Cited by 6,001Social and Intergroup PsychologyDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionSocial Power and Status Dynamics

INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY

Pettigrew, Thomas F.·1998·Annual Review of Psychology

Abstract

Allport specified four conditions for optimal intergroup contact: equal group status within the situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation and authority support. Varied research supports the hypothesis, but four problems remain. 1. A selection bias limits cross-sectional studies, since prejudiced people avoid intergroup contact. Yet research finds that the positive effects of cross-group friendship are larger than those of the bias. 2. Writers overburden the hypothesis with facilitating, but not essential, conditions. 3. The hypothesis fails to address process. The chapter proposes four processes: learning about the outgroup, changed behavior, affective ties, and ingroup reappraisal. 4. The hypothesis does not specify how the effects generalize to other situations, the outgroup or uninvolved outgroups. Acting sequentially, three strategies enhance generalization-decategorization, salient categorization, and recategorization. Finally, both individual differences and societal norms shape intergroup contact effects. The chapter outlines a longitudinal intergroup contact theory. It distinguishes between essential and facilitating factors, and emphasizes different outcomes for different stages of contact.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65

Cites

131 of 131 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Increased contact can ameliorate implicit bias through a wide variety of mechanisms, including altering the cognitive representations of the group or by directly improving evaluations of the group.

    “Increased contact can ameliorate implicit bias through a wide variety of mechanisms, including altering the cognitive representations of the group or by directly improving evaluations of the group (Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pettigrew, T. F.
Affiliations
University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
Corresponding author
Pettigrew, Thomas F.
Venue
Annual Review of Psychology
Published
1998-02
Volume
49
Issue
1
Pages
65-85
ISSN
  • 0066-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2085
OpenAlex
W2144354189
Cited by
6,001
References
128
Citations by year
2026: 202 · 2025: 276 · 2024: 303 · 2023: 300 · 2022: 314 · 2021: 452 · 2020: 402 · 2019: 326 · 2018: 356 · 2017: 282 · 2016: 266 · 2015: 288 · 2014: 263 · 2013: 276 · 2012: 279
FWCI
17.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annual Review of Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
Keywords
contact hypothesis, Allport, prejudice reduction, cross-group friendship, selection bias, intergroup cooperation, affective bonds, decategorization, recategorization, individual differences, social norms

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