Cited by 429Social and Intergroup PsychologyDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionSocial Power and Status Dynamics

Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions

Dovidio, John F., Love, Angelika, Schellhaas, Fabian M. H., Hewstone, Miles·2017·Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Abstract

Classic research on the contact hypothesis focused on the direct relationship between the antecedents (conditions under which contact occurs) and the outcomes (primarily, the reduction of prejudice) of intergroup contact. Recent work has taken a broader view of contact processes and effects. We review key developments over the past 20 years, identifying different forms of contact, factors that mediate and moderate the effects of contact, and both the nature and temporal stage and the varied outcomes of contact. We then identify several research directions to address pressing theoretical and practical issues. These issues concern (a) group processes and intergroup relations, (b) intergroup contact in the context of multiple categorization, (c) structural- and individual-level processes, (d) a broader range of individual-level outcomes (e.g., health), and (e) impact on social change. Contact theory and research provides a comprehensive conceptual foundation, allied to a range of powerful empirical techniques, for important new advances and practical applications for improving intergroup relations and producing more equitable outcomes across groups.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1368430217712052

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 67 · Cited by 429

Authors
Dovidio, J. F., Love, A., Schellhaas, F. M. H., & Hewstone, M.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Dovidio, John F.
Venue
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
Published
2017-06-25
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
606-620
ISSN
  • 1368-4302 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7188
OpenAlex
W2676416267
Cited by
429
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 87 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 3
FWCI
73.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1310757)
  • National Institutes of Health (2RO1HL085631-06)
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
intergroup contact, contact hypothesis, intergroup bias, prejudice reduction, intergroup relations, multiple categorization, group process, health outcomes, social change

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