Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Many psychological frameworks still assess prejudice, bias, and racism at the individual level.
“Many psychological frameworks still assess prejudice, bias, and racism at the individual level (Dovidio et al., 2017)”
From Studying Ethnic-Racial Identity among White Youth: White Supremacy as a Developmental Context (2022) · cites this paper as Dovidio et al., 2017
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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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