823
Carstensen et al. (1982) 1 Ϫ.382 F 4.35 none 1 2 B 3 2 4 3 2 2 child b/u 1 edu 26
Carter & Mitchell
(1956) 1 Ϫ.218 t Ϫ2.18 some 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 1 adol b/u 1 m/o 124
Casey (1978) 1 Ϫ.210 r Ϫ.210* some 1 1 W 1 1 99 2 1 4 adult b/u 1 edu 100
Caspi (1984) 1 Ϫ.488 Mult p ϭ .001 some 1 2 B 2 2 99 2 2 2 child b/u 1 edu 38
Catlin (1977) 1 Ϫ.084 r Ϫ.084* some 2 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 edu 570
Chadwick et al. (1971) 1 Ϫ.243 r Ϫ.243* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adol b/u 1 edu 300
2 Ϫ.155 r Ϫ.155* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adol b/u 1 edu 35
Chang (1973) 1 Ϫ.197 ␹2
8.87 full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 238
Chang (1998) 1 Ϫ.021 r Ϫ.021* some 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 org 260
2 Ϫ.113 r Ϫ.113* some 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 org 244
Chen et al. (1970) 1 Ϫ.254 Prop 31/56 some 1 1 B 3 1 1 1 1 1 coll b/u 3 m/o 99
Chinsky & Rappaport
(1970) 1 Ϫ.125 p .230 full 1 2 B 2 2 4 2 1 5 coll b/u 1 org 90
2 Ϫ.213 ␹2
10.8* none 1 2 W 1 2 4 2 1 99 adult b/u 1 org 119
Chou & Mak (1998) 1 Ϫ.085 r Ϫ.085* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 5 adult b/u 6 m/o 1,273
Cleland & Cochran
(1961) 1 Ϫ.023 p .750* some 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 6 adol b/u 1 res 98
Cle´ment et al. (1977) 1 Ϫ.140 F 4.68* full 1 1 B 2 2 99 1 1 1 adol b/u 4 trav 253
Clore et al. (1978) 1 Ϫ.151 F 2.56* none 1 2 B 3 2 4 2 2 1 child b/u 1 rec 112
Clunies-Ross &
O’Meara (1989) 1 Ϫ.337 M/SD p ϭ .009* none 1 3 B 3 2 4 3 2 4 child b/u 5 rec 60
Colca et al. (1982) 1 Ϫ.263 F 4.75* none 1 2 B 4 2 4 2 2 1 child b/u 1 edu 64
772 PETTIGREW AND TROPP
Appendix (continued)
Reference Sample r Test Statistic Choice Pub Type B/W Control IV IVQ DVQ Prog Target Age Sex Geo Set N
Cook & Wollersheim
(1976) 1 Ϫ.013 Mult p ϭ .87* some 1 2 B 2 3 99 2 1 6 adol b/u 1 edu 150
Cook (1969) 1 Ϫ.316 Prop 65/91 none 1 3 B 2 2 4 3 2 1 coll f 1 lab 46
Cookston (1973) 1 Ϫ.372 F 5.10* some 2 2 B 3 2 99 2 2 1 coll b/u 1 edu 47
2 Ϫ.272 F 4.92* some 2 2 B 3 2 99 2 2 1 coll b/u 1 edu 62
Cotten-Huston & Waite
(2000) 1 Ϫ.267 Mult p ϭ .000* some 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 3 coll b/u 1 m/o 150
Couper et al. (1991) 1 Ϫ.156 t Ϫ1.68* none 1 2 B 2 2 4 4 2 2 adol b/u 1 lab 114
Cousens & Crawford
(1988)
1 Ϫ.309 M/SD p ϭ .000* some 1 1 B 3 1 2 3 1 5 adult b/u 5 m/o 158
Cowen et al. (1958) 1 ϩ.039 t ϩ0.39 full 1 1 B 3 1 1 3 1 4 adult b/u 1 edu 101
Crain & Weisman
(1972) 1 Ϫ.074 r Ϫ.074 full 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 1 adult m 1 m/o 1,715
2 Ϫ.110 r Ϫ.110 full 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 1 adult f 1 m/o 2,043
Creech (1977) 1 Ϫ.213 F 18.2* full 1 2 W 1 2 4 3 1 5 coll m 1 org 95
Crull & Bruton (1979) 1 Ϫ.196 M/SD p ϭ .000* full 1 1 B 2 1 1 2 1 99 coll b/u 1 m/o 1,043
D’Augelli (1989) 1 Ϫ.143 r Ϫ.143* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 3 coll b/u 1 m/o 101
D’Augelli & Rose
(1990) 1 Ϫ.200 r Ϫ.200* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 3 coll b/u 1 m/o 218
Davidson et al. (1983) 1 Ϫ.330 r Ϫ.330* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 5 m/o 150
Dellmann-Jenkins et al.
(1986) 1 Ϫ.188 Prop 26/44* none 1 2 B 2 2 4 2 2 2 child b/u 1 m/o 30
Dellmann-Jenkins et al.
(1991) 1 Ϫ.235 Prop 85/98* some 1 2 B 3 2 4 4 2 2 child b/u 1 m/o 31
Desforges et al. (1991) 1 Ϫ.150 M/SD p ϭ .21* none 1 2 W 1 2 4 2 2 5 coll b/u 1 lab 35
2 Ϫ.291 M/SD p ϭ .01* none 1 2 W 1 2 4 2 2 5 coll b/u 1 lab 29
Deutsch & Collins
(1951) 1 Ϫ.288 Prop 40/69* none 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult f 1 res 390
Deutsche Shell (2000) 1 Ϫ.250 r Ϫ.250 some 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 adol b/u 2 m/o 3,000
Di Tullio (1982) 1 Ϫ.873 M/SD p ϭ .000* none 2 3 B 2 2 4 3 1 6 adult m 1 org 76
Diamond & Lobitz
(1973) 1 Ϫ.335 t Ϫ3.00* full 1 2 B 1 2 4 2 2 99 coll b/u 1 m/o 73
2 Ϫ.447 t Ϫ3.46* full 1 2 W 1 2 4 2 2 99 adult m 1 m/o 12
Dijker (1987) 1 Ϫ.159 r Ϫ.159* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 adult b/u 2 m/o 95
Distefano & Pryer
(1970) 1 Ϫ.157 p .06* full 1 2 W 1 2 4 2 1 5 adult b/u 1 res 71
Dodson (1970) 1 Ϫ.494 t Ϫ4.40* full 2 2 W 1 2 4 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 edu 15
2 Ϫ.034 t Ϫ0.13* full 2 2 W 1 2 4 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 edu 8
Doka (1985–1986) 1 Ϫ.013 Prop 51/52* full 1 2 B 4 2 4 2 1 2 adol b/u 1 rec 48
Donaldson & Martinson
(1977) 1 Ϫ.253 p .05* none 1 2 B 3 2 4 3 1 4 coll b/u 1 edu 120
Dooley & Frankel
(1990) 1 Ϫ.528 p .000* full 1 2 W 1 2 99 3 2 2 adol b/u 4 res 21
Drake (1957) 1 Ϫ.007 Prop 33/34* none 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 2 coll b/u 1 m/o 397
Dubey (1979) 1 ϩ.134 ␹2
7.72 full 1 1 B 4 1 2 2 1 99 adult b/u 6 res 428
2 Ϫ.173 ␹2
3.25 full 1 1 B 4 1 2 2 1 99 adult b/u 6 res 109
Duckitt (1984) 1 Ϫ.201 r Ϫ.201* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 3 adult b/u 6 m/o 1,420
Dunbar (2000) 1 Ϫ.443 r Ϫ.443 some 2 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 coll b/u 2 m/o 125
Eaton & Clore (1975) 1 Ϫ.185 t Ϫ1.96 some 1 2 B 4 2 4 4 2 1 child b/u 1 rec 112
Eberhardt & Mayberry
(1995) 1 Ϫ.120 r Ϫ.120* full 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 4 adult b/u 5 org 172
Eddy (1986) 1 Ϫ.121 Prop 50/62* some 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 2 coll b/u 1 org 56
Eller (2000) 1 Ϫ.084 r Ϫ.084* some 2 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 coll b/u 2 m/o 104
2 Ϫ.363 r Ϫ.363* full 2 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 99 coll b/u 2 trav 102
3 Ϫ.210 r Ϫ.210* none 2 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 99 adol b/u 2 edu 708
Eller & Abrams (1999) 1 Ϫ.275 r Ϫ.275* some 2 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 coll b/u 6 m/o 67
Eller et al. (1999/2000) 1 Ϫ.297 r Ϫ.297* some 2 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 coll b/u 6/1 edu 239
2 Ϫ.300 r Ϫ.300* some 2 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 coll b/u 6/1 edu 90
Eller et al. (2000) 1 Ϫ.272 r Ϫ.272* some 2 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 adult b/u 6/1 m/o 207
Ellis & Vasseur (1993) 1 Ϫ.437 r Ϫ.437* none 1 3 W 1 1 2 2 1 3 coll b/u 1 m/o 108
Emerton & Rothman
(1978) 1 ϩ.124 t ϩ1.37 full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 4 coll b/u 1 edu 30
Ervin (1993) 1 Ϫ.025 r Ϫ.025* some 2 1 W 1 1 2 1 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 100
2 Ϫ.239 r Ϫ.239* some 2 1 W 1 1 2 1 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 130
Eshel & Dicker (1995) 1 Ϫ.260 M/SD p ϭ .001* some 1 1 B 4 2 99 1 1 1 adol b/u 3 edu 160
Esposito & Peach
(1983)
1 Ϫ.728 p .001 some 1 1 W 1 2 99 2 2 4 child b/u 1 edu 9
(Appendix continues)
773META-ANALYTIC TEST OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY
Appendix (continued)
Reference Sample r Test Statistic Choice Pub Type B/W Control IV IVQ DVQ Prog Target Age Sex Geo Set N
Esposito & Reed (1986) 1 Ϫ.490 M/SD p ϭ .000* some 1 1 B 3 2 99 4 2 4 child b/u 1 edu 92
Evans (1976) 1 Ϫ.539 M/SD p ϭ .001* none 1 3 B 1 2 4 3 2 4 coll b/u 1 lab 60
Felton (1975) 1 Ϫ.473 t Ϫ2.84 full 1 2 W 1 2 99 3 2 4 adult f 1 org 7
Fenrick & Petersen
(1984) 1 Ϫ.451 Mult p ϭ .000* none 1 2 B 3 2 4 2 2 99 child b/u 1 edu 63
Fichten & Amsel (1986) 1 .000 p ns some 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 4 coll b/u 4 m/o 115
Fichten et al. (1988) 1 Ϫ.206 p .05 full 1 1 B 2 1 2 1 1 4 adult b/u 4 edu 91
Fichten et al. (1989) 1 Ϫ.158 t Ϫ1.73 full 1 1 B 2 1 1 2 1 4 coll b/u 4 m/o 125
Finchilescu (1988) 1 Ϫ.335 F 14.3* some 1 1 B 2 2 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 6 org 113
Florian & Kehat (1987) 1 Ϫ.079 M/SD p ϭ .46 none 1 1 B 3 2 4 3 2 4 adol b/u 1 m/o 88
Floyd (1970) 1 Ϫ.170 Prop 44/61 some 2 1 B 2 1 2 2 1 5 adult f 1 m/o 131
Foley (1977) 1 Ϫ.070 F Ϫ0.070 full 1 1 W 1 3 99 2 1 1 adult m 1 m/o 40
2 Ϫ.223 r Ϫ.223 some 1 1 W 1 3 99 2 1 1 adult m 1 org 30
Ford (1973) 1 Ϫ.503 Prop 24/74* some 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult f 1 res 72
2 Ϫ.148 Prop 43/58* none 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult f 1 res 73
Friedman (1975) 1 Ϫ.266 M/SD p ϭ .05 none 2 2 B 2 2 4 3 2 4 child b/u 1 edu 55
Friesen (1966) 1 Ϫ.250 r Ϫ.250 some 2 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 4 adult b/u 6 org 241
2 Ϫ.310 r Ϫ.310 some 2 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 4 adult b/u 6 org 135
Furnham & Gibbs
(1984) 1 Ϫ.178 F 8.10* full 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 4 adol b/u 2 m/o 135
Furnham & Pendred
(1983) 1 .000 p ns some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 4 adult b/u 2 m/o 96
Furuto & Furuto (1983) 1 Ϫ.232 p .01* none 1 3 B 3 2 4 2 2 1 coll b/u 1 lab 124
Gaertner et al. (1994) 1 Ϫ.328 r Ϫ.328* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adol b/u 1 edu 1,181
Gaertner et al. (1999) 1 Ϫ.143 F 12.11* none 1 3 B 2 2 4 2 2 99 coll b/u 1 lab 576
Gardner et al. (1969) 1 .106 O p ϭ .38* full 1 1 B 2 2 99 2 1 1 adult b/u 6 m/o 68
Gardner et al. (1973) 1 Ϫ.115 O p ϭ .01* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 1 coll b/u 6 edu 250
Gardner et al. (1974) 1 Ϫ.134 t Ϫ3.92* full 1 1 W 1 1 99 2 1 1 adol b/u 2 trav 211
Gelber (1993) 1 Ϫ.299 M/SD p ϭ .013* none 2 3 W 1 2 4 3 2 4 coll b/u 1 lab 37
2 Ϫ.378 M/SD p ϭ .001* none 2 3 W 1 2 4 3 2 4 coll b/u 1 lab 37
3 Ϫ.415 M/SD p ϭ .000* none 2 3 W 1 2 4 3 2 4 coll b/u 1 lab 38
Gelfand & Ullmann
(1961) 1 Ϫ.295 t Ϫ2.31* full 1 2 B 3 2 4 3 2 5 coll m 1 org 59
Gentry (1987) 1 Ϫ.096 p .18 full 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 3 coll m 1 m/o 96
2 Ϫ.191 p .006 full 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 3 coll f 1 m/o 105
Gerbert et al. (1991) 1 Ϫ.147 p .040* some 1 1 B 4 1 1 3 1 99 adult b/u 1 m/o 1,320
Gething (1991) 1 Ϫ.256 M/SD p ϭ .000 some 1 1 B 4 1 2 3 1 4 adult b/u 5 m/o 460
Glass & Meckler (1972) 1 Ϫ.483 M/SD p ϭ .004 full 1 2 W 1 2 4 1 2 6 adult f 1 edu 18
Glass & Trent (1980) 1 Ϫ.034 F 1.74 none 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 2 adol b/u 1 res 388
Glassner & Owen
(1976) 1 Ϫ.236 r Ϫ.236* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 3 coll b/u 1 edu 61
Glock et al. (1975) 1 Ϫ.259 Prop 53/66 full 1 1 B 2 1 1 3 1 1 adol b/u 1 edu 750
2 Ϫ.186 Prop 41/60 full 1 1 B 2 1 1 3 1 1 adol b/u 1 edu 608
3 Ϫ.101 Prop 31/41 full 1 1 B 2 1 1 3 1 1 adol b/u 1 edu 1,328
Glover & Smith (1997) 1 Ϫ.083 t Ϫ0.53 none 1 1 B 3 2 99 2 1 1 child b/u 1 edu 41
2 Ϫ.503 t Ϫ2.45 none 1 1 B 3 2 99 2 1 1 child b/u 1 edu 19
Goldstein & Simpkins
(1973) 1 Ϫ.471 t Ϫ4.12* full 1 1 W 1 2 99 3 2 99 coll b/u 1 org 15
Gordon & Hallauer
(1976) 1 Ϫ.330 ␹2
6.71* full 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 2 2 coll b/u 1 res 40
Gosse & Sheppard
(1979) 1 Ϫ.244 M/SD p ϭ .000 full 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 4 adol b/u 4 m/o 273
2 .027 M/SD p ϭ .662 full 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 4 adol b/u 4 m/o 268
3 Ϫ.477 M/SD p ϭ .000 full 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 4 coll b/u 4 m/o 155
Goto (2000) 1 Ϫ.395 r Ϫ.395* some 2 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adol b/u 1 m/o 511
2 Ϫ.309 r Ϫ.309* some 2 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adol b/u 1 m/o 135
Gottlieb & Corman
(1975) 1 Ϫ.020 F 0.63* some 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 6 adult b/u 1 m/o 394
Grack & Richman
(1996) 1 Ϫ.713 F 35.15 none 1 3 B 2 2 4 3 2 3 coll b/u 1 lab 34
Graffi & Minnes (1988) 1 .000 p ns full 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 6 child b/u 4 edu 120
Grantham & Block
(1983) 1 Ϫ.089 p .15* some 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 5 coll b/u 1 edu 289
2 Ϫ.095 p .042 some 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 5 coll b/u 1 edu 229
Gray & Thompson
(1953) 1 Ϫ.141 O p ϭ .000 full 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 400
2 Ϫ.447 O p ϭ .000 full 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 300
774 PETTIGREW AND TROPP
Appendix (continued)
Reference Sample r Test Statistic Choice Pub Type B/W Control IV IVQ DVQ Prog Target Age Sex Geo Set N
Green & Stoneman
(1989) 1 .000 p ns some 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 6 adult b/u 1 m/o 117
Greenland & Brown
(1999) 1 Ϫ.549 r Ϫ.549* some 1 1 W 1 1 3 2 1 1 coll b/u 2 m/o 236
2 ϩ.177 r ϩ.177* some 1 1 W 1 1 3 2 1 1 coll b/u 2 m/o 40
Gregory (1997) 1 Ϫ.189 r Ϫ.189 full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 4 coll b/u 1 m/o 140
Gronberg (1982) 1 Ϫ.341 t Ϫ3.58* none 2 2 B 2 2 99 2 2 4 child b/u 1 edu 97
2 Ϫ.346 t Ϫ3.62* none 2 2 B 2 2 99 2 2 4 child b/u 1 edu 96
3 Ϫ.336 t Ϫ3.57* none 2 2 B 2 2 99 2 2 4 child b/u 1 edu 100
Gruesser (1950) 1 Ϫ.142 t Ϫ3.73* full 2 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adol b/u 1 res 737
Gundlach (1950) 1 Ϫ.317 Prop 12/44* some 1 1 B 3 3 99 1 1 1 adult b/u 1 org 1,418
Haddock et al. (1993) 1 Ϫ.170 r Ϫ.170* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 3 coll b/u 4 m/o 151
Hale (1998) 1 Ϫ.384 t Ϫ2.94 some 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 2 adult b/u 1 m/o 50
Hall (1969) 1 .000 p ns some 2 3 B 3 2 4 2 2 6 coll b/u 1 org 264
Hall (1998) 1 Ϫ.186 p .000* full 2 2 B 2 2 4 3 2 99 child b/u 1 rec 303
Hamblin (1962) 1 Ϫ.230 r Ϫ.230 some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 100
2 Ϫ.170 r Ϫ.170 some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 100
Hansen (1982) 1 Ϫ.484 t Ϫ5.44 full 1 1 B 2 1 1 3 1 3 coll b/u 1 m/o 107
Harding & Hogrefe
(1952) 1 Ϫ.030 Prop 55/58* full 1 1 B 2 1 1 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 org 210
Haring et al. (1958) 1 Ϫ.250 t Ϫ.266* full 1 2 B 1 2 4 2 2 4 adult b/u 1 edu 106
Haring et al. (1987) 1 Ϫ.248 p .05* full 1 3 B 2 2 4 4 2 1 adol b/u 1 m/o 59
Harlan (1942) 1 Ϫ.804 M/SD p ϭ .000 full 1 1 B 1 1 1 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 502
Harper & Wacker
(1985) 1 Ϫ.196 O p ϭ .05 some 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 4 child b/u 1 edu 100
Harris & Fiedler (1988) 1 .000 p ns some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 2 child b/u 1 edu 157
Hastings & Graham
(1995) 1 Ϫ.107 F 5.97* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 6 adol b/u 2 edu 128
Hastings et al. (1998) 1 Ϫ.256 F 6.06* some 1 1 B 3 1 1 3 1 4 coll f 2 m/o 87
Hatanaka (1982) 1 Ϫ.225 r Ϫ.225* none 2 2 W 1 2 99 2 2 1 adult b/u 1 lab 128
Hazzard (1983) 1 Ϫ.111 r Ϫ.111* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 4 child b/u 1 m/o 367
He´bert et al. (2000) 1 Ϫ.200 t Ϫ.285* some 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 5 adol b/u 4 m/o 284
Helmstetter et al. (1994) 1 Ϫ.211 M/SD p ϭ .006* some 1 1 B 3 1 2 3 1 4 adol b/u 1 m/o 161
Herek (1988) 1 Ϫ.064 r Ϫ.064* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 3 coll f 1 m/o 73
2 Ϫ.048 r Ϫ.048* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 3 coll m 1 m/o 37
3 Ϫ.135 r Ϫ.135* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 3 coll f 1 m/o 220
4 Ϫ.124 r Ϫ.124* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 3 coll m 1 m/o 169
Herek (1999) 1 Ϫ.389 M/SD p ϭ .000* full 2 1 B 2 1 2 3 1 3 adult f 1 m/o 652
2 Ϫ.302 M/SD p ϭ .000* full 2 1 B 2 1 2 3 1 3 adult m 1 m/o 524
Herek & Capitanio
(1996) 1 Ϫ.354 F 52.3* full 1 1 B 2 1 1 3 1 3 adult b/u 1 m/o 422
Herek & Capitanio
(1997) 1 Ϫ.189 M/SD p ϭ .000* full 1 1 B 2 1 1 2 1 3 adult b/u 1 m/o 594
Herek & Glunt (1993) 1 Ϫ.392 F 152.9 full 1 1 B 2 1 1 3 1 3 adult b/u 1 m/o 937
Herman (1970) 1 Ϫ.160 Prop 37/53 full 1 1 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 56
Hicks & Spaner (1962) 1 Ϫ.479 t Ϫ4.69* none 1 1 B 2 2 99 2 1 5 coll b/u 1 org 78
2 Ϫ.201 Mult p ϭ .01* full 1 1 B 2 2 99 2 1 5 coll b/u 1 org 330
Hill (1984) 1 Ϫ.316 r Ϫ.316* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 2 m/o 200
Hillis (1986) 1 ϩ.075 t ϩ0.77* none 2 2 B 2 2 99 2 2 4 child b/u 1 edu 117
Hillman & Stricker
(1996) 1 Ϫ.280 r Ϫ.280 some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 2 coll b/u 1 m/o 241
Hoeh & Spuck (1975) 1 Ϫ.283 M/SD p ϭ .121* full 1 2 W 1 2 4 3 2 1 adol b/u 1 trav 15
Hofman & Zak (1969) 1 Ϫ.208 p .046* full 1 1 W 1 2 2 2 1 1 adol b/u 6 m/o 46
Holmes et al. (1999) 1 Ϫ.157 r Ϫ.157* some 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 5 adult b/u 1 m/o 83
Holtzman (1956) 1 Ϫ.148 ␹2
23.6* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 539
Holzberg & Gewirtz
(1963) 1 Ϫ.526 t Ϫ4.50 full 1 2 B 2 2 4 2 2 5 coll b/u 1 org 59
Horenczyk & Bekerman
(1997) 1 Ϫ.207 M/SD p ϭ .000 full 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 2 1 adol b/u 6 rec 148
2 Ϫ.148 M/SD p ϭ .076 full 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 adol b/u 6 rec 72
Hortacsu (2000) 1 Ϫ.155 r Ϫ.155 some 1 1 W 1 1 3 2 1 1 coll m 6 edu 47
2 Ϫ.034 r Ϫ.034 some 1 1 W 1 1 3 2 1 1 coll m 6 edu 49
Hraba et al. (1996) 1 Ϫ.208 r Ϫ.208* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 208
2 Ϫ.181 r Ϫ.181* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 193
Hughey (1988) 1 Ϫ.166 r Ϫ.166* some 2 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 4 adult b/u 1 edu 162
Hunt (1960) 1 Ϫ.158 p .01 full 1 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 133
Hunt & Hunt (2000) 1 Ϫ.186 r Ϫ.186* some 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 4 coll b/u 1 m/o 274
(Appendix continues)
775META-ANALYTIC TEST OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY
Appendix (continued)
Reference Sample r Test Statistic Choice Pub Type B/W Control IV IVQ DVQ Prog Target Age Sex Geo Set N
Ibrahim (1970) 1 Ϫ.176 Prop 54/71 full 1 1 B 3 1 3 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 402
Ichildov & Even-Dar
(1984) 1 Ϫ.312 M/SD p ϭ .002* full 1 1 W 1 2 2 3 2 1 adol b/u 3 m/o 49
Iguchi & Johnson
(1966) 1 Ϫ.222 Prop 32/55* full 1 2 B 2 2 4 3 2 5 coll b/u 1 res 98
Ijaz (1980) 1 Ϫ.108 F 1.92* some 2 1 B 4 1 2 2 1 1 adol b/u 4 edu 164
Ingamells et al. (1996) 1 Ϫ.199 t Ϫ2.30 some 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 5 adult b/u 2 m/o 133
Irish (1952) 1 Ϫ.063 p .30* some 1 1 B 4 1 99 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 res 267
Islam & Hewstone
(1993) 1 Ϫ.490 r Ϫ.490* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 1 1 1 coll b/u 6 m/o 65
2 Ϫ.240 r Ϫ.240* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 1 1 1 coll b/u 6 m/o 66
Ivester & King (1977) 1 .000 p ns some 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 2 adol b/u 1 m/o 413
Jackman & Crane
(1986) 1 Ϫ.268 Prop 38/64* full 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 1,131
Jaffe (1966/1967) 1 Ϫ.115 M/SD p ϭ .21 full 1 1 B 2 1 1 2 1 6 adol b/u 1 m/o 119
James (1955) 1 Ϫ.907 Prop 5/95 none 1 1 W 1 2 99 4 2 1 adol b/u 2 edu 43
James-Valutis (1993) 1 Ϫ.188 r Ϫ.188 some 2 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 edu 213
Jaques et al. (1970) 1 .000 p ns some 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 4 coll b/u 2 m/o 360
2 .000 p ns some 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 4 coll b/u 2 m/o 307
3 Ϫ.111 p .005 some 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 4 coll b/u 2 m/o 322
Jeffries & Ransford
(1969) 1 Ϫ.307 Prop 16/46* full 1 1 B 2 1 2 1 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 99
Johannsen et al. (1964) 1 Ϫ.153 p .075* full 1 2 B 3 2 99 3 1 5 coll b/u 1 org 135
Johnson & Johnson
(1981) 1 Ϫ.240 t Ϫ1.56 none 1 3 B 2 2 4 4 2 5 child b/u 1 edu 40
Johnson & Johnson
(1985) 1 Ϫ.377 t Ϫ1.82* none 1 3 B 3 2 4 2 2 4 child b/u 1 edu 20
Johnson & Marini
(1998) 1 Ϫ.469 r Ϫ.469 full 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 adol b/u 1 edu 3,000
2 Ϫ.557 r Ϫ.557 full 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 adol b/u 1 edu 2,648
Johnstone (1992) 1 Ϫ.258 r Ϫ.258* full 2 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 4 coll b/u 1 m/o 185
2 Ϫ.229 r Ϫ.229* full 2 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 4 coll b/u 1 m/o 189
Jones (1960) 1 Ϫ.515 Prop 23/74* some 2 1 B 4 2 99 4 1 1 adult b/u 1 org 76
Jones et al. (1981) 1 Ϫ.364 M/SD p ϭ .006* none 1 3 W 3 2 4 3 2 4 child b/u 1 edu 25
2 Ϫ.537 Mult p ϭ .000* none 1 3 B 3 2 4 3 2 1 child b/u 1 edu 74
Kalson (1976) 1 Ϫ.414 ␹2
5.14 full 1 1 W 1 2 99 2 2 6 adult b/u 1 rec 15
Kamal & Maruyama
(1990) 1 Ϫ.320 r Ϫ.320 full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 187
Kanouse-Roberts (1977) 1 Ϫ.197 t Ϫ1.17* full 2 2 B 3 2 99 2 1 2 adol f 1 org 34
Katz & Yochanan
(1988) 1 Ϫ.533 M/SD p ϭ .000* none 1 1 B 2 2 99 3 2 1 child b/u 3 edu 108
Kelly et al. (1958) 1 Ϫ.286 r Ϫ.286* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 547
Kephart (1957) 1 Ϫ.128 Prop 39/51* some 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 1 adult m 1 org 1,081
Kidwell & Booth (1977) 1 Ϫ.086 p .08* full 1 1 B 4 1 1 2 1 2 adult b/u 1 edu 409
Kierscht & DuHoux
(1980) 1 Ϫ.474 F 40.46 none 1 2 B 2 2 4 2 1 4 child b/u 1 edu 140
Kisabeth & Richardson
(1985) 1 Ϫ.175 M/SD p ϭ .277 none 1 2 B 3 2 4 2 2 4 coll b/u 1 edu 41
Kish & Hood (1974) 1 Ϫ.334 p .013 none 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 5 coll b/u 1 org 28
2 Ϫ.232 p .31 none 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 5 coll b/u 1 org 10
3 Ϫ.228 p .05 none 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 5 coll b/u 1 org 37
Kishi & Meyer (1994) 1 Ϫ.270 M/SD p ϭ .049* some 1 2 B 2 2 4 2 1 4 adol m 1 edu 53
2 Ϫ.317 M/SD p ϭ .006* some 1 2 B 2 2 4 2 1 4 adol f 1 edu 74
Kleinman (1983) 1 Ϫ.203 t Ϫ2.63* full 2 2 W 1 2 99 3 2 5 coll f 1 org 40
Knox et al. (1986) 1 Ϫ.414 r Ϫ.414* full 1 1 W 1 1 3 2 1 2 coll b/u 4 m/o 110
Knussen & Niven
(1999) 1 Ϫ.130 r Ϫ.130 some 1 1 W 4 1 2 2 1 99 adult b/u 2 org 174
Kobe & Mulick (1995) 1 ϩ.019 r ϩ.019* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 6 coll b/u 1 m/o 37
Kocarnik & Ponzetti
(1986) 1 Ϫ.163 t Ϫ.87* some 1 1 B 3 3 99 2 2 2 child b/u 1 edu 30
Koslin et al. (1969) 1 Ϫ.339 M/SD p ϭ .000* some 1 2 B 2 2 4 2 1 1 child b/u 1 edu 64
2 Ϫ.344 M/SD p ϭ .000 some 1 2 B 2 2 4 2 1 1 child b/u 1 Edu 65
Kosmitzki (1996) 1 Ϫ.106 t Ϫ1.24 full 1 1 B 2 1 2 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 254
2 Ϫ.187 t Ϫ1.98 full 1 1 B 2 1 2 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 137
Krajewski & Flaherty
(2000) 1 Ϫ.206 M/SD p ϭ .085* some 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 6 adol m 1 m/o 70
2 Ϫ.110 M/SD p ϭ .177* some 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 6 adol f 1 m/o 74
776 PETTIGREW AND TROPP
Appendix (continued)
Reference Sample r Test Statistic Choice Pub Type B/W Control IV IVQ DVQ Prog Target Age Sex Geo Set N
Kuelker (1996) 1 Ϫ.128 r Ϫ.128* some 2 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 5 adult b/u 4 m/o 489
Kulik et al. (1969) 1 Ϫ.123 t Ϫ2.20 full 1 1 B 2 2 99 2 1 5 coll b/u 1 org 318
Kurtzweil (1995) 1 Ϫ.162 r Ϫ.162* some 2 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 240
Ladd et al. (1984) 1 Ϫ.544 F 26.92 some 1 1 W 1 2 99 4 2 4 adol b/u 1 edu 16
Lambert et al. (1990) 1 Ϫ.225 Prop 82/96* some 1 2 B 3 2 4 2 2 2 child b/u 1 edu 31
Lance (1987) 1 Ϫ.450 Prop 18/61 some 1 2 B 2 1 99 2 1 3 coll b/u 1 edu 46
Lance (1992) 1 Ϫ.332 Prop 35/68 none 1 1 B 2 2 99 3 1 3 coll b/u 1 edu 228
Lance (1994) 1 Ϫ.294 Prop 11/35* full 1 1 B 3 1 1 3 2 3 coll b/u 1 m/o 140
Landis et al. (1985) 1 Ϫ.570 M/SD p ϭ .015* none 1 3 B 4 2 4 4 2 1 coll m 1 lab 18
Larsen (1997) 1 Ϫ.261 r Ϫ.261* some 2 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 11
2 Ϫ.110 r Ϫ.110* some 2 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 6
Lazar et al. (1971) 1 Ϫ.332 M/SD Ϫ2.33 none 1 2 B 2 2 4 3 2 4 child b/u 1 edu 44
Leach (1990) 1 Ϫ.206 Mult p ϭ .041* some 2 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 4 coll b/u 1 m/o 98
Lebhart & Munz (1999) 1 Ϫ.179 Prop 39/57* full 2 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 1 adult b/u 2 m/o 1,999
Leonard (1964) 1 Ϫ.219 t Ϫ4.15 full 1 1 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 2 trav 85
Lepore & Brown (1997) 1 Ϫ.410 r Ϫ.410 full 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 coll b/u 2 edu 162
Lessing et al. (1976) 1 Ϫ.047 F 2.35 some 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 1 adult f 1 edu 269
LeUnes et al. (1975) 1 Ϫ.399 F 32.4* full 1 2 B 2 2 4 2 1 6 coll b/u 1 res 179
Levine et al. (1969) 1 Ϫ.203 Prop 45/65* some 2 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 1 adol b/u 1 m/o 419
2 Ϫ.232 Prop 40/63* some 2 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 1 adol b/u 1 m/o 500
Levinson (1954) 1 Ϫ.220 p .05 full 1 1 W 1 2 99 2 2 1 adult b/u 1 edu 28
2 Ϫ.310 p .01 full 1 1 W 1 2 99 2 2 1 adult b/u 1 edu 28
Levinson &
Schermerhorn (1951) 1 Ϫ.192 M/SD p ϭ .125 full 1 1 W 1 2 99 2 2 1 adult b/u 1 edu 32
Levy et al. (1993) 1 Ϫ.199 F 13.4* some 1 1 B 2 1 2 3 1 4 adult b/u 1 org 324
Lewis & Cleveland
(1966) 1 Ϫ.187 p .031* some 1 2 B 3 2 99 3 2 5 coll b/u 1 org 134
Lewis & Frey (1988) 1 Ϫ.439 F 15.2* some 1 2 B 2 2 99 3 2 99 coll b/u 1 edu 66
Leyser & Abrams
(1983) 1 Ϫ.210 M/SD p ϭ .000 some 1 2 B 3 2 99 3 2 4 coll b/u 1 edu 289
Leyser & Price (1985) 1 Ϫ.111 M/SD p ϭ .39 none 1 2 B 2 2 99 2 1 4 child b/u 1 edu 60
Leyser et al. (1986) 1 Ϫ.176 M/SD p ϭ .005* none 1 2 B 3 2 99 3 2 4 child b/u 1 edu 244
Li & Yu (1974) 1 Ϫ.007 M/SD p ϭ .92* full 1 1 B 2 1 1 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 220
2 ϩ.043 M/SD p ϭ .60 full 1 1 B 2 1 1 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 145
Liebkind et al. (2000) 1 Ϫ.325 r Ϫ.325 some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 adult b/u 2 m/o 104
2 Ϫ.185 r Ϫ.185 some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 adult b/u 2 m/o 185
3 Ϫ.152 r Ϫ.152 some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 adult b/u 2 m/o 86
Link & Cullen (1986) 1 Ϫ.266 M/SD p ϭ .001* some 1 1 B 3 1 3 3 1 5 adult b/u 1 m/o 153
2 Ϫ.249 M/SD p ϭ .003* some 1 1 B 3 1 3 3 1 5 adult b/u 1 m/o 151
Lombardi (1963) 1 .000 p ns some 1 1 B 3 1 2 3 2 1 adol b/u 1 edu 344
Lombroso et al. (1976) 1 Ϫ.096 O p ϭ .01 some 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 5 adol b/u 3 m/o 360
London & Linney
(1993) 1 Ϫ.064 M/SD p ϭ .634 full 2 1 W 1 2 99 2 2 1 child b/u 1 rec 28
2 Ϫ.141 M/SD p ϭ .362 full 2 1 W 1 2 99 2 2 1 child b/u 1 rec 21
Loomis & Schuler
(1948) 1 ϩ.195 O p ϭ .03* full 1 1 W 1 3 99 2 1 1 adult b/u 6 trav 62
Lopes & Vala (2000) 1 Ϫ.207 F 23.2* full 2 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 1 adult b/u 2 m/o 520
Lopez (1993) 1 Ϫ.086 r Ϫ.086* none 2 1 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 edu 480
2 Ϫ.072 r Ϫ.072* none 2 1 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 edu 165
3 Ϫ.045 r Ϫ.045* none 2 1 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 edu 92
Luiz & Krige (1981/
1985) 1 Ϫ.313 t Ϫ2.09* some 1 2 W 1 2 4 3 2 1 adol f 6 edu 10
2 Ϫ.567 t Ϫ4.13 some 1 2 W 1 2 4 3 2 1 adol f 6 edu 9
MacKenzie (1948) 1 Ϫ.276 Prop 16/42* full 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 1 adult m 1 org 36
2 Ϫ.169 Prop 14/28* full 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 1 adult f 1 org 88
3 Ϫ.206 Prop 21/41* full 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 1 adult m 1 org 40
4 Ϫ.180 Prop 29/46* full 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 1 adult f 1 org 26
5 Ϫ.265 Prop 41/67* full 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 1 adult m 1 org 142
6 Ϫ.290 Prop 24/58* full 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 1 adult f 1 org 85
7 Ϫ.347 Prop 20/53* full 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 org 118
MacLean & Gannon
(1995) 1 .000 p ns full 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 4 coll b/u 5 m/o 341
Malla & Shaw (1987) 1 Ϫ.127 p .280* full 1 2 B 3 2 4 2 1 5 coll f 4 edu 71
Maluso (1992) 1 Ϫ.136 M/SD p ϭ .013* none 2 2 B 4 2 99 2 2 1 coll b/u 1 edu 339
Mann (1959/1960) 1 Ϫ.207 p .01 some 1 1 W 1 2 4 4 2 1 adult b/u 1 edu 78
Maoz (2000) 1 Ϫ.265 t Ϫ3.89* some 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 2 1 adol b/u 3 edu 50
2 Ϫ.137 t Ϫ1.87* some 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 2 1 adol b/u 3 edu 46
(Appendix continues)
777META-ANALYTIC TEST OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY
Appendix (continued)
Reference Sample r Test Statistic Choice Pub Type B/W Control IV IVQ DVQ Prog Target Age Sex Geo Set N
Maras & Brown (1996) 1 Ϫ.329 F 5.40* full 1 2 B 2 2 4 2 2 4 child b/u 2 edu 44
Marin (1984) 1 Ϫ.244 r Ϫ.244* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 100
Marin & Salazar (1985) 1 ϩ.325 r ϩ.325* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 coll b/u 6 m/o 1,184
Marion (1980) 1 Ϫ.192 p .01 some 1 1 W 1 2 99 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 90
Marks (1992) 1 Ϫ.150 r Ϫ.150* none 2 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 99 adult b/u 1 org 293
Martin (2000) 1 Ϫ.270 Mult p ϭ .000* some 2 1 B 2 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 2 m/o 420
Marx (1967) 1 ϩ.117 Prop 30/20 some 1 1 B 4 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 782
2 Ϫ.014 Prop 11/12 some 1 1 B 4 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 154
Masson & Verkuyten
(1993) 1 Ϫ.406 r Ϫ.406* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 adol b/u 2 m/o 160
Mathisen (2000) 1 Ϫ.099 r Ϫ.099* none 1 2 W 1 1 2 2 1 5 adol b/u 1 edu 132
Maurice et al. (1975) 1 Ϫ.161 t Ϫ1.82 full 2 1 W 1 2 99 1 1 5 adult b/u 4 org 31
Maxmen (1979) 1 Ϫ.098 t Ϫ2.08* full 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 5 coll b/u 1 edu 111
McClenahan et al.
(1996) 1 Ϫ.073 p .17* some 1 1 W 1 3 99 2 1 1 adol b/u 2 edu 167
2 Ϫ.074 p .30* some 1 1 W 1 3 99 2 1 1 adol b/u 2 edu 96
McConkey et al. (1983) 1 Ϫ.163 Prop 36/52* full 1 1 B 2 1 2 2 1 5 adol f 2 m/o 858
2 Ϫ.094 Prop 62/71* full 1 1 B 2 1 2 2 1 5 adol m 2 m/o 482
McCrady & McCrady
(1976) 1 Ϫ.064 p .43* full 1 1 W 1 3 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 trav 77
McDonald et al. (1987) 1 Ϫ.509 t Ϫ8.33* none 1 1 B 3 3 99 2 1 6 child b/u 5 edu 198
2 Ϫ.279 t Ϫ2.80 none 1 1 B 3 3 99 2 1 6 adult b/u 5 edu 104
McGuigan (1959) 1 Ϫ.318 O p ϭ .000* full 1 2 B 2 2 99 2 1 1 coll f 1 m/o 179
McKirnan & Hamayan
(1984) 1 Ϫ.237 F 11.5* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 1 adol b/u 1 m/o 48
McRainey (1981) 1 Ϫ.209 p .31* some 2 2 B 2 2 99 3 1 4 adult f 1 edu 24
Meer & Freedman
(1966) 1 Ϫ.096 t Ϫ0.68 some 1 1 B 2 3 99 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 res 100
Merkwan & Smith
(1999) 1 .000 p ns some 1 2 W 1 3 99 2 2 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 27
Meshel (1997) 1 Ϫ.222 M/SD p ϭ .152* some 2 3 B 3 2 4 3 2 2 adol b/u 1 edu 42
2 Ϫ.429 M/SD p ϭ .012 some 2 3 W 1 2 4 3 2 2 adult b/u 1 edu 17
Meyer et al. (1980) 1 ϩ.411 p .001 full 1 2 B 3 2 99 3 1 2 adult m 1 org 64
Milem (1992) 1 Ϫ.203 r Ϫ.203* full 2 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 1 coll m 1 edu 3,000
2 Ϫ.221 r Ϫ.221* full 2 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 1 coll f 1 edu 3,000
Miller et al. (1998) 1 Ϫ.185 t Ϫ3.63 full 2 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 93
Millham et al. (1976) 1 Ϫ.037 F 4.25 full 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 3 coll b/u 1 m/o 795
Mills et al. (1998) 1 Ϫ.019 M/SD p ϭ .844* some 1 1 B 4 1 1 2 1 2 coll b/u 1 m/o 104
Moeschl (1978) 1 Ϫ.066 r Ϫ.066 some 2 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 2 coll b/u 1 m/o 144
Mohr & Rochlen (1999) 1 Ϫ.325 F 38.7* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 3 adult b/u 1 m/o 305
2 Ϫ.186 r Ϫ.186* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 3 adult b/u 1 m/o 315
Monroe & Howe (1971) 1 ϩ.632 M/SD p ϭ .000 some 1 1 B 4 3 99 2 1 6 adol m 1 edu 70
Morin (1974) 1 Ϫ.263 Mult p ϭ .110* full 1 1 W 1 2 99 2 1 3 coll b/u 1 edu 18
Morris (1964) 1 Ϫ.168 t Ϫ2.43* some 1 1 W 1 2 4 3 2 5 coll f 1 org 51
Morris & Jeffries (1968) 1 Ϫ.155 Mult p ϭ .000* some 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 583
Mosher-Ashley & Ball
(1999) 1 Ϫ.135 MW p ϭ .07 none 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 2 coll b/u 1 res 123
Most et al. (1999) 1 Ϫ.070 M/SD p ϭ .55* some 1 1 B 3 2 99 3 1 4 adol m 3 edu 70
2 Ϫ.010 M/SD p ϭ .93* some 1 1 B 3 2 99 3 1 4 adol f 3 edu 70
Murphy et al. (1993) 1 .000 p ns some 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 6 adult b/u 2 m/o 155
Murphy-Russell et al.
(1986) 1 Ϫ.302 M/SD p ϭ .006* none 1 2 B 3 2 4 3 1 2 coll b/u 1 lab 84
Mussen (1950) 1 Ϫ.033 M/SD p ϭ .76 full 1 1 W 1 2 99 3 1 1 child m 1 rec 106
Nabuzoka & Renning
(1997) 1 Ϫ.796 M/SD p ϭ .000 some 1 2 B 3 2 99 2 1 6 child b/u 6 edu 20
2 ϩ.183 M/SD p ϭ .41 some 1 2 B 3 2 99 2 1 6 child b/u 6 edu 10
Naor & Milgram (1980) 1 Ϫ.383 Mult p ϭ .001* full 1 2 B 2 2 99 2 2 6 adult f 3 edu 80
Narukawa (1995) 1 Ϫ.083 M/SD p ϭ .21* some 1 1 B 3 1 1 3 1 6 coll m 6 m/o 228
2 Ϫ.085 M/SD p ϭ .20* some 1 1 B 3 1 1 3 1 6 coll f 6 m/o 230
Nash (1976) 1 ϩ.276 r ϩ.276* full 1 2 B 2 2 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 73
Naus (1973) 1 Ϫ.126 r Ϫ.126* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 2 coll b/u 1 m/o 43
NCCJ (2000) 1 Ϫ.143 Prop 47/61* some 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 2,586
Neprash (1953) 1 Ϫ.312 Prop 11/27* full 1 1 B 4 1 2 2 1 1 child m 1 res 61
Nesdale & Todd (1998) 1 Ϫ.224 p .011* some 1 1 B 3 3 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 5 edu 127
2 Ϫ.210 p .02* some 1 1 B 3 3 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 5 edu 119
Nesdale & Todd (2000) 1 Ϫ.203 p .09* some 1 2 B 4 1 2 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 edu 69
Neto (2000) 1 Ϫ.460 r Ϫ.460 none 1 1 W 1 1 3 2 1 1 adol b/u 1 edu 118
778 PETTIGREW AND TROPP
Appendix (continued)
Reference Sample r Test Statistic Choice Pub Type B/W Control IV IVQ DVQ Prog Target Age Sex Geo Set N
Newberry & Parish
(1987) 1 Ϫ.630 F 43.57 none 1 2 B 2 2 4 2 1 4 child b/u 1 rec 114
2 Ϫ.722 F 67.76 none 1 2 B 2 2 4 2 1 4 child b/u 1 rec 90
3 Ϫ.525 F 22.44 none 1 2 B 2 2 4 2 1 4 child b/u 1 rec 76
4 Ϫ.517 F 20.84 none 1 2 B 2 2 4 2 1 4 child b/u 1 rec 70
5 Ϫ.100 F 0.66 none 1 2 B 2 2 4 2 1 4 child b/u 1 rec 105
Newswanger (1996) 1 Ϫ.158 Prop 58/73* none 1 2 B 4 2 99 1 1 1 coll b/u 1 res 144
Ng et al. (1997) 1 Ϫ.235 r Ϫ.235* full 1 1 W 1 1 3 1 1 2 adult b/u 5 m/o 100
Nieuwoudt & Thom
(1980) 1 Ϫ.430 M/SD p ϭ .000 none 1 2 W 1 2 4 3 2 2 coll b/u 6 m/o 290
2 Ϫ.497 M/SD p ϭ .000 none 1 2 W 1 2 4 3 2 2 coll b/u 6 m/o 467
3 Ϫ.576 M/SD p ϭ .000 none 1 1 W 1 2 4 3 2 2 coll b/u 6 m/o 27
4 Ϫ.375 M/SD p ϭ .001 none 1 2 W 1 2 4 3 2 2 coll b/u 6 m/o 42
Nishi-Strattner & Myers
(1983) 1 .000 p ns some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 3 child b/u 1 m/o 52
2 .000 p ns some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 3 adult b/u 1 m/o 52
Noels & Cle´ment (1996) 1 Ϫ.496 r Ϫ.496* full 1 2 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 coll b/u 4 m/o 125
2 Ϫ.458 r Ϫ.458* full 1 2 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 coll b/u 4 m/o 94
Nosse (1993) 1 Ϫ.335 O p ϭ .002 full 1 2 W 1 2 99 3 2 4 coll b/u 1 m/o 37
Nosse & Gavin (1991) 1 Ϫ.249 p .05* full 1 1 W 1 2 99 3 2 4 coll b/u 1 m/o 31
Oaker & Brown (1986) 1 Ϫ.400 r Ϫ.400* some 1 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 99 coll f 2 org 23
2 ϩ.135 r ϩ.135* some 1 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 99 coll f 2 org 17
Ogendengbe (1993) 1 Ϫ.464 Prop 23/76 full 1 1 B 2 1 1 2 1 5 adult b/u 6 m/o 174
Olejnik & LaRue (1981) 1 Ϫ.388 Prop 56/93 some 1 2 B 3 2 4 2 2 2 adol b/u 1 edu 634
Pagtolun-an & Clair
(1986) 1 Ϫ.243 F 4.47* none 1 3 B 3 2 4 3 1 3 coll b/u 1 edu 71
Palmerton & Frumkin
(1969) 1 Ϫ.329 r Ϫ.329 some 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 4 adult b/u 1 m/o 81
Paris (1991) 1 Ϫ.115 t Ϫ1.78 some 2 1 B 4 1 2 3 1 4 adult b/u 1 edu 237
Parker et al. (1998) 1 Ϫ.234 M/SD p ϭ .06* full 1 2 B 3 2 3 2 2 1 adult b/u 1 edu 54
Patchen (1982/1983)/
Patchen et al. (1977) 1 Ϫ.189 r Ϫ.189* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adol b/u 1 edu 2,146
2 Ϫ.125 r Ϫ.125* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adol b/u 1 edu 1,986
Penn et al. (1994) 1 Ϫ.064 p .24 full 1 1 B 2 1 1 3 1 5 coll b/u 1 m/o 329
Peterson (1974) 1 Ϫ.059 ␹2
1.42* some 1 1 B 2 3 99 3 1 6 child b/u 1 edu 420
Petrangelo (1976) 1 Ϫ.209 t Ϫ1.79* full 2 1 B 4 2 99 3 1 4 coll b/u 1 edu 172
Pettigrew (1997) 1 Ϫ.259 r Ϫ.259* full 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 437
2 Ϫ.272 r Ϫ.272* full 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 453
3 Ϫ.319 r Ϫ.319* full 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 962
4 Ϫ.388 r Ϫ.388* full 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 449
5 Ϫ.423 r Ϫ.423* full 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 452
6 Ϫ.298 r Ϫ.298* full 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 470
7 Ϫ.341 r Ϫ.341* full 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 455
Petzel (2000) 1 Ϫ.281 r Ϫ.281* some 2 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 1 adult b/u 2 res 553
Philips (1963) 1 Ϫ.020 p .73* some 1 1 B 2 1 1 3 1 5 adult f 1 m/o 300
Phinney ey al. (1997) 1 Ϫ.364 r Ϫ.364 some 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 adol b/u 1 edu 261
2 Ϫ.523 r Ϫ.523 some 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 adol b/u 1 edu 286
Pinquart et al. (2000) 1 ϩ.030 M/SD p ϭ .88 full 1 2 B 3 2 4 2 2 2 child b/u 2 org 32
2 Ϫ.153 M/SD p ϭ .49 full 1 2 B 3 2 4 2 2 2 adult b/u 2 org 20
Pleck et al. (1988) 1 Ϫ.230 r Ϫ.230 some 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 3 adult b/u 1 org 237
Porter & O’Connor
(1978) 1 Ϫ.188 t Ϫ2.10 some 1 2 W 1 2 4 2 2 2 coll b/u 1 edu 30
Prather & Chovan
(1984) 1 Ϫ.010 p .94 full 1 1 W 1 2 99 2 1 5 child b/u 1 edu 25
Preston & Robinson
(1974)/Robinson &
Preston (1976)
1 Ϫ.062 p .44* some 1 2 B 3 2 4 2 2 1 adult b/u 1 org 154
2 Ϫ.435 p .0000* some 1 2 B 3 2 4 2 2 1 adult b/u 1 org 116
Price (2000) 1 Ϫ.078 t Ϫ1.25* full 2 2 W 1 2 99 3 2 1 adol b/u 5 m/o 64
Proller (1989) 1 Ϫ.267 M/SD p ϭ .044 full 1 2 B 3 2 99 2 2 2 child b/u 1 res 57
2 ϩ.067 M/SD p ϭ .60 full 1 2 B 3 2 99 2 2 2 adult b/u 1 res 61
3 Ϫ.240 M/SD p ϭ .078 full 1 2 B 3 2 99 2 2 2 adult b/u 1 res 54
4 Ϫ.136 Mult p ϭ .326* full 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 2 2 child b/u 1 res 26
Pryer et al. (1969) 1 Ϫ.108 p .34* full 1 2 W 1 2 4 2 1 5 adult b/u 1 res 39
2 Ϫ.202 p .153* full 1 2 W 1 2 4 2 1 5 adult b/u 1 res 25
Rabushka (1969) 1 Ϫ.156 Prop 59/73* full 1 1 B 3 1 1 1 1 1 coll b/u 6 edu 86
2 Ϫ.364 Prop 33/60* full 1 1 B 3 1 1 1 1 1 coll b/u 6 edu 51
(Appendix continues)
779META-ANALYTIC TEST OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY
Appendix (continued)
Reference Sample r Test Statistic Choice Pub Type B/W Control IV IVQ DVQ Prog Target Age Sex Geo Set N
Radcliffe (1972) 1 Ϫ.096 F 1.22* full 2 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 edu 219
Ralph (1968) 1 .000 p ns full 1 2 W 1 2 99 3 2 5 coll f 1 m/o 40
Rapier et al. (1972) 1 Ϫ.114 O p ϭ .05* some 1 1 W 1 3 99 2 1 4 child b/u 1 edu 148
Read & Law (1999) 1 Ϫ.247 M/SD p ϭ .006* some 1 1 B 2 1 1 2 1 5 coll b/u 5 m/o 126
Reed (1980) 1 Ϫ.044 Prop 56/60* some 1 1 B 4 1 1 2 1 99 adult b/u 1 m/o 716
Reigrotski & Anderson
(1959) 1 Ϫ.194 Prop 49/68 full 1 1 B 2 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 2 m/o 2,006
2 Ϫ.168 Prop 45/62 full 1 1 B 2 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 2 m/o 2,041
Reinsch & Tobis (1991) 1 Ϫ.175 M/SD p ϭ .338 full 1 1 B 4 2 4 2 2 2 coll b/u 1 org 30
Rich et al. (1983) 1 Ϫ.155 t Ϫ1.56 none 1 2 B 2 2 4 2 2 2 child b/u 1 lab 99
Rich et al. (1995) 1 Ϫ.100 p .27* some 1 2 W 1 2 4 3 2 1 adol b/u 3 edu 60
Rimmerman (1998) 1 Ϫ.097 p .433* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 6 adult b/u 3 m/o 120
Rimmerman et al.
(2000) 1 Ϫ.268 F 6.92 some 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 4 coll b/u 3 edu 102
Riordan (1987) 1 Ϫ.189 t Ϫ1.97 full 1 1 B 4 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 102
Robbins et al. (1992) 1 Ϫ.110 r Ϫ.110 some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 3 coll b/u 2 edu 112
2 Ϫ.280 r Ϫ.280 some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 3 coll b/u 2 edu 63
3 Ϫ.270 r Ϫ.270 some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 3 coll b/u 2 edu 28
Roberts (1988) 1 Ϫ.146 r Ϫ.146* some 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 745
Robinson (1987) 1 Ϫ.410 r Ϫ.410* some 2 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 99 coll b/u 1 edu 781
Renning & Nabuzoka
(1993) 1 Ϫ.260 O p ϭ .142* none 1 2 W 1 2 99 4 2 6 child b/u 6 edu 16
Rooney & Jason (1986) 1 Ϫ.562 F 16.6* some 1 2 W 4 2 4 4 2 1 child b/u 1 edu 36
2 ϩ.217 F 0.99* some 1 2 B 4 2 4 4 2 1 child b/u 1 edu 20
Roper (1990) 1 Ϫ.171 M/SD p ϭ .002* full 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 6 adult b/u 1 rec 331
Rose (1961) 1 Ϫ.120 Prop 55/67* full 1 1 B 4 1 99 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 175
Rose et al. (1953) 1 Ϫ.239 Prop 33/57* full 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 res 471
Rosenblith (1949) 1 Ϫ.098 Prop 46/56 full 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 859
Rosencranz & McNevin
(1969) 1 Ϫ.103 p .08* some 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 2 coll b/u 1 m/o 287
Rowlett (1981) 1 Ϫ.475 M/SD p ϭ .016 full 2 2 B 3 2 4 3 1 4 coll b/u 1 edu 26
2 Ϫ.507 M/SD p ϭ .011 full 2 2 B 3 2 4 3 1 4 coll b/u 1 edu 25
Rusalem (1967) 1 Ϫ.370 p .05 none 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 2 4 adol b/u 1 edu 14
2 .000 p ns none 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 2 4 adol b/u 1 edu 14
Rusinko et al. (1978) 1 Ϫ.068 M/SD p ϭ .002* some 1 1 W 1 1 3 2 1 99 adol b/u 1 m/o 1,020
Sadler & Blair (1999) 1 Ϫ.357 r Ϫ.357* full 2 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 3 coll b/u 1 edu 251
Sakaris (2000) 1 Ϫ.120 r Ϫ.120* none 2 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 99 adult b/u 1 edu 77
Salter & Teger (1975) 1 Ϫ.231 p .238* full 1 1 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 org 13
2 Ϫ.393 p .01* full 1 1 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 trav 22
San Miguel & Millham
(1976) 1 Ϫ.145 t Ϫ1.44* none 1 3 B 2 2 4 4 1 3 coll m 1 lab 96
Sandberg (1982) 1 Ϫ.062 M/SD p ϭ .217 some 1 1 B 2 3 99 2 1 6 child b/u 1 edu 400
Sayler (1969) 1 Ϫ.154 F 1.38* none 2 3 B 3 2 4 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 edu 140
2 Ϫ.074 F 0.35 none 2 3 B 3 2 4 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 edu 64
Scarberry et al. (1996) 1 Ϫ.426 M/SD p ϭ .016* none 2 3 W 1 2 4 2 2 99 coll b/u 1 lab 16
Schcibe (1965) 1 Ϫ.152 t Ϫ3.07* full 1 1 W 1 2 4 3 1 5 coll b/u 1 org 99
Schneider (1994) 1 Ϫ.302 r Ϫ.302* some 2 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 1 adol b/u 2 m/o 237
2 Ϫ.291 r Ϫ.291 some 2 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 1 adol b/u 2 m/o 557
Schneider & Lewis
(1984) 1 Ϫ.240 Prop 37/61 full 1 1 B 2 1 1 1 1 3 adult m 1 m/o 800
2 Ϫ.289 Prop 33/62 full 1 1 B 2 1 1 1 1 3 adult f 1 m/o 853
Schwarzwald et al.
(1985) 1 Ϫ.305 F 2.60 some 1 1 W 1 3 99 2 1 1 adol b/u 3 edu 2,530
Seefeldt (1987) 1 ϩ.355 p .006* none 1 1 B 4 2 99 2 1 2 child b/u 1 res 60
Segal (1965) 1 Ϫ.258 p .01 full 1 1 B 4 1 1 2 1 1 coll m 1 edu 100
2 Ϫ.288 p .01 full 1 1 B 4 1 1 2 1 1 coll m 1 edu 80
Sellin & Mulchahay
(1965) 1 Ϫ.101 Prop 56/66* some 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 6 adol b/u 1 res 144
Selltiz et al. (1963) 1 Ϫ.102 p .058* full 1 1 B 4 1 2 2 1 1 coll m 1 edu 343
2 Ϫ.134 p .062 full 1 1 B 4 1 2 2 1 1 coll m 1 edu 194
Selznick & Steinberg
(1969) 1 Ϫ.125 Prop 24/36 some 1 1 W 1 1 2 1 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 1,302
2 ϩ.024 Prop 42/39 some 1 1 W 1 1 2 1 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 175
Semmel & Dickson
(1966) 1 Ϫ.374 M/SD p ϭ .000 full 1 1 B 2 1 1 2 1 4 coll b/u 1 m/o 426
Sewell & Davidsen
(1956) 1 Ϫ.219 p .05* full 1 1 W 1 1 99 4 1 1 coll b/u 2 m/o 40
780 PETTIGREW AND TROPP
Appendix (continued)
Reference Sample r Test Statistic Choice Pub Type B/W Control IV IVQ DVQ Prog Target Age Sex Geo Set N
Shafer et al. (1989) 1 Ϫ.091 F 1.00* some 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 6 adult b/u 1 org 212
Sheare (1974) 1 Ϫ.468 F 112.2 none 1 3 B 2 2 4 2 1 6 adol m 1 res 400
Sheehan (1980) 1 Ϫ.052 t Ϫ2.89* some 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 child b/u 1 edu 759
2 Ϫ.104 t Ϫ5.43* some 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 child b/u 1 edu 674
3 Ϫ.116 t Ϫ3.84* some 1 2 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 child b/u 1 edu 272
Shera & Delva-Tauiliili
(1996) 1 Ϫ.414 M/SD p ϭ .007 none 1 2 B 2 2 4 3 2 5 coll b/u 1 edu 33
2 Ϫ.427 M/SD p ϭ .01 none 1 2 B 2 2 4 3 2 5 coll b/u 1 edu 39
Sherif et al. (1961) 1 Ϫ.581 ␹2
7.43* none 1 3 W 1 2 4 2 2 99 adol m 1 rec 11
2 Ϫ.499 ␹2
4.50* none 1 3 W 1 2 4 2 2 99 adol m 1 rec 9
Shibuya (2000) 1 Ϫ.190 r Ϫ.190 some 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 1 adult m 6 m/o 137
Shoemake & Rowland
(1993) 1 Ϫ.130 t Ϫ2.03* full 1 2 W 1 2 4 2 1 2 coll b/u 1 m/o 60
Sigelman & Welch
(1991) 1 Ϫ.053 Prop 58/63* full 1 1 B 4 1 1 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 1,250
Siller & Chipman
(1964) 1 Ϫ.020 r Ϫ.020* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 4 coll b/u 1 m/o 1,108
Simon (1995) 1 Ϫ.323 r Ϫ.323* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 3 coll f 1 m/o 360
2 Ϫ.453 r Ϫ.453* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 3 coll m 1 m/o 204
Simoni (1996) 1 Ϫ.527 r Ϫ.527* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 3 coll b/u 1 m/o 170
Simpson et al. (1976) 1 Ϫ.265 t Ϫ1.70* none 1 2 B 3 2 4 3 2 4 child b/u 1 edu 38
Singer (1966) 1 Ϫ.235 F 7.03 some 2 1 B 3 3 99 3 1 1 child b/u 1 edu 120
2 Ϫ.271 F 7.60 some 2 1 B 3 3 99 3 1 1 child b/u 1 edu 96
Slavin (1979) 1 Ϫ.223 F 15.38* none 1 2 B 4 2 4 1 2 1 adol b/u 1 edu 294
Slavin & Madden
(1979) 1 Ϫ.062 p .001* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adol b/u 1 edu 1,387
2 Ϫ.073 p .001* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adol b/u 1 edu 1,004
Slininger et al. (2000) 1 Ϫ.226 M/SD p ϭ .008* none 1 2 B 3 2 4 2 1 6 child m 1 edu 69
2 Ϫ.114 M/SD p ϭ .21* none 1 2 B 3 2 4 2 1 6 child f 1 edu 62
Smith (1955) 1 Ϫ.475 p .001 full 1 1 W 1 1 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 2 trav 24
2 ϩ.407 p .01 full 1 1 W 1 1 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 2 trav 20
3 ϩ.238 p .05 full 1 1 W 1 1 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 2 trav 34
Smith (1969) 1 Ϫ.083 M/SD p ϭ .282 full 1 1 B 3 2 99 2 1 5 coll b/u 1 res 167
Smith (1994) 1 Ϫ.408 Prop 27/68 full 1 1 B 2 1 1 2 1 1 adult f 1 res 110
2 Ϫ.152 Prop 44/59 full 1 1 B 2 1 1 2 1 1 adult f 1 res 75
3 Ϫ.394 Prop 31/70 full 1 1 B 2 1 1 2 1 1 adult f 1 res 122
4 ϩ.068 Prop 53/47 full 1 1 B 2 1 1 2 1 1 adult f 1 res 118
Smith-Castro (2000) 1 Ϫ.329 r Ϫ.329 some 2 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 1 adol b/u 6 m/o 742
2 Ϫ.294 r Ϫ.294 some 2 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 1 adol b/u 6 m/o 383
Spangenberg & Nel
(1985) 1 Ϫ.198 t Ϫ2.66* full 1 1 B 2 1 99 3 1 1 adult b/u 6 org 195
Sparling & Rogers
(1985) 1 Ϫ.397 O p ϭ .17* full 1 2 W 3 2 4 3 2 2 adol b/u 1 rec 6
Stager & Young (1981) 1 Ϫ.053 M/SD p ϭ .14* some 1 1 W 1 2 99 2 1 6 adol b/u 1 edu 382
Stainback et al. (1984) 1 Ϫ.326 r Ϫ.326 full 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 6 adult b/u 1 edu 91
Stangor et al. (1996) 1 Ϫ.244 r Ϫ.244* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 83
Starr & Roberts (1982) 1 Ϫ.078 p .034* some 1 1 B 2 1 2 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 734
Stephan & Rosenfield
(1978a) 1 Ϫ.390 r Ϫ.390 some 1 2 W 1 1 2 2 2 1 child b/u 1 edu 65
Stephan & Rosenfield
(1978b) 1 Ϫ.370 r Ϫ.370 some 1 2 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 child b/u 1 edu 151
2 Ϫ.370 r Ϫ.370 some 1 2 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 child b/u 1 edu 96
3 Ϫ.390 r Ϫ.390 some 1 2 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 child b/u 1 edu 64
Stephan & Stephan
(1985) 1 Ϫ.159 r Ϫ.159* some 1 1 W 1 1 3 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 83
Stephan & Stephan
(1989) 1 Ϫ.177 r Ϫ.177* full 1 1 W 1 1 3 1 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 123
2 Ϫ.205 r Ϫ.205* full 1 1 W 1 1 3 1 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 133
Stephan et al. (2000) 1 Ϫ.291 r Ϫ.291* some 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 coll b/u 6 m/o 126
2 Ϫ.243 r Ϫ.243* some 1 1 W 1 1 3 2 1 1 coll b/u 6 m/o 130
Stewart (1988) 1 Ϫ.413 M/SD p ϭ .024 some 1 2 W 1 2 99 3 1 4 coll b/u 1 edu 15
Stohl (1985) 1 Ϫ.335 F 6.15* none 1 2 B 2 2 99 3 2 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 49
Stouffer et al. (1949) 1 Ϫ.442 Prop 23/67 none 1 1 W 1 3 99 1 1 1 adult m 1 org 60
2 Ϫ.502 Prop 20/71* none 1 1 B 2 3 99 1 1 1 adult m 1 org 1,725
Strauch (1970) 1 Ϫ.180 F 4.15 some 1 2 B 2 3 99 2 1 4 adol b/u 1 edu 124
Strauch et al. (1970) 1 Ϫ.217 F 1.98 full 1 2 W 1 2 4 2 2 6 coll b/u 1 res 10
Strohmer et al. (1984) 1 Ϫ.372 r Ϫ.372* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 4 adult b/u 1 m/o 210
(Appendix continues)
781META-ANALYTIC TEST OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY
Appendix (continued)
Reference Sample r Test Statistic Choice Pub Type B/W Control IV IVQ DVQ Prog Target Age Sex Geo Set N
Surace & Seeman
(1967) 1 Ϫ.173 r Ϫ.173* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 159
2 ϩ.014 r ϩ.014* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 124
Tait & Purdie (2000) 1 Ϫ.169 M/SD p ϭ .000* some 1 1 B 4 1 1 3 1 4 adult b/u 5 m/o 1,338
Taylor & Dear (1981) 1 Ϫ.140 t Ϫ9.33* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 5 adult b/u 4 m/o 1,090
Thomas et al. (1985) 1 .000 p ns some 1 1 B 4 1 2 2 1 4 child b/u 5 m/o 88
Thompson (1993) 1 Ϫ.292 F 6.25 none 1 3 W 1 2 4 2 1 99 coll b/u 1 lab 17
2 Ϫ.269 F 10.65 none 1 3 W 1 2 4 2 1 99 coll b/u 1 lab 34
3 Ϫ.086 F 0.71 none 1 3 W 1 2 4 2 1 99 coll b/u 1 lab 24
Togonu & Odebiyi
(1985) 1 .000 Prop 55/55* some 1 1 B 2 1 1 2 1 4 adult b/u 6 m/o 519
Towles-Schwen & Fazio
(1999) 1 Ϫ.200 r Ϫ.200 some 2 1 W 1 1 2 4 1 1 coll b/u 1 edu 190
Trent et al. (1979) 1 Ϫ.219 p .05 none 1 2 W 4 2 4 3 2 2 adol b/u 1 m/o 80
2 Ϫ.219 p .05 none 1 2 W 4 2 4 3 2 2 adol b/u 1 m/o 80
Triandis & Vassiliou
(1967) 1 ϩ.200 Prop 78/59* full 1 1 B 4 1 99 2 1 1 adult m 2 m/o 103
2 Ϫ.155 Prop 62/77* full 1 1 B 4 1 99 2 1 1 adult m 2 m/o 80
Tropp (2000) 1 Ϫ.325 r Ϫ.325* some 2 1 W 1 1 4 3 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 80
Tropp & Stout (1999) 1 Ϫ.233 r Ϫ.233* full 2 1 W 1 1 4 4 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 74
2 Ϫ.194 r Ϫ.194* full 2 1 W 1 1 4 4 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 50
3 Ϫ.079 r Ϫ.079* full 2 1 W 1 1 4 4 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 39
Trubowitz (1969) 1 Ϫ.132 M/SD p ϭ .15* some 1 2 B 2 2 99 2 1 1 child b/u 1 edu 121
2 ϩ.101 M/SD p ϭ .263* some 1 2 B 2 2 99 2 1 1 child b/u 1 edu 122
Trute & Loewen (1978) 1 Ϫ.257 M/SD p ϭ .044* some 1 1 B 4 1 3 3 1 5 adult b/u 4 m/o 62
Trute et al. (1989) 1 Ϫ.121 r Ϫ.121* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 5 adult b/u 4 m/o 537
Tsukashima & Montero
(1976) 1 Ϫ.020 Prop 52/54* some 1 1 B 3 1 1 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 308
Tuckman & Lorge
(1958) 1 Ϫ.074 Prop 34/41* full 1 1 B 4 1 1 2 1 2 adult b/u 1 m/o 792
Turman & Holtzman
(1955) 1 Ϫ.061 Prop 54/60 some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 edu 144
2 .000 p ns some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 edu 150
Van Den Berghe (1962) 1 Ϫ.329 Prop 29/62 full 1 1 B 4 1 99 2 1 1 coll b/u 6 m/o 345
Van Dick & Wagner
(1995) 1 Ϫ.179 r Ϫ.179* some 2 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 1 adult m 2 m/o 134
Van Dick et al. (2000) 1 Ϫ.210 r Ϫ.210* some 2 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 1 adult b/u 2 m/o 3,000
Van Dyk (1990) 1 Ϫ.091 t Ϫ1.75* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 adult f 6 res 91
Van Ossenbruggen
(1999) 1 Ϫ.290 r Ϫ.290* some 2 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 2 m/o 3,000
Van Weerden-Dijkstra
(1972) 1 .000 p ns some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 6 adult b/u 2 m/o 418
Verkuyten & Masson
(1995) 1 Ϫ.333 r Ϫ.333* some 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 adol b/u 2 m/o 372
2 Ϫ.180 r Ϫ.180* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 1 adol b/u 2 m/o 158
Voeltz (1980) 1 Ϫ.259 M/SD p ϭ .000* full 1 1 B 3 2 99 3 1 4 child b/u 1 edu 1,310
Vornberg & Grant
(1976) 1 Ϫ.144 F 3.71* some 1 2 W 1 2 4 1 1 1 adol b/u 6 edu 44
Wagner et al. (1989) 1 Ϫ.229 r Ϫ.229* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 1 1 1 adol b/u 2 m/o 60
2 Ϫ.048 r Ϫ.048* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 1 1 1 adol b/u 2 m/o 50
Walsh (1971) 1 Ϫ.205 t Ϫ5.09* some 1 2 W 1 2 4 3 2 5 coll f 1 org 147
Ward & Rana-Deuba
(2000) 1 Ϫ.350 r Ϫ.350 some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 104
Ward et al. (1998) 1 Ϫ.271 t Ϫ2.03* some 1 2 W 1 2 4 2 1 2 coll b/u 6 rec 13
Webster (1961) 1 ϩ.163 ␹2
3.05* some 1 1 B 2 3 99 3 1 1 adol b/u 1 edu 115
2 Ϫ.049 ␹2
0.23* some 1 1 B 2 3 99 3 1 1 adol b/u 1 edu 97
Weerbach & DePoy
(1993) 1 Ϫ.305 r Ϫ.305* full 1 1 B 2 1 99 2 1 5 coll b/u 1 org 90
Weigert (1976) 1 Ϫ.180 r Ϫ.180 some 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adult m 1 org 454
Weinberg (1978) 1 Ϫ.167 t Ϫ2.06* some 1 2 B 4 2 2 2 1 4 coll b/u 1 edu 202
Weis & Dain (1979) 1 Ϫ.233 p .001 full 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 3 adult b/u 1 m/o 100
Weisel (1988) 1 Ϫ.147 M/SD p ϭ .143* some 1 1 B 2 3 99 3 1 4 adol b/u 3 edu 99
Weiss (1987) 1 Ϫ.190 r Ϫ.190 full 1 1 W 1 1 1 2 1 1 adult b/u 2 m/o 648
Weller & Grunes (1988) 1 Ϫ.104 p .31 full 1 1 B 3 2 99 3 1 5 coll m 3 org 95
Whaley (1997) 1 Ϫ.245 r Ϫ.245* some 1 1 W 1 1 2 3 1 5 adult b/u 2 m/o 1492
Whitley (1990) 1 Ϫ.315 r Ϫ.315* full 1 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 3 coll b/u 1 m/o 366
Wilder (1984) 1 Ϫ.099 t Ϫ0.53* none 1 3 B 3 2 4 1 1 99 coll f 1 lab 62
782 PETTIGREW AND TROPP
Appendix (continued)
Reference Sample r Test Statistic Choice Pub Type B/W Control IV IVQ DVQ Prog Target Age Sex Geo Set N
Williams (1964) 1 Ϫ.134 Prop 45/58* full 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 422
2 Ϫ.209 Prop 26/47* full 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 287
3 Ϫ.415 Prop 33/74* full 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 302
4 Ϫ.260 Prop 55/82* full 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 195
5 Ϫ.202 Prop 33/53* full 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 445
6 Ϫ.259 Prop 37/63* full 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 150
7 Ϫ.162 Prop 34/50* full 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 147
8 Ϫ.173 Prop 38/55* full 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 150
9 Ϫ.153 Prop 40/56* full 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 283
10 Ϫ.183 Prop 35/56* full 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 207
11 Ϫ.079 Prop 44/52* full 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 219
Williams (1972) 1 Ϫ.156 M/SD p ϭ .031 full 2 3 B 4 2 4 2 2 1 adol b/u 1 edu 192
Wilner et al. (1955) 1 Ϫ.309 Prop 33/63* some 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 res 120
2 Ϫ.292 Prop 23/50* some 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult f 1 res 66
3 Ϫ.212 Prop 58/69* some 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult f 1 res 154
4 Ϫ.209 Prop 35/54* some 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult f 1 res 98
5 Ϫ.156 Prop 26/41* some 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult f 1 res 68
6 Ϫ.099 Prop 18/26* some 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult f 1 res 67
7 Ϫ.258 Prop 35/61* some 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult f 1 res 125
8 Ϫ.194 Prop 27/46* some 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult f 1 res 108
Wilson (1984) 1 Ϫ.380 r Ϫ.380 some 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 628
2 Ϫ.350 r Ϫ.350 some 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 362
Wilson (1996) 1 Ϫ.173 r Ϫ.173* full 1 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 adult b/u 1 res 580
Wilson & Lavelle (1990) 1 Ϫ.205 p .005 some 1 1 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 child b/u 6 edu 94
2 Ϫ.174 p .01 some 1 1 W 1 2 99 2 1 1 child b/u 6 edu 110
With & Rabbie (1985) 1 Ϫ.272 F 14.63 full 1 1 B 3 1 2 3 1 1 adult b/u 2 res 196
Wolsko et al. (2000) 1 Ϫ.157 r Ϫ.157* some 2 1 W 1 1 3 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 148
2 Ϫ.121 r Ϫ.121* some 2 1 W 1 1 3 2 1 1 coll b/u 1 m/o 122
Wood (1990) 1 Ϫ.176 r Ϫ.176* some 2 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 coll f 1 edu 105
2 Ϫ.048 r Ϫ.048* some 2 1 W 1 1 2 2 1 1 coll m 1 edu 80
Wood & Sonleitner
(1996) 1 Ϫ.210 r Ϫ.210* some 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 292
Works (1961) 1 Ϫ.218 Prop 31/53 some 1 1 B 3 3 99 1 1 1 adult m 1 res 68
2 Ϫ.287 Prop 21/49 some 1 1 B 3 3 99 1 1 1 adult f 1 res 76
Wright & Klein (1966) 1 Ϫ.345 ␹2
19.8* full 1 1 B 3 2 99 2 1 5 adult b/u 1 res 179
Wright & Tropp (2000) 1 Ϫ.162 p .002* some 2 2 B 4 2 99 2 1 1 child b/u 1 edu 356
Yeakley (1998) 1 Ϫ.301 Prop 29/59 full 2 2 B 3 2 4 4 2 99 coll b/u 1 edu 26
Yinon (1975) 1 Ϫ.447 F 23.6* full 1 1 B 3 2 99 2 1 1 adult b/u 3 res 80
Young (1998) 1 Ϫ.196 t Ϫ1.30* none 2 3 B 4 2 4 2 2 1 coll m 1 edu 43
2 Ϫ.360 t Ϫ1.97* none 2 3 B 4 2 4 2 2 1 coll m 1 edu 29
Yum & Wang (1983) 1 Ϫ.055 p .10* full 1 1 B 3 1 2 3 1 1 adult b/u 1 m/o 876
Zakay (1985) 1 Ϫ.214 Prop 54/74 some 1 2 B 2 2 99 3 1 4 adol b/u 3 edu 191
Zani & Kirchler (1995) 1 Ϫ.244 r Ϫ.244* full 1 1 W 1 1 3 3 1 1 adult b/u 2 res 222
Zentralarchiv… (1996) 1 Ϫ.270 r Ϫ.270* some 2 1 W 1 1 1 3 1 1 adult b/u 2 m/o 2,945
Zeul & Humphrey (1971) 1 Ϫ.486 Prop 23/71 some 1 1 B 3 1 2 2 1 1 adult f 1 res 50
Note. r ϭ effect size (correlation) for each sample; Test ϭ test from which the effect size was derived (r ϭ correlation, F ϭ F test from analysis of
variance, t ϭ t test, MW ϭ Mann–Whitney U test, ␹2
ϭ chi-square, Prop ϭ proportions or frequencies, p ϭ p value, M/SD ϭ means and standard
deviations, O ϭ other, Mult ϭ multiple tests); Statistic ϭ the original statistic before conversion to r (P ϭ probability level; the proportional ratios represent
the percentages of the contact and no contact groups in the high prejudice category; asterisks indicate that the statistic shown is a composite formed from
multiple tests); Choice ϭ the degree of choice available to the subject about whether to participate in the contact (none ϭ no choice, some ϭ some choice,
full ϭ full choice); Pub ϭ the publication status of the study (1 ϭ published, 2 ϭ unpublished); Type ϭ the type of study conducted (1 ϭ surveys and
field studies, 2 ϭ quasi-experiments, 3 ϭ experiments); B/W ϭ the study design (B ϭ between subjects, W ϭ within subjects); Control ϭ the control group
(1 ϭ within design, 2 ϭ no contact control, 3 ϭ some contact control, 4 ϭ extensive contact control); IV ϭ the type of contact indicator (1 ϭ reported
contact, 2 ϭ observed contact, 3 ϭ assumed contact); IVQ ϭ the independent variable quality (1 ϭ single item, 2 ϭ multiple items, low reliability [␣ Ͻ
.70 or unreported], 3 ϭ multiple items, high reliability [␣ Ͼ .69], 4 ϭ experimental manipulation, 99 ϭ other); DVQ ϭ the dependent variable quality (1 ϭ
single item, 2 ϭ multiple items, low reliability [␣ Ͻ .70 or unreported], 3 ϭ multiple items, high reliability [␣ Ͼ .69], 4 ϭ other reliable indicator); Prog ϭ
the global rating of structured programs designed to approximate Allport’s optimal conditions (1 ϭ no program, 2 ϭ structured program); Target ϭ the
target group for contact in the study (1 ϭ race, ethnicity, or religion, 2 ϭ elderly, 3 ϭ sexual orientation, 4 ϭ physical disability, 5 ϭ mental illness, 6 ϭ
mental disability, 99 ϭ other); Age ϭ the age of the participants (child ϭ children, adol ϭ adolescents, coll ϭ college students, adult ϭ adults); Sex ϭ
the sex of the participants (m ϭ all males, f ϭ all females, b/u ϭ both or unspecified); Geo ϭ the geographical area of the participants (1 ϭ United States,
2 ϭ Europe, 3 ϭ Israel, 4 ϭ Canada, 5 ϭ Australia and New Zealand, 6 ϭ Africa, Asia, and Latin America); Set ϭ the setting of the study (lab ϭ laboratory,
edu ϭ educational, org ϭ organizational, res ϭ residential, rec ϭ recreational, trav ϭ travel/tourism, m/o ϭ mixed and other); N ϭ the sample size.
Received November 13, 2003
Revision received June 28, 2005
Accepted August 11, 2005 Ⅲ
783META-ANALYTIC TEST OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY