The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Generalized Intergroup Contact Effects on Prejudice
Abstract
The intergroup contact hypothesis is tested with self-reports of 3,806 survey respondents in seven 1988 national probability samples of France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and West Germany. With seven key variables controlled, the hypothesis is confirmed-especially for intergroup friendships and affective prejudice. Nonrecursive models indicate that the predicted friends-to-less-prejudice causal path is larger than the prejudice to-fewer-intergroup friends path. These effects generalize in two ways: to immigration polity preferences and a wide variety of out-groups. To explain this generalization, three mediating processes are proposed that can override the many cognitive barriers to generalization: empathy and identification with the out-group and reappraisal of the in-group (deprovincialization). A situation's "friendship potential" is hence indicated as an essential condition for optimal intergroup contact.
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
Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women
Kanter, R. M. (1977) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/226425 · Cited by 3,154
Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs.
Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.961 · Cited by 805
Cited by
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-citationHewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109 · Cited by 2,031
Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes: A Meta-Analytic Review
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4 · Cited by 1,588
Cross-cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice
MUTZ, D. C. (2002) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055402004264 · Cited by 1,069
Metadata
- Authors
- Pettigrew, T. F.
- Venue
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1997-02
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 173-185
- ISSN
- 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7433
- OpenAlex
- W2160719809
- Cited by
- 1,179
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 36.68
- 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: Generalized Intergroup Contact Effects on Prejudice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0146167297232006
- The paper
- Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized Intergroup Contact Effects on Prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297232006
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.