Linda R. Tropp

A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory

The present article presents a meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. With 713 independent samples from 515 studies, the meta-analysis finds that intergroup contact typically reduces intergroup prejudice. Multiple tests indicate that this finding appears not to result from either participant selection or publication biases, and the more rigorous studies yield larger mean effects. These contact effects typically generalize to the entire outgroup, and they emerge across a broad range of outgroup targets and contact settings. Similar patterns also emerge for samples with racial or ethnic targets and samples with other targets. This result suggests that contact theory, devised originally for racial and ethnic encounters, can be extended to other groups. A global indicator of Allports optimal contact conditions demonstrates that contact under these conditions typically leads to even greater reduction in prejudice. Closer examination demonstrates that these conditions are best conceptualized as an interrelated bundle rather than as independent factors. Further, the meta-analytic findings indicate that these conditions are not essential for prejudice reduction. Hence, future work should focus on negative factors that prevent intergroup contact from diminishing prejudice as well as the development of a more comprehensive theory of intergroup contact.

Relationships Between Intergroup Contact and Prejudice Among Minority and Majority Status Groups

Considerable research has shown that greater intergroup contact corresponds with lower intergroup prejudice, yet little is known regarding how the relationships between contact and prejudice may vary for members of minority and majority status groups. The present research examined differences in contact-prejudice relationships among members of minority and majority status groups, using data from a larger meta-analytic study of the effects of intergroup contact. Results indicate that the relationships between contact and prejudice tend to be weaker among members of minority status groups than among members of majority status groups. Moreover, establishing Allports (1954) proposed conditions for optimal intergroup contact significantly predicts stronger contact-prejudice relationships among members of majority status groups, but not among members of minority status groups. Implications of these findings for future research on contact between minority and majority status groups are discussed.

Ingroup Identification as the Inclusion of Ingroup in the Self

This article presents a basic conceptualization of ingroup identification as the degree to which the ingroup is included in the self and introduces the Inclusion of Ingroup in the Self (IIS) measure to reflect this conceptualization. Using responses from samples of women and ethnic minority groups, four studies demonstrate the utility of this conceptualization of ingroup identification and provide support for the IIS. Results from these studies establish construct validity, concurrent and discriminant validity, and high degrees of test-retest reliability for the IIS. Reaction time evidence also is provided, supporting the use of the IIS as a measure of ingroup identification. Particular strengths of this conceptualization of ingroup identification and potential uses for the IIS are discussed.

Cross-Group Friendships and Intergroup Attitudes A Meta-Analytic Review

This work identifies how cross-group friendships are conceptualized and measured in intergroup research, investigates which operationalizations yield the strongest effects on intergroup attitudes, explores potential moderators, and discusses the theoretical importance of the findings. Prior meta-analyses have provided initial evidence that cross-group friendships are especially powerful forms of intergroup contact. Although studies of cross-group friendship have grown considerably in recent years, varied assessments leave us without a clear understanding of how different operationalizations affect relationships between friendship and attitudes. With a greatly expanded database of relevant studies, the authors compared friendship–attitude associations across a wide range of specific conceptualizations. Time spent and self-disclosure with outgroup friends yielded significantly greater associations with attitudes than other friendship measures, suggesting that attitudes are most likely to improve when cross-group friendships involve behavioral engagement. Processes underlying cross-group friendships are discussed, as are implications for future research and application.

Differential Relationships Between Intergroup Contact and Affective and Cognitive Dimensions of Prejudice

Research on affective dimensions of intergroup relationships suggests that positive effects of intergroup contact can generalize through establishing affective ties with outgroup members. However, research on cognitive dimensions emphasizes that it is often difficult to generalize positive contact outcomes. In this research, the authors examine whether affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice bear different relationships to intergroup contact. Using data from a larger meta-analysis of contact effects, Study 1 demonstrates that affective indicators of prejudice typically yield stronger, inverse contact-prejudice relationships than such cognitive indicators as stereotypes. Study 2 replicates these trends in a survey study using multiple indicators of affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Study 2 also shows significant, inverse relationships between contact and affective prejudice when contact is assessed either as number of outgroup friends or intergroup closeness. Together, these results suggest that affective dimensions of intergroup relationships are especially critical for understanding the nature of contact-prejudice effects.

Psychological Acculturation: Development of A New Measure for Puerto Ricans on the U.S. Mainland

Most instruments designed to measure acculturation have relied on specific cultural behaviors and preferences as primary indicators of acculturation. In contrast, feelings of belonging and emotional attachment to cultural communities have not been widely used. The Psychological Acculturation Scale (PAS) was developed to assess acculturation from a phenomenological perspective, with items pertaining to the individual’s sense of psychological attachment to and belonging within the Anglo-American and Latino/Hispanic cultures. Responses from samples of bilingual individuals and Puerto Rican adolescents and adults are used to establish a high degree of measurement equivalence across the Spanish and English versions of the scale along with high levels of internal consistency and construct validity. The usefulness of the PAS and the importance of studying acculturation from a phenomenological perspective are discussed.

“Let Them Eat Harmony” Prejudice-Reduction Strategies and Attitudes of Historically Disadvantaged Groups

Research on intergroup prejudice has generally adopted a model of social change that is based around the psychological rehabilitation of members of advantaged groups in order to foster intergroup harmony. Recent studies of prejudice-reduction interventions among members of disadvantaged groups, however, have complicated psychologists’ understanding of the consequences of inducing harmonious relations in historically unequal societies. Interventions encouraging disadvantaged-group members to like advantaged-group members may also prompt the disadvantaged to underestimate the injustice suffered by their group and to become less motivated to support action to challenge social inequality. Thus, psychologists’ tendency to equate intergroup harmony with “good relations” and conflict with “bad relations” is limited.

The Dual-Focus Approach to Creating Bilingual Measures

The dual-focus approach to creating bilingual research protocols requires a bilingual/bicultural research team, including indigenous researchers from the cultures being studied. The presence of indigenous researchers as full and equal members of the research team can guard against an unexamined exportation of ideas and methods developed in one culture to other cultural/linguistic communities. The team develops the research plan and a research protocol that express a given concept with equal clarity, affect, and level of usage simultaneously in two languages. The dual-focus method employs a concept-driven rather than a translation-driven approach to attain conceptual and linguistic equivalence. Examples of the application of this approach to creating new measures in Spanish and English, adapting existing measures, revising instructions to research participants, and correcting official translations are provided.

Being Seen As Individuals Versus As Group Members: Extending Research on Metaperception to Intergroup Contexts:

Recent research has begun to examine peoples expectations for how they are viewed in intergroup contexts, yet little work has considered how these metaperceptions relate to those that emerge in interpersonal contexts. As we extend research on metaperceptions into the intergroup realm, we must address several important conceptual issues. In this article, we provide a general overview of research on interpersonal metaperceptions, along with many factors that are likely to affect whether people think they are viewed as individuals or as group members. We also consider how metaperceptions are likely to be formed differently in interpersonal and intergroup contexts, and depending on the group membership of the perceiver We then explore the consequences of different kinds of metaperceptions for intergroup relations, and how they relate to strategies we might use to improve intergroup relations, to suggest future directions for research on metaperceptions in intergroup contexts.

Ingroup identification and relative deprivation: an examination across multiple social comparisons

Most research on social identity and relative deprivation has focused on the salience of social identity in social comparisons. In contrast, little research has studied relative deprivation in relation to ones identification with the ingroup, and across a variety of comparison targets. Using samples of Latino and African–American respondents, the present study investigated ingroup identification and relative deprivation in comparisons with Ingroup Members, Other Minorities, and Whites. High-Identification respondents felt more group deprivation than Low-Identification respondents in comparisons with both Other Minorities and Whites. High-Identification respondents also reported more personal deprivation than Low-Identification respondents when comparing themselves with Whites and less personal satisfaction when comparing themselves with Other Minorities, yet they generally expressed satisfaction in comparisons with Ingroup Members. Results suggest that ingroup identification and comparison targets are important considerations for deprivation research, as ones relationships with targets may be associated with outcomes of social comparisons. Copyright