The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Relationships Between Intergroup Contact and Prejudice Among Minority and Majority Status Groups
Abstract
Considerable research has shown that greater intergroup contact corresponds with lower intergroup prejudice, yet little is known regarding how the relationships between contact and prejudice may vary for members of minority and majority status groups. The present research examined differences in contact-prejudice relationships among members of minority and majority status groups, using data from a larger meta-analytic study of the effects of intergroup contact. Results indicate that the relationships between contact and prejudice tend to be weaker among members of minority status groups than among members of majority status groups. Moreover, establishing Allport's (1954) proposed conditions for optimal intergroup contact significantly predicts stronger contact-prejudice relationships among members of majority status groups, but not among members of minority status groups. Implications of these findings for future research on contact between minority and majority status groups are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006) · Journal of personality and social psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 · Cited by 9,708
Self-citationPettigrew, T. F. (1998) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65 · Cited by 6,001
Self-citationRace Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position
Blumer, H. (1958) · The Pacific Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/1388607 · Cited by 3,487
Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486 · Cited by 2,977
Cited by
Putnam, R. D. (2007) · Scandinavian Political Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x · Cited by 4,027
The paradox of inequality: income inequality and belief in meritocracy go hand in hand
Mijs, J. J. B. (2021) · Socio-Economic Review · doi:10.1093/ser/mwy051 · Cited by 585
Lemmer, G., & Wagner, U. (2015) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2079 · Cited by 522
Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions
Dovidio, J. F., Love, A., Schellhaas, F. M. H., & Hewstone, M. (2017) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430217712052 · Cited by 429
College Diversity Experiences and Cognitive Development: A Meta-Analysis
Bowman, N. A. (2010) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654309352495 · Cited by 346
Metadata
- Authors
- Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F.
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-12
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 951-957
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2143075463
- Cited by
- 834
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 58.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Relationships Between Intergroup Contact and Prejudice Among Minority and Majority Status Groups. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01643.x
- The paper
- Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships Between Intergroup Contact and Prejudice Among Minority and Majority Status Groups. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01643.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
