The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reducing prejudice and discrimination
Abstract
While each of the three main explanations of prejudice discussed in Chapters 3 through 5 has implications for how prejudice and discrimination might be reduced, almost all research into their reduction has focused on Allport’s contact hypothesis (CH). This stipulated four conditions – equal-status contact , the pursuit of common/superordinate goals in a co-operative spirit , sanctioned by institutional supports – which together are sufficient for prejudice reduction. Most research has focused on the first two, and there is considerable support for these conditions, including the final stage of the Robbers Cave experiment and Aronson et al.’s jigsaw classroom method of interdependent learning . One major issue arising from this research is whether the more positive feelings produced through contact with particular outgroup members generalizes to the outgroup as a whole . Allport’s conditions act as facilitators of more effective intergroup contact rather than being absolutely necessary. According to Gaertner and Dovidio’s common ingroup identity model (CIIM), co-operative contact should reduce group/category salience and at the same time increase the adoption of a superordinate identity (‘we’ replaces ‘us’ and ‘them’). Recent research has expanded what’s understood by ‘contact’ to include extended intergroup contact (knowing an ingroup member who has an outgroup member friend), imagined intergroup contact and electronic (or E-) contact . Other methods shown to help reduce prejudice and discrimination include education and consciousness raising (as in Elliot’s ‘blue eyes-brown eyes’ experiment) and collective blame hypocrisy intervention .
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
Cited by
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 · Cited by 7,364
Putnam, R. D. (2007) · Scandinavian Political Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x · Cited by 4,027
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109 · Cited by 2,031
Challenging the public stigma of mental illness: a meta-analysis of outcome studies
Corrigan, P. W., Morris, S. B., Michaels, P. J., Rafacz, J. D., & Rüsch, N. (2012) · Psychiatric Services · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201100529 · Cited by 1,680
Identities and Identity Work in Organizations
Brown, A. D. (2015) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12035 · Cited by 850
Metadata
- Authors
- Gross, R.
- Venue
- The Psychology of Prejudice
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2020-10-07
- Pages
- 95-120
- OpenAlex
- W3046933331
- Cited by
- 222
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 59.16
- Type
- book chapter
- 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: Reducing prejudice and discrimination. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4324/9781003082040-6
- The paper
- Gross, R. (2020). Reducing prejudice and discrimination. The Psychology of Prejudice. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003082040-6
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.