The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis
Open accessAbstract
Imagined intergroup contact (Crisp & Turner, 2009) is a new indirect contact strategy for promoting tolerance and more positive intergroup relations. Despite its relatively recent inception, there have now been over 70 studies showing that imagining a positive interaction with an outgroup member can reduce prejudice and encourage positive intergroup behavior. With this meta-analysis, we provide the first quantitative review of imagined contact effects on four key measures of intergroup bias: attitudes, emotions, intentions, and behavior. We also test for moderators arising from both group and study design characteristics. The analysis found that imagined contact resulted in significantly reduced intergroup bias across all four dependent variables (overall d+ = 0.35). The effect was significant for both published and unpublished studies, and emerged across a broad range of target outgroups and contexts. The effect was equally strong for explicit and implicit attitude measures, but was stronger on behavioral intentions than on attitudes, supporting the direct link between imagery and action proposedly underlying mental simulation effects. Most design characteristics had no significant impact, including valence of the imagined interaction, type of control condition, and time spent imagining contact. However, the more participants were instructed to elaborate on the context within which the imagined interaction took place, the stronger the effect. The imagined contact effect was also stronger for children than for adults, supporting the proposition that imagined contact is a potentially key component of educational strategies aiming to promote positive social change.
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
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
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
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Empathy: its ultimate and proximate bases
Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x02000018 · Cited by 4,126
Kosslyn, S. M., Ganis, G., & Thompson, W. L. (2001) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/35090055 · Cited by 1,894
Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.880 · Cited by 1,052
Metan: fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis
Harris, R. J., Deeks, J. J., Altman, D. G., Bradburn, M. J., Harbord, R. M., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2008) · The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x0800800102 · Cited by 1,027
Harbord, R. M., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2008) · The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x0800800403 · Cited by 897
Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.011 · Cited by 379
Cited by
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
Comparing meta-analyses and preregistered multiple-laboratory replication projects
Kvarven, A., Strømland, E., & Johannesson, M. (2019) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0787-z · Cited by 271
Intergroup contact and mental health stigma: a comparative effectiveness meta-analysis
Maunder, R. D., & White, F. A. (2019) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101749 · Cited by 152
Boin, J., Rupar, M., Graf, S., Neji, S., Spiegler, O., & Swart, H. (2021) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/josi.12419 · Cited by 136
Evidence That a Brief Meditation Exercise Can Reduce Prejudice Toward Homeless People
Parks, S., Birtel, M. D., & Crisp, R. J. (2014) · Social Psychology · doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000212 · Cited by 56
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Miles, E., & Crisp, R. J.
- Venue
- Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-12-25
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-26
- ISSN
- 1368-4302 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7188
- OpenAlex
- W2167096161
- Cited by
- 461
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 49.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
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.