What Is the Contact Hypothesis in Psychology?

Can getting to know members of other groups reduce prejudice?

Jacob Ammentorp Lund / Getty Images 

  • Archaeology
  • Ph.D., Psychology, University of California - Santa Barbara
  • B.A., Psychology and Peace & Conflict Studies, University of California - Berkeley

The contact hypothesis is a theory in psychology which suggests that prejudice and conflict between groups can be reduced if members of the groups interact with each other.

Key Takeaways: Contact Hypothesis

  • The contact hypothesis suggests that interpersonal contact between groups can reduce prejudice.
  • According to Gordon Allport, who first proposed the theory, four conditions are necessary to reduce prejudice: equal status, common goals, cooperation, and institutional support.
  • While the contact hypothesis has been studied most often in the context of racial prejudice, researchers have found that contact was able to reduce prejudice against members of a variety of marginalized groups.

Historical Background

The contact hypothesis was developed in the middle of the 20th century by researchers who were interested in understanding how conflict and prejudice could be reduced. Studies in the 1940s and 1950s , for example, found that contact with members of other groups was related to lower levels of prejudice. In one study from 1951 , researchers looked at how living in segregated or desegregated housing units was related to prejudice and found that, in New York (where housing was desegregated), white study participants reported lower prejudice than white participants in Newark (where housing was still segregated).

One of the key early theorists studying the contact hypothesis was Harvard psychologist Gordon Allport , who published the influential book The Nature of Prejudice in 1954. In his book, Allport reviewed previous research on intergroup contact and prejudice. He found that contact reduced prejudice in some instances, but it wasn’t a panacea—there were also cases where intergroup contact made prejudice and conflict worse. In order to account for this, Allport sought to figure out when contact worked to reduce prejudice successfully, and he developed four conditions that have been studied by later researchers.

Allport’s Four Conditions

According to Allport, contact between groups is most likely to reduce prejudice if the following four conditions are met:

  • The members of the two groups have equal status. Allport believed that contact in which members of one group are treated as subordinate wouldn’t reduce prejudice—and could actually make things worse.
  • The members of the two groups have common goals.
  • The members of the two groups work cooperatively. Allport wrote , “Only the type of contact that leads people to do things together is likely to result in changed attitudes.”
  • There is institutional support for the contact (for example, if group leaders or other authority figures support the contact between groups).

Evaluating the Contact Hypothesis

In the years since Allport published his original study, researchers have sought to test out empirically whether contact with other groups can reduce prejudice. In a 2006 paper, Thomas Pettigrew and Linda Tropp conducted a meta-analysis: they reviewed the results of over 500 previous studies—with approximately 250,000 research participants—and found support for the contact hypothesis. Moreover, they found that these results were not due to self-selection (i.e. people who were less prejudiced choosing to have contact with other groups, and people who were more prejudiced choosing to avoid contact), because contact had a beneficial effect even when participants hadn’t chosen whether or not to have contact with members of other groups.

While the contact hypothesis has been studied most often in the context of racial prejudice, the researchers found that contact was able to reduce prejudice against members of a variety of marginalized groups. For example, contact was able to reduce prejudice based on sexual orientation and prejudice against people with disabilities. The researchers also found that contact with members of one group not only reduced prejudice towards that particular group, but reduced prejudice towards members of other groups as well.

What about Allport’s four conditions? The researchers found a larger effect on prejudice reduction when at least one of Allport’s conditions was met. However, even in studies that didn’t meet Allport’s conditions, prejudice was still reduced—suggesting that Allport’s conditions may improve relationships between groups, but they aren’t strictly necessary.

Why Does Contact Reduce Prejudice?

Researchers have suggested that contact between groups can reduce prejudice because it reduces feelings of anxiety (people may be anxious about interacting with members of a group they have had little contact with). Contact may also reduce prejudice because it increases empathy and helps people to see things from the other group’s perspective. According to psychologist Thomas Pettigrew and his colleagues , contact with another group allows people “to sense how outgroup members feel and view the world.”

Psychologist John Dovidio and his colleagues suggested that contact may reduce prejudice because it changes how we categorize others. One effect of contact can be decategorization , which involves seeing someone as an individual, rather than as only a member of their group. Another outcome of contact can be recategorization , in which people no longer see someone as part of a group that they’re in conflict with, but rather as a member of a larger, shared group.

Another reason why contact is beneficial is because it fosters the formation of friendships across group lines.

Limitations and New Research Directions

Researchers have acknowledged that intergroup contact can backfire , especially if the situation is stressful, negative, or threatening, and the group members did not choose to have contact with the other group. In his 2019 book The Power of Human , psychology researcher Adam Waytz suggested that power dynamics may complicate intergroup contact situations, and that attempts to reconcile groups that are in conflict need to consider whether there is a power imbalance between the groups. For example, he suggested that, in situations where there is a power imbalance, interactions between group members may be more likely to be productive if the less powerful group is given the opportunity to express what their experiences have been, and if the more powerful group is encouraged to practice empathy and seeing things from the less powerful group’s perspective.

Can Contact Promote Allyship?

One especially promising possibility is that contact between groups might encourage more powerful majority group members to work as allies —that is, to work to end oppression and systematic injustices. For example, Dovidio and his colleagues suggested that “contact also provides a potentially powerful opportunity for majority-group members to foster political solidarity with the minority group.” Similarly, Tropp—one of the co-authors of the meta-analysis on contact and prejudice— tells New York Magazine’s The Cut that “there’s also the potential for contact to change the future behavior of historically advantaged groups to benefit the disadvantaged.”

While contact between groups isn’t a panacea, it’s a powerful tool to reduce conflict and prejudice—and it may even encourage members of more powerful groups to become allies who advocate for the rights of members of marginalized groups.

Sources and Additional Reading:

  • Allport, G. W. The Nature of Prejudice . Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley, 1954. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1954-07324-000
  • Dovidio, John F., et al. “Reducing Intergroup Bias Through Intergroup Contact: Twenty Years of Progress and Future Directions.”  Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , vol. 20, no. 5, 2017, pp. 606-620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217712052
  • Pettigrew, Thomas F., et al. “Recent Advances in Intergroup Contact Theory.”  International Journal of Intercultural Relations , vol. 35 no. 3, 2011, pp. 271-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001
  • Pettigrew, Thomas F., and Linda R. Tropp. “A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , vol. 90, no. 5, 2006, pp. 751-783. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
  • Singal, Jesse. “The Contact Hypothesis Offers Hope for the World.” New York Magazine: The Cut , 10 Feb. 2017. https://www.thecut.com/2017/02/the-contact-hypothesis-offers-hope-for-the-world.html
  • Waytz, Adam. The Power of Human: How Our Shared Humanity Can Help Us Create a Better World . W.W. Norton, 2019.
  • What Was the Robbers Cave Experiment in Psychology?
  • Racial Bias and Discrimination: From Colorism to Racial Profiling
  • Understanding Social Identity Theory and Its Impact on Behavior
  • What Is a Microaggression? Everyday Insults With Harmful Effects
  • Definition of a Hypothesis
  • The Differences Between Indexes and Scales
  • What Is Social Loafing? Definition and Examples
  • How to Write a Letter of Complaint
  • Understanding Socialization in Sociology
  • Icebreaker Games: Teamwork Icebreaker
  • What Is Deindividuation in Psychology? Definition and Examples
  • Definition of Scapegoat, Scapegoating, and Scapegoat Theory
  • Cooperative Learning Tips and Techniques
  • What Is a Control Group?
  • What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)
  • What's the Difference Between Prejudice and Racism?
  • Memberships

Contact Hypothesis theory explained

Contact Hypothesis - toolshero

Contact Hypothesis Theory: this article explains the Contact Hypothesis Theory in a practical way. Next to what it is, this article also highlights the intergroup contact and prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination, the conditions and contact hypothesis examples. After reading you will understand the basics of this psychology theory. Enjoy reading!

What is the Contact Hypothesis?

The contact hypothesis is a psychology theory suggesting that prejudice and conflict between groups can be reduced by allowing members of those groups to interact with one another. This notion is also called intra-group contact. Prejudice and conflict usually arise between majority and minority group members.

The background to the contact hypothesis

Social psychologist Gordon Allport is credited with conducting the first studies on intergroup contact.

Free Toolshero ebook

Allport is also known for this research in the field of personalities . After the Second World War, social scientists and policymakers concentrated mainly on interracial contact. Allport brought these studies together in his study of intergroup contact.

In 1954, Allport published his first hypothesis concerning intergroup contact in the journal of personality and social psychology. The main premise of his article stated that intergroup contact was one of the most effective ways to reduce prejudice between groups.

Allport claimed that contact management and interpersonal contact could produce positive effects against with stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination, leading to better and more worthwhile interaction between two or more groups.

Over the years since Allport’s original article, the hypothesis has been expanded by social scientists and used for research into reducing prejudice relating to racism, disability, women and LGBTQ + people.

Empirical and meta analytical research into intergroup contact is still ongoing today.

Intergroup contact and prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination

The term “prejudice” is used to refer to a preconceived, negative view of another person, based on perceived qualities such as political affiliation, skin colour, faith, gender, disability, religion, sexuality, language, height, education, and more.

Prejudice can also refer to an unfounded belief, or to pigeonhole people or groups. Gordon Allport, the originator of the contact hypothesis, defined prejudice as a feeling, positive or negative, prior to actual experience, that is not based on fact.

Stereotypes, as defined in the contact hypothesis, are generalisations about groups of people. Stereotypes are often based on sexual orientation, religion, race, or age. Stereotypes can be positive, but are usually negative. Either way, a stereotype is a generalisation that does not take into account differences at the individual level.

Prejudice and stereotypes concern biased views regarding others, but discrimination consists of targeted action against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender or other identifying features. Discrimination takes many forms, from pay gaps and glass ceilings to unfair housing policies.

In recent years, more and more new legislation and regulations have been introduced, designed to tackle discrimination and prejudice reduction in, for example, the workplace. It is not however possible to eliminate discrimination through legislation. Discrimination is a complex issue relating to the justice, education and political systems in a society.

Conditions for intergroup contact to reduce prejudice

Gordon Allport claimed that prejudice and conflict between groups can be reduced by having equal status contact between groups in pursuit of common goals. This effect is even greater when contact is officially sanctioned.

This can be achieved through legislation, but also through local customs and practice. In other words, there are four conditions under which prejudice can be reduced. These are:

Equal status

Both groups taking part in the contact situations must play equal roles in the relationship. The members of each group should have similar backgrounds, qualities and other features. Differences in academic background, prosperity or experience should be kept to a minimum.

Common goals

Both groups should seek to serve a higher purpose through the relationship and working together. This is a goal which can only be achieved when the two groups join forces and work together on common initiatives.

Working together

Both groups should work together to achieve their common goals, rather than in competition.

Support from the authorities through legislation

Both groups should recognise a single authority, to support contact and collaborative interaction between groups. This contact should be helpful, considerate, and foster the right attitude towards one another.

Examples of the contact hypothesis

The effect of greater contact between members of disparate groups has been the basis of many policy decisions advocating racial integration in settings such as schools, housing, workplaces and the military.

The contact hypothesis in the desegregation of education

An example of this is a 1954 landmark court decision by the US Supreme Court. The decision brought about the desegregation of schools. In this ruling, the contact hypothesis was used to demonstrate that this would increase self-esteem among racial minorities and respect between groups in general.

Studies into the implications of this decision in subsequent years did not always yield positive results. There have been studies showing that prejudice was actually reinforced and that self-esteem did not improve among minorities. The reason for this has already been set out above.

Contact between groups in schools, for example, was not always equal, nor did it take place with social supervision. These are two essential requirements or conditions for improving relationships between disparate groups.

The contact hypothesis in developing education strategies

The contact hypothesis has also proved invaluable in developing cooperative education strategies. The best known of these is the jigsaw classroom technique. This technique involves creating a particular classroom setting where students from various racial backgrounds are brought together in pursuit of a common goal.

In practice this means that students are placed in study groups of 6. The lesson is split into six elements, and each student is assigned one part of those six. That means that each student actually represents one piece in that jigsaw.

For the lesson to succeed, students need to trust one another based on their knowledge. This increases interdependence within the group, which is necessary for improving relationships between people.

Reducing prejudice

Besides it being very important to know how prejudice arises, studies on prejudice also focus on the potential to reduce prejudice. One technique widely believed to be highly effective is training people to become more empathetic towards members of other groups.

Putting yourself in someone else’s shoes makes it easier to think about what you would do in a similar situation.

Other techniques and methods used to reduce prejudice are:

  • Contact with members of other groups
  • Making others aware of the inconsistencies in their beliefs and values
  • Legislation and regulations which promote fair and equal treatment of people in minority groups
  • Creating public support and awareness

Implication of prejudice and discrimination in the workplace

Discrimination and prejudice can lead to wellbeing issues and substantial financial loss to the organisation, along with a sharp fall in employee and company morale. According to the American Psychological Association, 61% of adults face prejudice or discrimination at some time.

For some this happens at work; others face it as part of everyday life in society. Most people are aware of the negative effects this can have on employees, but discrimination and prejudice going unchecked can also have serious consequences.

Firstly, treating people unfairly can contribute to increased stress levels. This in turn leads to more wellbeing issues for those who are personally harmed or attacked. When someone is constantly worrying about discrimination or religion, he or she is forced to think about that thing all day long. Too much stress reduces sleep quality and suppresses appetite. When this becomes the norm for someone, they are going to feel chronically ill or down.

Prejudice also has a negative effect on the company in general. Companies may even suffer financial loss as a consequence. Employees who feel ill or down because of social issues are more likely to resign. The company then incurs substantial costs training new people.

Another obvious negative outcome for organisations is employees who hate management if they feel they are not being treated fairly. This negative attitude from employees has an effect on individual employee performance and ultimately also on the performance of the organisation as a whole.

The contact hypothesis in summary

The contact hypothesis, of which the intergroup contact theory is a part, is a theory from sociology and psychology which suggests that problems such as discrimination and prejudice can be drastically reduced by having more contact with people from different social groups. This notion is also called intergroup contact. Prejudice and conflict usually arise between majority and minority group members.

The social psychologist credited for his contributions in this field is Gordon Allport. Allport brought together several studies of interracial contact after the Second World War and developed the intergroup contact theory from those. His hypothesis was published in 1954. In the decades which followed, the theory was widely used in initiatives to tackle these social problems.

Prejudice is often a negative evaluation of others based on qualities such as political affiliation, age, skin colour, height, gender or other identifying features. Stereotyping resembles prejudice, but is in fact making generalisations about groups of people.

This social failing is also based on religion, gender or other identifying features which say nothing about the group as a whole. Discrimination goes a step further than prejudice and stereotypes. Discrimination is about actually treating people in a negative way based on particular identifying features such as race or education.

Gordon Allport developed four requirements or conditions necessary for reducing prejudice through increased intergroup contact. The first is that both groups should have an equal status. The members of each group should have similar backgrounds, qualities or social status.

Differences in academic background, prosperity or experience should be kept to a minimum. The second is to have common goals. The groups should not be brought together without some purpose. As mentioned too in the example above in the jigsaw classroom section, dependence on one another is stimulating, which is a prerequisite for social equality and improved relationships. This is linked to the third condition: working together.

Join the Toolshero community

Now it is your turn

What do you think? Are you familiar with the explanation of the contact hypothesis? Have you ever faced prejudice or discrimination? Have you ever experienced the positive effects of contact? Had you ever heard of this theory before? Do you think eliminating discrimination and prejudice is possible? What is your view on opportunity of outcome vs opportunity of equality? Do you have any other advice or additional comments?

Share your experience and knowledge in the comments box below.

More information

  • Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations . Psychological bulletin, 71(5), 319.
  • Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical . Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation, 281.
  • Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A., & Green, D. P. (2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated . Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129-158.
  • Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2005). Allport’s intergroup contact hypothesis: Its history and influence . On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport, 262-277.

How to cite this article: Janse, B. (2021). Contact Hypothesis Theory . Retrieved [insert date] from Toolshero: https://www.toolshero.com/psychology/contact-hypothesis/

Original publication date: 05/25/2021 | Last update: 08/21/2023

Add a link to this page on your website: <a href=”https://www.toolshero.com/psychology/contact-hypothesis/”>Toolshero: Contact Hypothesis Theory</a>

Did you find this article interesting?

Your rating is more than welcome or share this article via Social media!

Average rating 4.2 / 5. Vote count: 13

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Ben Janse

Ben Janse is a young professional working at ToolsHero as Content Manager. He is also an International Business student at Rotterdam Business School where he focusses on analyzing and developing management models. Thanks to his theoretical and practical knowledge, he knows how to distinguish main- and side issues and to make the essence of each article clearly visible.

Related ARTICLES

Psychotherapy - Toolshero

Psychotherapy: the Definition and Theory explained

Social Defeat - Toolshero

Social Defeat: a Stress Theory

Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) - Toolshero

Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS)

Alfred Adler - Toolshero

Alfred Adler biography, theory and books

impression management - Toolshero

Impression Management Theory by Erving Goffman

SCARF model - Toolshero

SCARF model by David Rock

Also interesting.

maslow hierarchy of needs toolshero

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory explained

Fowlers Stages of Faith - Toolshero

Fowler’s Stages of Faith Development

Flow Theory (Csikszentmihalyi) - Toolshero

Flow Theory by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

Leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

BOOST YOUR SKILLS

Toolshero supports people worldwide ( 10+ million visitors from 100+ countries ) to empower themselves through an easily accessible and high-quality learning platform for personal and professional development.

By making access to scientific knowledge simple and affordable, self-development becomes attainable for everyone, including you! Join our learning platform and boost your skills with Toolshero.

contact hypothesis psychology definition

POPULAR TOPICS

  • Change Management
  • Marketing Theories
  • Problem Solving Theories
  • Psychology Theories

ABOUT TOOLSHERO

  • Free Toolshero e-book
  • Memberships & Pricing

The Inquisitive Mind

magazine issue 2 2013 / Issue 17

Justice seems not to be for all: exploring the scope of justice.

written by Aline Lima-Nunes, Cicero Roberto Pereira & Isabel Correia

That human touch that means so much: Exploring the tactile dimension of social life

written by Mandy Tjew A Sin & Sander Koole

Intergroup Contact Theory: Past, Present, and Future

  • written by Jim A. C. Everett
  • edited by Diana Onu

contact hypothesis psychology definition

In the midst of racial segregation in the U.S.A and the ‘Jim Crow Laws’, Gordon Allport (1954) proposed one of the most important social psychological events of the 20th century, suggesting that contact between members of different groups (under certain conditions) can work to reduce prejudice and intergroup conflict . Indeed, the idea that contact between members of different groups can help to reduce prejudice and improve social relations is one that is enshrined in policy-making all over the globe. UNESCO, for example, asserts that contact between members of different groups is key to improving social relations. Furthermore, explicit policy-driven moves for greater contact have played an important role in improving social relations between races in the U.S.A, in improving relationships between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, and encouraging a more inclusive society in post-Apartheid South Africa. In the present world, it is this recognition of the benefits of contact that drives modern school exchanges and cross-group buddy schemes. In the years since Allport’s initial intergroup contact hypothesis , much research has been devoted to expanding and exploring his contact hypothesis . In this article I will review some of the vast literature on the role of contact in reducing prejudice , looking at its success, mediating factors, recent theoretical extensions of the hypothesis and directions for future research. Contact is of utmost importance in reducing prejudice and promoting a more tolerant and integrated society and as such is a prime example of the real life applications that psychology can offer the world.

The Contact Hypothesis

The intergroup contact hypothesis was first proposed by Allport (1954), who suggested that positive effects of intergroup contact occur in contact situations characterized by four key conditions: equal status, intergroup cooperation , common goals, and support by social and institutional authorities (See Table 1). According to Allport, it is essential that the contact situation exhibits these factors to some degree. Indeed, these factors do appear to be important in reducing prejudice , as exemplified by the unique importance of cross-group friendships in reducing prejudice (Pettigrew, 1998). Most friends have equal status, work together to achieve shared goals, and friendship is usually absent from strict societal and institutional limitation that can particularly limit romantic relationships (e.g. laws against intermarriage) and working relationships (e.g. segregation laws, or differential statuses).

Since Allport first formulated his contact hypothesis , much work has confirmed the importance of contact in reducing prejudice . Crucially, positive contact experiences have been shown to reduce self-reported prejudice (the most common way of assessing intergroup attitudes) towards Black neighbors, the elderly, gay men, and the disabled - to name just a few (Works, 1961; Caspi, 1984; Vonofako, Hewstone, & Voci, 2007; Yuker & Hurley, 1987). Most interestingly, though, in a wide-scale meta-analysis (i.e., a statistical analysis of a number of published studies), it has been found that while contact under Allport’s conditions is especially effective at reducing prejudice , even unstructured contact reduces prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). What this means is that Allport’s proposed conditions should be best be seen as of a facilitating, rather than an essential, nature. This is important as it serves to show the importance of the contact hypothesis : even in situations which are not marked by Allport’s optimal conditions, levels of contact and prejudice have a negative correlation with an effect size comparable to those of the inverse relationship between condom use and sexually transmitted HIV and the relationship between passive smoking and the incidence of lung cancer at work (Al-Ramiah & Hewstone, 2011). Contact between groups, even in sub-optimal conditions, is strongly associated with reduced prejudice .

Importantly, contact does not just influence explicit self-report measures of prejudice , but also reduces prejudice as measured in a number of different ways. Explicit measures (e.g. ‘How much do you like gay men?’) are limited in that there can be a self-report bias: people often answer in a way that shows them in a good light. As such, research has examined the effects of contact on implicit measures: measures that involve investigating core psychological constructs in ways that bypass people’s willingness and ability to report their feelings and beliefs. Implicit measures have been shown to be a good complement to traditional explicit measures - particularly when there may be a strong chance of a self-report bias. In computer reaction time tasks, contact has been shown to reduce implicit associations between the participant’s own in-group and the concept ‘good’, and between an outgroup (a group the participant is not a member of) and the concept ‘bad’ (Aberson and Haag, 2007). Furthermore, positive contact is associated with reduced physiological threat responses to outgroup members (Blascovich et al., 2001), and reduced differences in the way that faces are processed in the brain, implying that contact helps to increase perceptions of similarity (Walker et al., 2008). Contact, then, has a real and tangible effect on reducing prejudice – both at the explicit and implicit level. Indeed, the role of contact in reducing prejudice is now so well documented that it justifies being referred to as intergroup contact theory (Hewstone & Swart, 2011).

How does it work?

Multiple mechanisms have been proposed to explain just how contact reduces prejudice . In particular, “four processes of change” have been proposed: learning about the out-group , changing behavior, generating affective ties, and in-group reappraisal (Pettigrew, 1998). Contact can, and does, work through both cognitive (i.e. learning about the out-group , or reappraising how one thinks about one’s own in-group ), behavioural (changing one’s behavior to open oneself to potential positive contact experiences), and affective (generating affective ties and friendships, and reducing negative emotions) means. A particularly important mediating mechanism (i.e. the mechanisms or processes by which contact achieves its effect) is that of emotions, or affect, with evidence suggesting that contact works to reduce prejudice by diminishing negative affect (anxiety / threat) and inducing positive affect such as empathy (Tausch and Hewstone, 2010). In another meta-analysis , Pettigrew and Tropp (2008) supported this by looking specifically at mediating mechanisms in contact and found that contact situations which promote positive affect and reduce negative affect are most likely to succeed in conflict reduction. Contact situations are likely to be effective at improving intergroup relations insofar as they induce positive affect, and ineffective insofar as they induce negative affect such as anxiety or threat. If we feel comfortable and not anxious, the contact situation will be much more successful.

Generalizing the effect

An important issue that I have not yet addressed, however, is how these positive experiences after contact can be extended and generalized to other members of the outgroup . While contact may reduce an individual’s prejudice towards (for example) their Muslim colleague, its practical use is strongly limited if it doesn’t also diminish prejudice towards other Muslims. Contact with each and every member of an outgroup – let alone of all out-groups to which prejudice is directed – is clearly unfeasible and so a crucial question in intergroup contact research is how the positive effect can be generalized.

A number of approaches have been developed to explain how the positive effect of contact, including making group saliency low so that people focus on individual characteristics and not group-level attributes (Brewer & Miller, 1984), making group saliency high so that the effect is best generalized to others (Johnston & Hewstone, 1992), and making an overarching common ingroup identity salient (Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993). Each of these approaches have both advantages and disadvantages, and in particular each individual approach may be most effective at different stages of an extended contact situation. To deal with this issue Pettigrew (1998) proposed a three stage model to take place over time to optimize successful contact and generalization. First is the decategorization stage (as in Brewer & Miller, 1984), where participants’ personal (and not group) identities should be emphasized to reduce anxiety and promote interpersonal liking. Secondly, the individuals’ social categories should be made salient to achieve generalization of positive affect to the outgroup as a whole (as in Johnston & Hewstone, 1992). Finally, there is the recategorization stage, where participants’ group identities are replaced with a more superordinate group: changing group identities from ‘Us vs. Them’ to a more inclusive ‘We’ (as in Gaertner et al., 1993). This stage model could provide an effective method of generalizing the positive effects of intergroup contact.

Theoretical Extensions

Even with such work on generalization, however, it may still be unrealistic to expect that group members will have sufficient opportunities to engage in positive contact with outgroup members: sometimes positive contact between group members is incredibly difficult, if not impossible. For example, at the height of the Northern Ireland conflict, positive contact between Protestants and Catholics was nigh on impossible. As such, recent work on the role of intergroup contact in reducing prejudice has moved away from the idea that contact must necessarily include direct (face-to-face) contact between group members and instead includes the notion that indirect contact (e.g. imagined contact, or knowledge of contact among others) may also have a beneficial effect.

A first example of this approach comes from Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, and Ropp’s (1997) extended contact hypothesis . Wright et al. propose that mere knowledge that an ingroup member has a close relationship with an outgroup member can improve outgroup attitudes, and indeed this has been supported by a series of experimental and correlational studies. For example, Shiappa, Gregg, & Hewes, (2005) have offered evidence suggesting that just watching TV shows that portrayed intergroup contact was associated with lower levels of prejudice . A second example of an indirect approach to contact comes from Crisp and Turner’s (2009) imagined contact hypothesis , which suggests that actual experiences may not be necessary to improve intergroup attitudes, and that simply imagining contact with outgroup members could improve outgroup attitudes. Indeed, this has been supported in a number of studies at both an explicit and implicit level: British Muslims (Husnu & Crisp, 2010), the elderly (Abrams, Crisp, & Marques 2008), and gay men (Turner, Crisp, & Lambert, 2007).

These more recent extensions of the contact hypothesis have offered important suggestions on how to most effectively generalize the benefits of the contact situation and make use of findings from work on mediating mechanisms. It seems that direct face-to-face contact is always not necessary, and that positive outcomes can be achieved by positive presentation of intergroup-friendships in the media and even simply by imagining interacting with an outgroup member.

Issues and Directions for Future Research

Contact, then, has important positive effects on improved intergroup relations. It does have its critics, however. Notably, Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux (2005) argue that while contact has been important in showing how we can promote a more tolerant society, the existing literature has an unfortunate absence of work on how intergroup contact can affect societal change: changes in outgroup attitudes from contact do not necessarily accompany changes in the ideological beliefs that sustain group inequality. For example, Jackson and Crane (1986) demonstrated that positive contact with Black individuals improved Whites’ affective reactions towards Blacks but did not change their attitudes towards policy in combating inequality in housing, jobs and education. Furthermore, contact may also have the unintended effect of weakening minority members’ motivations to engage in collective action aimed at reducing the intergroup inequalities. For example, Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux (2007) found that the more contact Black South Africans had with White South Africans, the less they supported policies aimed at reducing racial inequalities. Positive contact may have the unintended effect of misleading members of disadvantaged groups into believing inequality will be addressed, thus leaving the status differentials intact. As such, a fruitful direction for future research would be to investigate under what conditions contact could lead to more positive intergroup relations without diminishing legitimate protest aimed at reducing inequality. One promising suggestion is to emphasize commonalities between groups while also addressing unjust group inequalities during the contact situation. Such a contact situation could result in prejudice reduction without losing sight of group inequality (Saguy, Tausch, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2009).

A second concern with contact research is that while contact has shown to be effective for more prejudiced individuals, there can be problems with getting a more prejudiced individual into the contact situation in the first place. Crisp and Turner’s imagined contact hypothesis seems to be a good first step in tackling this problem (Crisp & Turner, 2013), though it remains to be seen if, and how, such imagined contact among prejudiced individuals can translate to direct contact. Greater work on individual differences in the efficacy of contact would provide an interesting contribution to existing work.

Conclusions

Contact, then, has been shown to be of utmost importance in reduction of prejudice and promotion of more positive intergroup attitudes. Such research has important implications for policy work. Work on contact highlights the importance of institutional support and advocation of more positive intergroup relations, the importance of equal status between groups, the importance of cooperation between groups and the importance of positive media presentations of intergroup friendships - to name just a few. As Hewstone and Swart (2011) argue,

“Theory-driven social psychology does matter, not just in the laboratory, but also in the school, the neighborhood, and the society at large” (Hewstone & Swart, 2011. p.380).

  • Aberson, C. L., & Haag, S. C. (2007). Contact, perspective taking, and anxiety as predictors of stereotype endorsement, explicit attitudes, and implicit attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10 , 179–201.
  • Abrams, D. and Crisp, R.J. & Marques, S., (2008). Threat inoculation: Experienced and Imagined intergenerational contact prevent stereotype threat effects on older peoples math performance. Psychology and Aging, 23 (4), 934-939.
  • Al Ramiah, A., & Hewstone, M. (2011). Intergroup difference and harmony: The role of intergroup contact. In P. Singh, P. Bain, C-H. Leong, G. Misra, and Y. Ohtsubo. (Eds.), Individual, group and cultural processes in changing societies. Progress in Asian Social Psychology (Series 8), pp. 3-22. Delhi: University Press.
  • Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice . Cambridge/Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom: Building cooperation in the classroom (Vol. 978, p. 0673993830). New York: Longman.
  • Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., & Kowai-Bell, N. (2001). Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 253–267.
  • Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1985). The psychology of intergroup attitudes and behavior. Annual review of psychology, 36 (1), 219-243.
  • Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (Eds.). (1984). Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation. Academic Press.
  • Caspi, A. (1984). Contact hypothesis and inter-age attitudes: A field study of cross-age contact. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74-80.
  • Chu, D., & Griffey, D. (1985). The contact theory of racial integration: The case of sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2 (4), 323-333.
  • Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (1), 99-120.
  • Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions? Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. American Psychologist, 64, 231–240.
  • Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2013). Imagined intergroup contact: Refinements, debates and clarifications. In G. Hodson & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Advances in intergroup contact. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  • Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check for the contact hypothesis . American Psychologist, 60, 697–711.
  • Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2007). Intergroup contact and attitudes toward the principle and practice of racial equality. Psychological Science, 18, 867–872.
  • Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4 (1), 1-26.
  • Hewstone, M., & Swart, H. (2011). Fifty-odd years of inter-group contact: From hypothesis to integrated theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50 (3), 374-386.
  • Husnu, S. & Crisp, R. J. (2010). Elaboration enhances the imagined contact effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 943-950
  • Jackman, M.R., & Crane, M. (1986). “Some of my best friends are black...”: interracial friendship and whites’ racial attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 50, pp. 459–86
  • Johnston, L., & Hewstone, M. (1992). Cognitive models of stereotype change: 3. Subtyping and the perceived typicality of disconfirming group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28 (4), 360-386.
  • Landis D., Hope R.O., & Day H.R. (1984). Training for desegregation in the military. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer 1984, Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation, pp. 257–78. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  • Miller, N., & Brewer M. B., eds. (1984). Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  • Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual review of psychology, 49 (1), 65-85.
  • Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta- analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (5), 751.
  • Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice ? Meta- analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38 (6), 922-934.
  • Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20 , 114–121.
  • Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B., & Hewes, D. E. (2006). Can One TV Show Make a Difference? Will & Grace and the Parasocial Contact Hypothesis . Journal of Homosexuality, 51 (4), 15-37.
  • Tausch, N., & Hewstone, M. (2010). Intergroup contact and prejudice . In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The Sage handbook of prejudice , stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 544–560). Newburg Park, CA: Sage.
  • Turner, R. N., Crisp, R. J., & Lambert, E. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10 , 427-441.
  • Vonofakou, C., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007). Contact with outgroup friends as a predictor of meta-attitudinal strength and accessibility of attitudes towards gay men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 , 804–820.
  • Works, E. (1961).The prejudice -interaction hypothesis from the point of view of the Negro minority group. American Journal of Sociology. 67 : 47–52
  • Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 , 73–90.
  • Yuker, H. E., & Hurley, M. K. (1987). Contact with and attitudes toward persons with disabilities: The measurement of intergroup contact. Rehabilitation Psychology, 32 (3), 145.

From the editors

Everett (2013) presents an excellent overview of the research on Intergroup Contact Theory and how psychologists have used it to understand prejudice and conflict. As the article notes, friendship between members of different groups is one form of contact that helps dissolve inter-group conflict. Friendships are beneficial because of “self-expansion,” which is a fundamental motivational process that drives people to grow and integrate new things into their lives (Aron, Norman, & Aron, 1998). When an individual learns something or experiences something for the first time, his/her mind literally grows. When friendships are very intimate, people include aspects of their friends in their own self-concept (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991).

For example, if Scott (an American) becomes friends with Dan (a Russian), Scott might grow to appreciate Russian culture, because of their intimacy. Even the word “Russian” is now part of Scott’s own self-concept through this friendship, and Scott will have more positive feelings and attitudes toward Russians as a group. The same process happens for all kinds of other groups based race/ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

Importantly, self-expansion and intimacy through friendship do not work like magic; psychologists can’t wave a wand and make them appear. Nor does it happen through superficial small talk (e.g., “how about this crazy weather?”). Intimacy develops through deep communication: sustained, reciprocal, escalating conversations in which two friends come to know each other in a meaningful way. A Christian person might say, “I have a Jewish co-worker” (while talking about a casual acquaintance) or a Caucasian person might say, “I give money to an organization that helps starving people in Africa” or a straight person might say, “I support same-sex marriage equality because I know someone who is gay.” All of that is good, but it’s not as effective at reducing inter-group conflict as a true friendship with someone in those other groups; superficial contact has a small effect on racism, anti-Semitism, or homophobia. A recent meta-analysis (Davies, Tropp, Aron, Pettigrew, & Wright, 2011) revealed that spending lots of time with cross-group friends and having lots of in-depth communication with those friends were the two strongest predictors of change in positive attitudes and prejudice reduction.

At In-Mind, we work in a transnational team and we think this is enriching. What about you? Have you found friendships, or even working relations, across social groups? Did this lead you to have more open or positive attitudes? Or, do you have other experiences?

article author(s)

Jim A. C. Everett's picture

Jim A. C. Everett

Jim Everett studied for his undergraduate at the University of Oxford, gaining a First Class degree in Psychology, Philosophy, and Physiology. He completed... more

article keywords

  • discrimination
  • intergroup contact hypothesis

article glossary

  • intergroup conflict
  • recognition
  • Intergroup Contact Hypothesis
  • contact hypothesis
  • cooperation
  • meta-analysis
  • stereotypes
  • stereotype threat
  • field study

Psychology Dictionary

CONTACT HYPOTHESIS

the theory that individuals belonging to one class can come to be less biased against people belonging to other classes simply by elevating the amount of communication they have with them.

Avatar photo

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts

contact hypothesis psychology definition

From Loss to Liberation: The Psychological Journey Of Seniors Receiving All-On-4 Dental Implants

contact hypothesis psychology definition

How to Create Family History Interview Questions?

contact hypothesis psychology definition

The Most Common Addiction in the United States

contact hypothesis psychology definition

Road To Recovery: Tools And Resources For Mental Health Treatment Success

contact hypothesis psychology definition

Do Cat Allergy Shots for Humans Work?

contact hypothesis psychology definition

Exploring Past Life Regression: What Is It And How Does It Work?

contact hypothesis psychology definition

Coordinated Care: Ensuring Optimal Eye Health In Primary Care

contact hypothesis psychology definition

The Psychological Impact of Hernia Mesh Complications: Navigating Legal and Medical Waters

contact hypothesis psychology definition

A Look Into the Top Countries for Breast Surgery

contact hypothesis psychology definition

5 Different Treatments to Help Survivors of Sexual Assault 

contact hypothesis psychology definition

The Psychology of Metaphysical Belief Systems

contact hypothesis psychology definition

Substance Abuse Disorders in Professional Athletes

Popular psychology terms, medical model, hypermnesia, affirmation, brainwashing, backup reinforcer, message-learning approach, affiliative behavior, approach motivation, gross motor.

Book cover

Social Psychology in Action pp 145–161 Cite as

Intergroup Contact Theory

  • Oliver Christ 3 &
  • Mathias Kauff 3  
  • First Online: 02 July 2019

174k Accesses

24 Citations

Bringing members of different social groups into contact is thought to be as one of the most promising approaches for improving intergroup relations. Indeed, a plethora of studies has shown that this intergroup contact is an effective means not only to reduce mutual prejudice but also to increase trust and forgiveness. In this chapter, we will first review evidence for the effectiveness of intergroup contact and introduce different forms of intergroup contact – direct (i.e., face-to-face contact) as well as more indirect forms of contact (i.e., extended, vicarious, and imagined contact). We will then discuss moderators (e.g., types of in- and outgroup categorization) and mediators (e.g., intergroup anxiety and empathy) of contact effects as well as potential unintended effects of intergroup contact. Finally, we will summarize research on the effectiveness of intergroup contact interventions and give two examples of such interventions that have been implemented in the context of conflictual intergroup relations (i.e., Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Hutu-Tutsi conflict in Rwanda).

  • Intergroup contact
  • Intergroup relations
  • Indirect intergroup contact
  • Extended intergroup contact
  • Imagined intergroup contact
  • Intergroup contact interventions

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
  • Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Al Ramiah, A., & Hewstone, M. (2013). Intergroup contact as a tool for reducing, resolving, and preventing intergroup conflict: Evidence, limitations, and potential. American Psychologist, 68 (7), 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032603

Article   Google Scholar  

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice . Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Google Scholar  

Bar-Tal, D. (2007). Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist, 50 (11), 1430–1453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764207302462

Bar-Tal, D. (2013). Intractable conflicts: Socio-psychological foundations and dynamics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Becker, J. C., Wright, S. C., Lubensky, M. E., & Zhou, S. (2013). Friend or ally: Whether cross-group contact undermines collective action depends on what advantaged group members say (or don’t say). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39 (4), 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213477155

Beelmann, A., & Heinemann, K. S. (2014). Preventing prejudice and improving intergroup attitudes: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent training programs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35 (1), 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2013.11.002

Bigler, R. S., & Hughes, J. M. (2010). Reasons for skepticism about the efficacy of simulated social contact interventions. American Psychologist, 65 (2), 132–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018097

Binder, J. F., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., & Leyens, J.-P. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (4), 843–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013470

Blalock. (1984). Contextual-effects models: Theoretical and methodological issues. Annual Review of Sociology, 10 , 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.10.080184.002033

Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281–302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37 , 255–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5

Brown, R., & Paterson, J. (2016). Indirect contact and prejudice reduction: Limits and possibilities. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11 , 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.005

Christ, O., Hewstone, M., Tausch, N., Wagner, U., Voci, A., Hughes, J., & Cairns, E. (2010). Direct contact as a moderator of extended contact effects: Cross-sectional and longitudinal impact on outgroup attitudes, behavioral intentions, and attitude certainty. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36 (12), 1662–1674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210386969

Christ, O., Schmid, K., Lolliot, S., Swart, H., Stolle, D., Tausch, N., … Hewstone, M. (2014). Contextual effect of positive intergroup contact on outgroup prejudice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (11), 3996–4000. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320901111

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions? Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. The American Psychologist, 64 (4), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014718

Crisp, R. J., Stathi, S., Turner, R. N., & Husnu, S. (2009). Imagined intergroup contact: Theory, paradigm and practice. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00155.x

Davies, K., Tropp, L. R., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15 (4), 332–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411103

Dixon, J. (2017). Concluding thoughts: The past, present and future of research on the contact hypothesis. In L. Vezzali & S. Stathi (Eds.), Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 169–184). London, UK: Routledge.

Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2007). Intergroup contact and attitudes toward the principle and practice of racial equality. Psychological Science, 18 (10), 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01993.x

Dixon, J., Tropp, L. R., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. G. (2010). ‘Let them eat harmony’: Prejudice reduction and the political attitudes of historically disadvantaged groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19 (2), 76–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410363366

Dixon, J. A., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60 (7), 697–711. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.697

Durrheim, K., & Dixon, J. (2018). Intergroup contact and the struggle for social justice. In P. L. Hammack Jr. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of social psychology and social justice (pp. 367–377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 , 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model . New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K. M., & McGlynn, E. A. (2000). Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4 (1), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.98

Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (2), 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.239

Graf, S., & Paolini, S. (2017). Investigating positive and negative intergroup contact: Rectifying a long-standing positivity bias in the literature. In L. Vezzali & S. Stathi (Eds). Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 92–113). New York, NY: Routledge.

Halabi, R., & Sonnenschein, N. (2004). The Jewish-Palestinian encounter in a time of crisis. Journal of Social Issues, 60 (2), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00117.x

Hayward, L., Tropp, L., Hornsey, M., & Barlow, F. (2017). Toward a comprehensive understanding of intergroup contact: Descriptions and mediators of positive and negative contact among majority and minority groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43 , 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216685291

Hewstone, M. (2009). Living apart, living together? The role of intergroup contact in social integration. Proceedings of the British Academy, 162 , 243–300. https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197264584.003.0009

Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the ‘contact hypothesis’. In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1–44). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Voci, A., Hamberger, J., & Niens, U. (2006). Intergroup contact, forgiveness, and experience of “the troubles” in Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Issues, 62 (1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00441

Hewstone, M., Lolliot, S., Swart, H., Myers, E., Voci, A., Al Ramiah, A., & Cairns, E. (2014). Intergroup contact and intergroup conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peache Psychology, 20 (1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035582

Hodson, G., Turner, R. N., & Choma, B. L. (2017). Individual differences in intergroup contact propensity and prejudice reduction. In L. Vezzali & S. Stathi (Eds.), Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 8–30). London, UK: Routledge.

IOM. (2017). World migration report 2018 . New York, NY: United Nations. https://doi.org/10.18356/f45862f3-en

Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19 , 700–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196005

Kauff, M., Green, E. G. T., Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., & Christ, O. (2016). Effects of majority members’ positive intergroup contact on minority members’ support for ingroup rights: Mobilizing or demobilizing effects? European Journal of Social Psychology, 46 (7), 833–839. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2194

Kenworthy, J. B., Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2005). Intergroup contact: When does it work, and why? In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 278–292). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773963.ch17

Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B., Jr., Bahník, S., Bernstein, M. J., … Nosek, B. A. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A “many labs” replication project. Social Psychology, 45 (3), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178

Lee, Y.-T., & Jussim, L. (2010). Back in the real world. American Psychologist, 65 (2), 130–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018195

Lemmer, G., & Wagner, U. (2015). Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45 (2), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2079

Levin, S., van Laar, C., & Sidanius, J. (2003). The effects of ingroup and outgroup friendships on ethnic attitudes in college: A longitudinal study. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6 (1), 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001013

Lolliot, S., Fell, B., Schmid, K., Wölfer, R., Swart, H., Voci, A., … Hewstone, M. (2014). Measures of intergroup contact. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 652–683). London, UK: Academic Press.

Maoz, I. (2004). Coexistence is in the eye of the beholder: Evaluating intergroup encounter interventions between Jews and Arabs in Israel. Journal of Social Issues, 60 (2), 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00119.x

Maoz, I. (2011). Does contact work in protracted asymmetrical conflict? Appraising 20 years of reconciliation-aimed encounters between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Journal of Peace Research, 48 (1), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343310389506

Maoz, I., Bar-On, D., & Yikya, S. (2007). “They understand only force”: A critical examination of the eruption of verbal violence in a Jewish-Palestinian dialogue. Peace and Conflict Studies, 14 , 27–48.

Miles, E., & Crisp, J. (2014). A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis. Group Processes & Intergroup, 17 (1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213510573

Paluck, E. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (3), 574–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0011989.supp

Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60 , 339–367. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607

Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A., & Green, D. P. (2018). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy , 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49 , 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65

Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32 (3), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.12.002

Pettigrew, T. F. (2009). Probing the complexity of intergroup prejudice. International Journal of Psychology, 44 (1), 40–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590802057936

Pettigrew, T. F. (2016). In pursuit of three theories: Authoritarianism, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact. Annual Review of Psychology, 67 , 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033327

Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25 , 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250106

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. M. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact . Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2005). Differential relationships between intergroup contact and affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 (10), 1145–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205274854

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38 (6), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504

Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35 (3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Reicher, S. (2007). Rethinking the paradigm of prejudice. South Africa Journal of Psychology, 37 (4), 820–834. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630703700410

Saguy, T., Shchori-Eyal, N., Hasan-Aslih, S., Sobol, D., & Dovidio, J. F. (2017). The irony of harmony: Past and new development. In L. Vezzali & S. Stathi (Eds.), Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 53–71). London, UK: Routledge.

Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20 , 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02261.x

Shani, M. (2015). A theory and practice of coexistence: Improving coexistence orientation through mixed-model encounters between Jews and Palestinians in Israel . http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:579-opus-1004658

Shani, M., & Boehnke, K. (2017). The effect of Jewish-Palestinian mixed-model encounters on readiness for contact and policy support. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 23 (3), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000220

Shelton, J. N., Dovidio, J. F., Hebl, M., & Richeson, J. A. (2009). Prejudice and intergroup interaction. In S. Demoulin, J.-P. Leyens, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 21–38). New York, NY: Psychology Press Swart.

Swart, H., Hewstone, M., Christ, O., & Voci, A. (2011). Affective mediators of intergroup contact: A three-wave longitudinal study in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101 (6), 1221–1238. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024450

Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J., & Cairns, E. (2009). Intergroup Trust in Northern Ireland. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35 (1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208325004

Tausch, T., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J. B., Psaltis, C., Schmid, K., Popan, J. R., … Hughes, J. (2010). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: Alternative accounts and underlying processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99 (2), 282–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018553

Trawalter, S., Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2009). Predicting behavior during interracial interactions: A stress and coping approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13 (4), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309345850

Tropp, L. R., Hawi, D. R., Van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2012). Cross-ethnic friendships, perceived discrimination, and their effects on ethnic activism over time: A longitudinal investigation of three ethnic minority groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51 (2), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02050.x

Tropp, L. R., & Mallett, R. K. (2011). Charting new pathways to positive intergroup relations. In L. R. Tropp & R. K. Mallett (Eds.), Moving beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive intergroup relations (pp. 3–17). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Differential relationships between intergroup contact and affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 (8), 1145–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205274854

Turner, R. N., & West, K. (2012). Behavioural consequences of imagining intergroup contact with stigmatized outgroups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15 , 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211418699

Vezzali, L., Andrighetto, L., & Saguy, T. (2016). When intergroup contact can backfire: The content of intergroup encounters and desire for equality. Under review.

Vezzali, L., Crisp, R. J., Stathi, S., & Giovannini, D. (2015). Imagined intergroup contact facilitates intercultural communication for college students on academic exchange programs. Social Psychology, 18 (1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214527853

Vezzali, L., Hewstone, M., Capozza, D., Giovannini, D., & Wölfer, R. (2014). Improving intergroup relations with extended and vicarious forms of indirect contact. European Review of Social Psychology, 25 (1), 314–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.982948

Vezzali, L., & Stathi, S. (2017). The present and the future of the contact hypothesis and the need for integrating research fields. In L. Vezzali & S. Stathi (Eds.), Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 1–7). London, UK: Routledge.

Vezzali, L., Stathi, S., Crisp, R. J., Giovannini, D., Capozza, D., & Gaertner, S. L. (2015). Imagined intergroup contact and common ingroup identity: An integrative approach. Social Psychology, 46 , 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000242

Wagner, U., Christ, O., & van Dick, R. (2002). Die empirische Evaluation von Präventionsprogrammen gegen Fremdenfeindlichkeit [The empirical evaluation of prevention programs for xenophobia]. Journal für Konflikt- und Gewaltforschung, 4 , 101–117.

Wagner, U., Christ, O., & Heitmeyer, W. (2010). Anti-immigration bias. In J.F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P Glick, & V. Esses (Eds.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 361–378). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.

Wagner, U., & Hewstone, M. (2012). Intergroup contact. In L. R. Tropp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 193–209). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Wölfer, R., Christ, O., Schmid, K., Tausch, N. Buchallik, F. M., Vertovec. S., & Hewstone, M. (2019). Indirect contact predicts direct contact: Longitudinal evidence and the mediating role of intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116 (2), 277–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000146

Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73

Wright, S. C., & Lubensky, M. (2009). The struggle for social equality. Collective action vs. prejudice reduction. In S. Demoulin, J. P. Leyens, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Zhou, S., Page-Gould, E., Aron, A., & Hewstone, M. (2018). The extended contact hypothesis: A meta-analysis on 20 years of research. Personality and Social Psychology Review . https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318762647

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany

Oliver Christ & Mathias Kauff

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oliver Christ .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien/Knowledge Research Center and University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

Kai Sassenberg

Department of Psychology, Social Psychology program group, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Michael L. W. Vliek

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Christ, O., Kauff, M. (2019). Intergroup Contact Theory. In: Sassenberg, K., Vliek, M.L.W. (eds) Social Psychology in Action. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_10

Published : 02 July 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-13787-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-13788-5

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research

Research Hypothesis In Psychology: Types, & Examples

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, Ph.D., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years experience of working in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

A research hypothesis, in its plural form “hypotheses,” is a specific, testable prediction about the anticipated results of a study, established at its outset. It is a key component of the scientific method .

Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding

Some key points about hypotheses:

  • A hypothesis expresses an expected pattern or relationship. It connects the variables under investigation.
  • It is stated in clear, precise terms before any data collection or analysis occurs. This makes the hypothesis testable.
  • A hypothesis must be falsifiable. It should be possible, even if unlikely in practice, to collect data that disconfirms rather than supports the hypothesis.
  • Hypotheses guide research. Scientists design studies to explicitly evaluate hypotheses about how nature works.
  • For a hypothesis to be valid, it must be testable against empirical evidence. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.
  • Hypotheses are informed by background knowledge and observation, but go beyond what is already known to propose an explanation of how or why something occurs.
Predictions typically arise from a thorough knowledge of the research literature, curiosity about real-world problems or implications, and integrating this to advance theory. They build on existing literature while providing new insight.

Types of Research Hypotheses

Alternative hypothesis.

The research hypothesis is often called the alternative or experimental hypothesis in experimental research.

It typically suggests a potential relationship between two key variables: the independent variable, which the researcher manipulates, and the dependent variable, which is measured based on those changes.

The alternative hypothesis states a relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable affects the other).

A hypothesis is a testable statement or prediction about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a key component of the scientific method. Some key points about hypotheses:

  • Important hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested empirically. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.

In summary, a hypothesis is a precise, testable statement of what researchers expect to happen in a study and why. Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding.

An experimental hypothesis predicts what change(s) will occur in the dependent variable when the independent variable is manipulated.

It states that the results are not due to chance and are significant in supporting the theory being investigated.

The alternative hypothesis can be directional, indicating a specific direction of the effect, or non-directional, suggesting a difference without specifying its nature. It’s what researchers aim to support or demonstrate through their study.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis states no relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable does not affect the other). There will be no changes in the dependent variable due to manipulating the independent variable.

It states results are due to chance and are not significant in supporting the idea being investigated.

The null hypothesis, positing no effect or relationship, is a foundational contrast to the research hypothesis in scientific inquiry. It establishes a baseline for statistical testing, promoting objectivity by initiating research from a neutral stance.

Many statistical methods are tailored to test the null hypothesis, determining the likelihood of observed results if no true effect exists.

This dual-hypothesis approach provides clarity, ensuring that research intentions are explicit, and fosters consistency across scientific studies, enhancing the standardization and interpretability of research outcomes.

Nondirectional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis, also known as a two-tailed hypothesis, predicts that there is a difference or relationship between two variables but does not specify the direction of this relationship.

It merely indicates that a change or effect will occur without predicting which group will have higher or lower values.

For example, “There is a difference in performance between Group A and Group B” is a non-directional hypothesis.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional (one-tailed) hypothesis predicts the nature of the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. It predicts in which direction the change will take place. (i.e., greater, smaller, less, more)

It specifies whether one variable is greater, lesser, or different from another, rather than just indicating that there’s a difference without specifying its nature.

For example, “Exercise increases weight loss” is a directional hypothesis.

hypothesis

Falsifiability

The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper , is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory or hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must be testable and irrefutable.

Falsifiability emphasizes that scientific claims shouldn’t just be confirmable but should also have the potential to be proven wrong.

It means that there should exist some potential evidence or experiment that could prove the proposition false.

However many confirming instances exist for a theory, it only takes one counter observation to falsify it. For example, the hypothesis that “all swans are white,” can be falsified by observing a black swan.

For Popper, science should attempt to disprove a theory rather than attempt to continually provide evidence to support a research hypothesis.

Can a Hypothesis be Proven?

Hypotheses make probabilistic predictions. They state the expected outcome if a particular relationship exists. However, a study result supporting a hypothesis does not definitively prove it is true.

All studies have limitations. There may be unknown confounding factors or issues that limit the certainty of conclusions. Additional studies may yield different results.

In science, hypotheses can realistically only be supported with some degree of confidence, not proven. The process of science is to incrementally accumulate evidence for and against hypothesized relationships in an ongoing pursuit of better models and explanations that best fit the empirical data. But hypotheses remain open to revision and rejection if that is where the evidence leads.
  • Disproving a hypothesis is definitive. Solid disconfirmatory evidence will falsify a hypothesis and require altering or discarding it based on the evidence.
  • However, confirming evidence is always open to revision. Other explanations may account for the same results, and additional or contradictory evidence may emerge over time.

We can never 100% prove the alternative hypothesis. Instead, we see if we can disprove, or reject the null hypothesis.

If we reject the null hypothesis, this doesn’t mean that our alternative hypothesis is correct but does support the alternative/experimental hypothesis.

Upon analysis of the results, an alternative hypothesis can be rejected or supported, but it can never be proven to be correct. We must avoid any reference to results proving a theory as this implies 100% certainty, and there is always a chance that evidence may exist which could refute a theory.

How to Write a Hypothesis

  • Identify variables . The researcher manipulates the independent variable and the dependent variable is the measured outcome.
  • Operationalized the variables being investigated . Operationalization of a hypothesis refers to the process of making the variables physically measurable or testable, e.g. if you are about to study aggression, you might count the number of punches given by participants.
  • Decide on a direction for your prediction . If there is evidence in the literature to support a specific effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a directional (one-tailed) hypothesis. If there are limited or ambiguous findings in the literature regarding the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a non-directional (two-tailed) hypothesis.
  • Make it Testable : Ensure your hypothesis can be tested through experimentation or observation. It should be possible to prove it false (principle of falsifiability).
  • Clear & concise language . A strong hypothesis is concise (typically one to two sentences long), and formulated using clear and straightforward language, ensuring it’s easily understood and testable.

Consider a hypothesis many teachers might subscribe to: students work better on Monday morning than on Friday afternoon (IV=Day, DV= Standard of work).

Now, if we decide to study this by giving the same group of students a lesson on a Monday morning and a Friday afternoon and then measuring their immediate recall of the material covered in each session, we would end up with the following:

  • The alternative hypothesis states that students will recall significantly more information on a Monday morning than on a Friday afternoon.
  • The null hypothesis states that there will be no significant difference in the amount recalled on a Monday morning compared to a Friday afternoon. Any difference will be due to chance or confounding factors.

More Examples

  • Memory : Participants exposed to classical music during study sessions will recall more items from a list than those who studied in silence.
  • Social Psychology : Individuals who frequently engage in social media use will report higher levels of perceived social isolation compared to those who use it infrequently.
  • Developmental Psychology : Children who engage in regular imaginative play have better problem-solving skills than those who don’t.
  • Clinical Psychology : Cognitive-behavioral therapy will be more effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety over a 6-month period compared to traditional talk therapy.
  • Cognitive Psychology : Individuals who multitask between various electronic devices will have shorter attention spans on focused tasks than those who single-task.
  • Health Psychology : Patients who practice mindfulness meditation will experience lower levels of chronic pain compared to those who don’t meditate.
  • Organizational Psychology : Employees in open-plan offices will report higher levels of stress than those in private offices.
  • Behavioral Psychology : Rats rewarded with food after pressing a lever will press it more frequently than rats who receive no reward.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

  • Search Menu
  • Author Guidelines
  • Submission Site
  • Self-Archiving Policy
  • Why Submit?
  • About Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
  • About International Communication Association
  • Editorial Board
  • Advertising & Corporate Services
  • Journals Career Network
  • Journals on Oxford Academic
  • Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

The contact hypothesis reconsidered: interacting via internet, conditions and challenges of the contact hypothesis, practicality and contact, anxiety in contact, generalization from contact, the net advantage, ameliorating anxiety through online interaction, supersize it: generalizing from the contact to the group, getting more than just skin deep, beyond the cookie-cutter contact: tailoring the net contact to fit specific needs, conclusions, about the authors.

  • < Previous

The Contact Hypothesis Reconsidered: Interacting via the Internet

  • Article contents
  • Figures & tables
  • Supplementary Data

Yair Amichai-Hamburger, Katelyn Y. A. McKenna, The Contact Hypothesis Reconsidered: Interacting via the Internet, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , Volume 11, Issue 3, 1 April 2006, Pages 825–843, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00037.x

  • Permissions Icon Permissions

One of the leading theories advocated for reducing intergroup conflict is the contact hypothesis. According to this theory, contact under certain conditions, such as equal status, cooperation towards a superordinate goal, and institutional support, will create a positive intergroup encounter, which, in turn, will bring about an improvement in intergroup relations. Despite its promise, the contact hypothesis appears to suffer from three major defects: (1) practicality—creating a contact situation involves overcoming some serious practical obstacles; (2) anxiety—the anxiety felt by the participants may cause a contact to be unsuccessful or at least not reach its potential; (3) generalization—the results of a contact, however sucessful, tend to to be limited to the context of the meeting and to the participants. The Internet has, in recent years, become an accessible and important medium of communication. The Internet creates a protected environment for users where they have more control over the communication process. This article suggests that the Internet’s unique qualities may help in the creation of positive contact between rival groups. The major benefits of using the Internet for contact are examined in this article.

The contact hypothesis has been described as one of the most successful ideas in the history of social psychology ( Brown, 2000 ). Allport (1954) presented the first widely-accepted outline of the contact hypothesis, claiming that true acquaintance lessens prejudice. In other words, knowledge, on its own, will not cause people to negate their prejudices and stereotypes about others, since they are very likely to accept only those pieces of information that fit into their preconceived schema of the world. It is through getting to know the other that people may be able to break down their stereotypes of him or her.

The Internet has, to date, been perhaps the most successful means of facilitating and enabling contact among individuals—particularly those who otherwise would not have had the opportunity, nor perhaps the inclination, to meet ( McKenna & Bargh, 2000 ). As we will argue here, the Internet is uniquely suited to the implementation of the various requirements of the contact hypothesis that are necessary for consistently producing successful outcomes. Indeed, the Internet may be the best tool yet for effectively putting the contact hypothesis into practice.

The article begins with a brief overview of the requirements necessary to create an ideal and successful contact situation and the challenges to putting these requirements into practice in traditional settings. We then discuss the ways in which the Internet can be used to meet these challenges and, in some areas, do so more successfully than can be achieved through traditional interaction contexts (e.g., in person, over the phone). We conclude with a short section providing ideas for how various aspects of the online contact environment and interaction process can be tweaked to fit specific situational needs and to improve the chances for a successful contact to occur.

Under ideal circumstances, when a member of a majority group meets with a minority group member and the experience is a positive one, an attitude change on two levels will result ( Allport, 1954 ). First, there will be an attitude change that is target-specific. That is, initial assumptions about the other that arise from the (negative) stereotypes associated with his or her group are replaced by more positive perceptions of the individual. Second, these new positive associations with the individual will become extended to that individual’s group as a whole, thus ameliorating negative attitudes toward the group. Allport delineated four key conditions for such a meeting: equal-group status within the situation; common goals; intergroup cooperation; and institutional support. Several other conditions were later added, the most important of these being voluntary participation and intimate contact ( Amir, 1969 , 1976 ).

There is strong empirical support demonstrating that, when effectively implemented, the conditions described above do indeed lead to a positive attitude change that is target-specific (e.g., Brown & Wade, 1987 ; Hewstone & Brown, 1986 ; Riordan & Ruggiero, 1980 ). The evidence is less clear regarding a global attitude change toward the group, however. A majority of studies do not find that the positive attitude toward the individual translates into a more positive attitude toward the group nor into more positive behavior toward other individual group members (see Hewstone & Brown, 1986 for a review). Scarberry, Ratcliff, Lord, Lanicek and Desforges (1997) demonstrate that a global attitude change can be consistently achieved, however, under carefully controlled conditions.

The contact hypothesis contains a long list of conditions for a sucessful contact. However, Pettigrew and Tropp (2000) , in their meta-analysis of contact studies, have found that it is not necessary that all of Allport’s (1954) conditions be present simultaneously for bias to be reduced. Mere contact can be a sufficient condition for bias reduction that is lasting and generalizes beyond the individuals to their larger group. Importantly, however, each of Allport’s conditions further enhances the bias-reducing effects of mere contact and thus the more conditions that are co-present, the more likely a successful and lasting outcome will be achieved.

Unfortunately, there are significant barriers to meeting many of the conditions and, indeed, even to arranging for a “mere contact” to take place. This, in turn, limits the number of contacts that actually take place. The major challenges are: (1) The practicality issue: Contact between rival groups according to the conditions required by the contact hypothesis might be very complicated to arrange and expensive to run. (2) Anxiety: Despite the fact that participation in a contact is voluntary, the high anxiety involved in the contact situation may hinder its success. (3) Generalization: How can a generalization be created from a specific contact with certain outgroup members to the outgroup as a whole? We turn to a more detailed discussions of these difficulties below.

Organizing a meeting among members of opposing groups raises both logistical and financial issues. Groups that are segregated and/or geographically distant from each other will be harder to bring together and any meeting will be more costly. Even when the different groups are geographically close, linking them may still prove an expensive undertaking. Joint holiday plans for Catholic and Protestant children in Northern Ireland are one such example ( Trew, 1986 ). As the undertaking becomes more expensive, the chances of it taking place decline. In addition, there may be barriers of language or of status. Language barriers may cause feelings of distance, misunderstanding, and miscommunication among the different groups. The issue of equal status is also problematic; in some cases rival groups are characterized by extreme status differences ( Pettigrew, 1971 ).

Intergroup interactions are often more anxiety-provoking than interpersonal ones and such anxiety may not be conducive to harmonious social relations ( Islam & Hewstone, 1993 ; Stephan & Stephan, 1985 ; Wilder, 1993 ). Intergroup anxiety is the result of anticipation of negative reactions during the intergroup encounter ( Stephan & Cookie, 2001 ; Stephan & Stephan, 1996 ). When an individual is anxious, he or she is more likely to use heuristics. Thus, if an intergroup contact produces significant levels of anxiety in the individual or individuals involved, he or she is more likely to apply stereotypes to the outgroup ( Bodenhausen, 1990 ; Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985 ).

Wilder (1993) pointed out that when in a state of anxiety, group members are likely to ignore any disconfirming information supplied in the contact context. Under such conditions, as Wilder and Shapiro (1989) demonstrated, when a member of the outgroup behaves in a positive manner that contradicts the expectations of the other side, members of the ingroup do not alter their opinions and recall the outgroup as behaving in a manner consistent with the stereotype. In such a case, the contact between these members is unlikely to bring about any change in the group stereotype.

One of the greatest challenges to the contact hypothesis is the issue of whether or not the results of a positive contact with a member of the outgroup will be generalized further. Group saliency during the interaction appears to be of critical importance to successful generalization. However, there is much debate among researchers as to what level that salience should be. Hewstone and Brown (1986) argued that a general contact is likely to be perceived on the interpersonal level and therefore not have any impact on the intergroup level. In other words, if the individual is perceived only as an individual rather than also as a representative member of his or her group, then any attitude change will remain target-specific. They suggested that, for a positive contact to have a wider group-level impact, individual participants need to be seen as representatives of their group so that the (out)group identity is highly salient. Conversely, Brewer and Miller (1984) among others have suggested that in order for a contact to succeed, group saliency should be low.

Hamburger (1994) suggested that when the central tendency of the stereotype is the only component to be measured, a large part of the picture is ignored. He added that this component may be the most resistant to change. Thus, negative results of group generalization based solely on central tendency measures may lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the contact theory in general. The inclusion of more sensitive measurements, such as variability, will give a more accurate picture, as well as allow an investigation into the background processes. Several recent studies have demonstrated Hamburger’s suggestion that the central tendency is likely to be the more rigid component in the stereotype ( Garcia-Marques & Mackie, 1999 ; Hewstone & Hamberger, 2000 ).

Clearly, when all the necessary ingredients are present, positive and beneficial results may be obtained, but just as clearly, “getting the recipe right” to produce such an outcome may be difficult at best under traditional circumstances. Yet the major literature dealing with the contact hypothesis (for a review see Brown & Hewstone, 2005 ) fails to take into account the potential role of the Internet in helping towards the success of an intergroup contact. Below we examine the ways in which contact over the Internet may overcome the practical difficulties inherent in the creation of a face-to-face contact situation according to the conditions set out in the contact hypothesis.

Internet contact and practicality

Leveling the field.

The contact hypothesis requires that there should be equal status between the members of both groups taking part in the contact. According to McClendon (1974) , equal status increases the likelihood for perceived similarities between the groups and so enhances the likelihood for improvement in their relationship and in the reduction of stereotypes ( Pettigrew, 1971 ). Optimally, there should be both external equal status (in real life) and internal equal status (within the contact) between the people taking part in the encounter. In face-to-face encounters, even very subtle differences in manner of dress, body language, use of personal space, and the seating positions taken in the room can belie real (or perceived) status differences. As Hogg (1993) has shown, within group interactions people tend to be highly sensitive in discerning subtle cues that may be indicative of status. Online interactions have the advantage here because many, although not all, of the cues individuals typically rely on to gauge the internal and external status of others are not typically in evidence.

For instance, when contact takes place in text-based environments on the Internet, regular status symbols are not part of the interaction; “on the Internet no one knows that I am wearing a diamond necklace or have teeth missing.” This point is particularly pertinent with regard to face-to-face contact, where organizers may have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that all participants are of equal status only to have one arrive with a Rolex watch or a similarly inappropriate status symbol.

Even when status differences are known, electronic interaction tends to ameliorate some of the effects of status differentials. For instance, when bringing together members of two established groups, the members are likely to be well aware of the internal pecking order within their own group even if they do not have knowledge of the established hierarchy among the other group’s members. In face-to-face interactions such distinctions within the groups often quickly become apparent to all, as those who stand lower tend to speak up less often and, in ways both obvious and subtle, give deference to those with higher status within their group.

Such is not the case in electronic interactions. One aspect of electronic communications that has long been decried (e.g., Sproull & Kiesler, 1991 ) is the tendency, within organizational settings, for there to be a reduction in the usual inhibitions that typically operate when interacting with one’s superiors. In other words, existing internal status does not carry as much weight and does not affect the behavior of the group members to such an extent. Underlings are more likely to speak up, to speak “out of turn,” and to speak their mind. Thus electronic interaction makes power less of an issue during discussion which leads group members, regardless of status, to contribute more to the discussion ( Spears, Postmes, Lea, & Wolbert, 2002 ). While this can prove to be problematic within a corporate setting, it is advantageous in the present context, as the medium serves to reduce the constraining effects of status both within and between the two groups.

Connecting from afar and with the comforts of home

As noted above, organizers may face significant difficulties in arranging a meeting among individuals and groups when it comes to finding a suitable meeting place, transporting the participants involved, and compensating participants for lost time due to travel incurred. This is particularly true when the groups in question or their various members live at some distance from one another. Participation may be limited to only those members of the groups who have the financial resources and job flexibility to enable their attendance or those who live in close proximity to the meeting site, rather than to all members who have the inclination (but not the resources) to attend. Thus the size and number of contacts possible are severely restricted when such meetings are face-to-face affairs.

The advent of computer-mediated interaction has opened the doors to connection possibilities that were previously not feasible. Time differences and physical distance are no longer obstacles to bringing people “together,” at least in the developed countries of the world. Electronic meetings are neither costly to set up nor are they time consuming for the participants. All that is required is for the participants to log onto the Internet and into the virtual meeting space at the specified day and time from an office, public library, or a home computer.

Indeed, having participants engage in the contact from the privacy of their respective homes has distinct advantages. Participants are likely to feel more comfortable and less anxious in their familiar surroundings. Further, research has shown that public, as opposed to private, settings can exacerbate the activation and use of stereotypes, especially when it comes to those tied to racial prejudice (e.g., Lambert, Payne, et al., 2003 ). As Zajonc (1965) has shown, an individual’s habitual or dominant response is more likely to emerge in public settings, whereas the individual is likely to be more open and receptive to altering the habitual response when in a private sphere. Even when participants interact in quite “public” electronic venues but do so from the privacy of their homes, they tend to feel that it is a private affair (e.g., McKenna & Bargh, 2000 ; McKenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002 ). Thus, interacting electronically from home should serve to inhibit the activation of stereotypes as compared to a more public and face-to-face setting in a new environment.

Cooperation toward superordinate goals

One of the keys to a successful contact is for both sides to participate jointly in a task, the completion of which is important to both groups ( Allport, 1954 ; Miller & Harrington, 1992 ). This is especially true when cooperation between the groups will lead to successful outcomes ( Blanchard, Adelman, & Cook, 1975 ). The question then arises as to whether such an exercise may be successfully undertaken on the Internet and, if so, will the results equal or surpass those conducted in traditonal, face-to-face environments?

Today many organizations do in fact have working teams whose members are dispersed all around the world and who frequently communicate, cooperate, and complete tasks through the Internet. Successful outcomes routinely occur despite the fact that, in many cases, the team members have never met one another and are unlikely to do so. This phenomenon is known as a virtual team. This form of working is becoming increasingly common within organizations, as the benefits of including virtual teams have become more evident ( Cascio, 2000 ). For instance, employers find that telecommuting increases worker productivity and improves attendance ( Abreu, 2000 ).

To date, the evidence seems to indicate that tasks performed by virtual teams are done equally well (or equally badly) as those conducted by face-to-face work teams. Research by Dennis (1996 ; Dennis & Kinney, 1998 ) has shown that members of verbally-interacting workgroups tend to share less vital information than do members of electronic workgroups, and hence make poor decisions. Yet, members of the electronic groups also tend to make poor group decisions, despite exchanging 50% more of the vital information needed to make an optimal decision. Galegher and Kraut (1994) also found that for virtual work groups the final product was similar in overall quality to that produced by face-to-face group members.

Institutional support and willingness to participate

One of the preconditions for a contact is that participants from both sides receive institutional support ( Allport, 1954 ; Slavin, 1985 ). This is to try to ensure that the contact will have a positive influence on the wider groups represented there. This is particularly important when the differences between the groups are deep-seated or potentially explosive. In such a case, a leader might resent sending group representatives to a meeting with the outgroup and may be concerned that such a meeting would diminish his or her standing as a leader.

A related condition is that the members from both sides take part in the meeting on their own volition. If the organization has compelled its members to take part in the meeting, they are unlikely to change their stereotypes as a negative reaction to the feelings of loss of control over their freedom of association ( Stephan & Stephan, 1996 ).

Internet contact may provide a balm to some of these issues. Participating in an Internet contact may be seen as taking on less of a risk than a face-to-face contact ( Bargh & McKenna, 2004 ; McKenna & Bargh, 1998) and this may make it easier for group members to volunteer to participate and for leaders to support such a meeting.

Bridging the language barrier

One issue that arises when coordinating meetings among groups with different native tongues is that of communication. Generally, participants need to be selected who either can communicate through a common language—often one that is native to neither group (i.e., English)—or translators must be provided, which can be costly. Bringing in individuals to provide translation assistance can be problematic for other reasons, as well. For instance, there is the danger that attention will focus on the person doing the translation and not on the individual members whose opinions he or she is expressing. This can reduce the perception of the target both as an individual and as a representative member of his or her group.

Emerging software, however, will soon allow individuals interacting through a text-based environment to receive messages in their own language even though those messages were created in another. There are already a number of text translation tools currently available for use on the Internet. None have yet reached the point of refinement and accuracy needed for a successful exchange of ideas with all the nuances, but the translation programs are improving by leaps and bounds (e.g., Climent, Moré, Oliver, Salvatierra, Taulé, Sanchez, & Vallmanya, 2003 ; Coughlin, 2001 ). It will not be long before we can all speak “your” language and you can speak “ours.” This will allow for the removal of a (human) third party translator to obvious advantage and, because communication will take place in each party’s “own” language, feelings of similarity and kinship should be enhanced.

Thus, in terms of sheer practicality, there are some distinct advantages to conducting contact interactions over the Internet. Participants can readily take part from disparate locales and do so from a position of greater comfort and security than can be obtained in face-to-face meetings. Many of the most obvious status “give-aways” are not in evidence in text-based online interactions. When the status of a member is known, the nature of the communication medium tends to ameliorate the negative influence and effects that status can have on an interaction. Cooperative tasks can be conducted just as well online as they could were the participants to undertake them in person and, indeed, there may be greater willingness to take part in the online task. Finally, as our technology continues to evolve, better software tools are being developed that will enhance the meeting and interaction between participants in ways not possible in traditional settings. Beyond issues of practicality, there are additional ways that an online setting can prove advantageous; these are discussed below.

There is a growing body of evidence supporting the notion that the anxiety an interaction situation may provoke is significantly reduced when that interaction takes place through a text-based exchange on the Internet as compared to face-to-face. As noted earlier, inter-group interactions are often more anxiety-provoking than interpersonal ones, although those too can often elicit feelings of anxiousness. Anxiety increases the tendency to rely on stereotyping during an interaction, with lasting effects. Further, should an individual’s anxiety or nervousness be apparent to others, they tend to be liked and accepted less by those others (e.g., Leary, 1983 ).

However, many of the situational factors that can foster feelings of anxiety in social situations (e.g., having to respond on the spot, feeling under visual scrutiny) are absent in online interactions. Because participants have more control over how they present themselves and their views online (e.g., being able to edit one’s comments before presenting them), they should tend to feel more comfortable and in control of the situation. They should be better able to and to more often express themselves, to be liked more by their online interactions partners than if they interacted in person, and to develop closer, more intimate relationships through online interaction.

Research on those with chronically high levels of social anxiety demonstrates just that. For instance, a recent laboratory study examined small group interaction among socially anxious and nonanxious participants (see McKenna & Seidman, 2005 ). Seventy-five undergraduate students at New York University were pre-selected for this study based on their responses on the Interaction Anxiousness Scale ( Leary, 1983 ). Only those who scored at the high and low extremes of the scale were recruited for the study, and they were randomly assigned to interact in groups of three either face-to-face or in a specially-created Internet chat room. Immediately following the interaction, participants assessed how they felt during the interaction, as well as how accepted and included they felt by the other group members.

Consistent with their responses on the Interaction Anxiousness Scale, socially anxious individuals in the face-to-face condition reported feeling anxiety, shyness, and discomfort during the group interaction, while the opposite was true for non-anxious participants. In marked contrast, interacting online produced significantly different results. Participants reported feeling significantly less anxious, shy, and uncomfortable, and more accepted by their fellow group members than did those who interacted face-to-face—but these effects were wholly qualified by differences in levels of social anxiety. That is, the extremely extroverted participants felt equally comfortable, outgoing, and accepted interacting online and in person. For those experiencing high levels of social anxiety, however, the mode of communication proved pivotal to their feelings of comfort, shyness, and acceptance. Moreover, the self-reports of the socially anxious participants in the online condition on these measures were virtually identical to those of nonanxious participants in the face-to-face condition.

Those experiencing anxiety in social situations have also been found to take more active leadership roles in online groups than in their face-to-face counterparts. In a study by McKenna, Seidman, Buffardi, and Green (2005 ), participants were again preselected based on their interaction anxiety scores and randomly assigned to interact in groups of four (composed of two anxious and two nonanxious members) either in an Internet chat room or face-to-face. They then engaged in a decision-making task, following which they rated each of their interaction peers on measures of leadership, degree of participation in the discussion as compared to the other members, extroversion, and how much they liked the person based on their interaction. Peer ratings showed that socially anxious participants were as likely as their nonanxious counterparts to be perceived as leaders within the respective groups and to participate as actively when the interaction took place online. In the face-to-face condition, nonanxious participants received the leadership vote and were the more active participants. Socially anxious participants were viewed as more likeable and extroverted when they interacted online than in person, while their nonanxious counterparts were viewed as equally likeable and extroverted in both situations.

The largest hurdle to overcome is the tendency for the various members of the contact situation to come to feel quite close to one another and yet to view their new comrades from the outgroup as exceptions to their group rather than as normative representatives. Unless the members of the outgroup are perceived as representative members, the contact will have failed, for no changes in the perceived stereotype of the group as a whole will have taken place.

One of the advantages of online communication is that one can quite easily manipulate the degree of individual versus group saliency in a given contact situation in order to achieve a desired outcome. Spears et al. (2002) have argued that anonymous communication within groups leads to a sense of depersonalization by the group members. That is, members feel an absence of personal accountability and personal identity and thus the group-level identity becomes more important. When the group-level identity is thus heightened, Spears et al. (2002) have shown that group norms can have an even stronger effect than occurs in face-to-face interactions. The degree to which the group identity is salient, however, plays an important role in determining what the effects of anonymity will be on the development of group norms.

For instance, Spears, Lea, and Lee (1990) found that when members of online groups interacted under anonymous conditions and group salience was high, normative behavior increased in those groups as compared to electronic groups in which members were anonymous but the salience of the group was low. Whether group salience was high or low, participants who interacted under individuating conditions displayed an intermediate level of conformity to group norms.

One of the most interesting sets of studies examining the interaction between anonymity and identity-salience tested the effects of primed behavior in electronic groups. Postmes, Spears, Sakhel, and De Groot (2001) primed participants with either task-oriented or socioemotional behavior and then had them interact in electronic groups under either anonymous or identifying conditions. Members in the anonymous groups displayed behavior consistent with the respective prime they received considerably more so than did their counterparts who interacted under identifiable conditions within their groups. Normative behavior strengthened over time in the anonymous groups, with the members conforming even more strongly to the primed behavior. In contrast, when members were identifiable to other group members they actually bucked the norms and behaved more prime-inconsistently over time.

Further studies provided even stronger evidence of the effect that anonymity can have on normative behavior. In a study by Postmes et al. (2001) , only half of the participants in each group received the behavioral prime. In the anonymous groups, those participants who did not receive the prime nonetheless conformed to the task or socioemotional behavior being exhibited by their primed cohorts and did so significantly more than did the nonprimed participants in the identifiable groups. Further, those who interacted anonymously reported feeling a significantly stronger attachment to their group and to the other group members.

Importantly, in an online environment one can hit two birds with one stone; one can heighten the perception of the individual members as representative of their disparate groups while simultaneously fostering feelings of kinship and attachment to the “new group” composed of all members taking part in the exercise. There are a number of means by which the first can be achieved. For instance, one can provide all members with anonymous screen names that are evocative of the group they are representing (e.g., Pakistan 1, India 1, Pakistan 2) or, following Leah Thompson’s procedure (see Thompson & Nadler, 2002 ) one can have each member briefly introduce him- or herself at the beginning of the interaction and ask each to include a statement stressing his or her typicality as a member, and so forth. As the interaction in the online environment progresses, group norms will begin to quickly emerge ( Spears et al., 2002 ). These norms will be distinct from those that operate when members of group A are alone together and distinct from those unique to group B. Rather, these norms will emerge from the combined membership of groups A and B in the online setting, leading to heightened feelings of attachment and camaraderie among the participants. Thus, one can effectively invoke the necessary balance of a sense of both “us and them” among the participants that will allow for acceptance and generalization.

Cook (1962) suggested that the more intimate the relationship, the more favorable the attitude of the groups was likely to be. He stressed the importance of the “acquaintance potential,” or the opportunity provided by the situation for the contact participants to get to know each other. Recent research into the importance of personalized interaction (e.g., Miller, 2002 ) and intergroup friendships (e.g., Pettigrew, 1997 , 1998 ) has reawakened interest in this aspect of the contact. It is also has a particular relevance to this discussion on contact through the Internet.

Mutual self-disclosure is a critical component for the formation of close interpersonal bonds and the establishment of a sense of belonging and acceptance. Thus problematically, interactions between in-group and out-group members are usually conducted on a casual and superficial level. For example, Taylor, Dube, and Bellerose (1986) reported a study carried out at McGill University, an English University in a French-speaking area of Canada. Most of the students (76%) are English speakers. One might think that, given the relatively high percentage of English-speaking students, the French-speaking students would engage in more interaction with English-speaking students than with French-speaking students. However, the sample of French students reported that fully 50% of their social interactions were with other French-speaking students, a proportion notably higher (in fact, double) than their representation in the university. English-speaking students reported interacting with in-group members 87% of the time. Tellingly, participants reported that their interaction with in-group members was significantly more intimate than their interaction with out-group members.

One of the major advantages of Internet interactions over face-to-face interactions is the general tendency for individuals to engage in greater self-disclosure and more intimate exchanges there. Interactions online tend to become “more than skin deep” and to do so quite quickly (e.g., McKenna et al., 2002 ; Walther, 1996 ).

Spears and Lea (1994) suggest that it is the protection of anonymity often provided by the Internet that helps people openly to express the way they really think and feel. In line with this, McKenna and Bargh (1998, 1999 ) suggest that this sense of anonymity allows people to take risks in making disclosures to their Internet friends that would be unthinkable to them in a face-to-face interaction. More recently, McKenna, Buffardi, and Seidman (2005) found that, while people tend to engage in the greatest acts of self-disclosure when interacting under relative anonymity online, they also disclose more to their face-to-face friends and to family members when interacting with these individuals online. In other words, even without the cloak of anonymity, people more readily make intimate disclosures through their Internet interactions than through their face-to-face interactions, even when it comes to their nearest and dearest.

There are a number of unique qualities of the Internet that facilitate self-disclosure and intimacy online. As they have been discussed extensively elsewhere (see Ben Ze’ev, 2004 ; McKenna & Bargh, 2000 ; McKenna & Green, 2002 ; McKenna et al., 2002 ), we list them only briefly. They are: (1) a greater sense of anonymity or non-identifiability that leads to a reduced feeling of vulnerability and risk; (2) the absence of traditional gating features to the establishment of any close relationship—that is, easily discernable features such as physical appearance (beauty is in the eye of the beholder), mannerisms, apparent social stigmas such as stuttering, or visible shyness or anxiety; (3) a greater ease of finding others who share our specialized interests and values—and particularly so when there are a lack of “real world” counterparts (e.g., because of the marginalized or highly specialized nature of the interest, such similar others may not be present in one’s physical community or, if they are, they are not readily identifiable); and (4) more control over one’s side of the interaction and how one presents oneself.

The online environment seems to be particularly suited for “getting more than skin deep.” The results of a laboratory experiment in which undergraduates were randomly assigned (in cross-sex pairs) to meet one another for the first time in an Internet chatroom or to meet face-to-face demonstrates this quite well. McKenna et al. (2002 , Study 3) found that those who met online both liked each other more and felt that they had gotten to know one another better than did those who interacted face-to-face. This effect held when participants met one another twice, once in person and once over the Internet, unaware that it was the same interaction partner in both situations. There was a significant correlation between the degree of liking for the partner and how well the participant felt he or she had gotten to know the other person for those who met over the Internet. However, there was no such correlation in the face-to-face condition. Along similar lines, Walther (1996 , 1997) found that new acquaintances can achieve greater intimacy through online communication than they do in parallel face-to-face interactions.

One of the greatest advantages of the Internet is the ability to tailor and tweak the various requirements to achieve optimal results for specific contact situations. Rather than being limited to a single intensive meeting that takes place over a few hours or days, multiple contacts can be arranged spanning days, weeks, and even months.

The anonymity and identifiability of participants can be manipulated depending on the particular needs of the situation and can be altered over time. The salience of the originating group and that of the “new group” can be heightened or lowered as needed. As research has shown, in some situations it is beneficial for the salience of the outgroup to be quite high and in others such heightened salience is detrimental to a successful contact. The Internet contact has the ability to serve both approaches and to examine which, if either, is more beneficial to the intergroup relationship. Group identity may be emphasized on the Internet by exercising control over the contact environment or, if it is thought appropriate, may be reduced if requested. This may be especially important with groups, which have salient physical characteristics that are impossible to reduce in face-to-face contact.

It is possible for the contact organizer to create an interactive information system on the outgroup that can be accessible to the ingroup participants both before and during the contact. In preparing this, its creators should gather information on the perceptions and stereotypes held by their group of the outgroup. They can then start to tackle the main components of the stereotype. This learning system will accompany participants through the different stages of the contact. The need to learn more about the outgroup may continue to be important for the participants at different stages of the contact process, i.e., before the contact, during the meeting sessions, between meetings, and after the contact program has been completed. Importantly, the ease of receiving needed information about the outgroup on the screen at any given moment can prove a useful aid in the creation of a positive intergroup contact. The ability of the Internet to supply a learning mechanism, where the information is accessible in a wholly interactive form and so can answer the specific requests and concerns of participants, creates a learning environment of a particularly high quality ( Rosenberg, 2002 ).

Finally, when it is deemed necessary for participants to meet face-to-face for a successful contact to occur, it is possible to implement a “gradual model” approach leading up to that face-to-face contact to insure a greater chance of success. Using this model, organizers can make use of an very gradual process to help the individual become comfortable with the contact situation and the other members, and to develop strong bonds with those other members before they ever meet in person. The main steps in this graded contact are as follows:

Communicating by text only: This text-only interaction is the most common form of communication over the Internet. This stage will continue until the participant feels secure in this form of contact and his/her anxiety levels are negligible.

Text + image: Participants will continue to use the text method with which they feel secure, but will simultaneously view a live video image of the person with whom they are interacting. When low-level social anxiety has been established, participants will transfer to the next stage.

Communicating by video + audio: At this stage, people will still interact from their secure environment and still without physical proximity to their conversation partner. However, use of text messages by the subject will be reduced; instead he/she will communicate orally. In addition, a live image of the subject will be transferred to the other participant. Again, when a satisfactory level of comfort has been achieved, participants may progress to the next stage.

Face-to-face interaction: This is the stage of regular face-to-face interaction. It is predicted that this process will successfully bridge the gap between text-only Internet contact and total exposure through a face-to-face encounter, and do so in a way that continually preserves low levels of anxiety among participants. As research by McKenna and colleagues has shown ( Bargh et al., 2002 ; Mckenna et al., 2002 ), when interactions first begin over the Internet and then move to a face-to-face environment, participants not only like one another more than they would were they to have initially begun their interaction in person, but when the face-to-face meeting does take place it serves to heighten already strong feelings of liking and kinship.

The Internet has an enormous potential for providing tools to create effective intergroup contact. Its unique characteristics provide an excellent basis for such a contact, for example, by creating a secure environment, reducing anxiety, cutting geographical distances, significantly lowering costs, and by creating equal status, intimate contact,and cooperation. In addition, it offers the chance to receive approval from the authorities. The Internet is also a major information resource, and its ability to answer questions and provide knowledge in real time makes it a uniquely useful tool for the promotion of intergroup communication. The Internet may be said to provide opportunities for a successful contact that are superior to those provided in a traditional face-to-face meeting.

There are clearly potential obstacles in putting together a contact through cyberspace; and while taking this fully into account, it is our belief that contact schemes over the Internet may prove exceptionally effective tools in the pursuit of improved interpersonal and intergroup relations. One of the mechanisms that may be developed to support such schemes is found in the field of interactive learning systems which interact with each user individually. In addition, future research should reveal more information about different factors which affect such a contact; for example, the impact of personality on the Internet contact ( Amichai-Hamburger, 2002 ).

Despite the questions that remain as yet unanswered, we believe that the advantages of using the Internet for an outgroup contact are exceptionally promising, and we advocate the introduction of the Internet as a vital part of contact between groups.

Abreu , S . ( 2000 ). How to manage telecommuters . Retrieved April 27, 2006, from http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/06/19/telecommuting.idg/

Allport , G. W . ( 1954 ). The nature of prejudice . Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Amichai-Hamburger , Y . ( 2002 ). Internet and personality . Computers in Human Behavior , 18 ( 1 ), 1 – 10 .

Amir , Y . ( 1969 ). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations . Psychological Bulletin , 71 ( 5 ), 319 – 342 .

Amir , Y . ( 1976 ). The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and ethnic relations . In P. A. Katz (Ed.), Towards the elimination of racism (pp. 73 – 123 ). New York: Plenum Press .

Bargh , J. A. , & McKenna , K. Y. A . ( 2004 ). The Internet and social life . Annual Review of Psychology , 55 , 573 – 590 .

Bargh , J. A. , McKenna , K. Y. A. , & Fitzimons , G. M . ( 2002 ). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet . Journal of Social Issues , 58 ( 1 ), 33 – 48 .

Ben-Ze’ev , A . ( 2004 ). Love online: Emotions on the Internet . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .

Blanchard , F. A. , Adelman , L. , & Cook , S. W . ( 1975 ). Effect of group success and failure upon interpersonal attraction in cooperating interracial groups . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 31 ( 6 ), 1020 – 1030 .

Bodenhausen , G. V . ( 1990 ). Stereotypes as judgmental heuristics: Evidence of circadian variations in discrimination . Psychological Science , 1 ( 5 ), 319 – 322 .

Bodenhausen , G. V. , & Wyer , R. S . ( 1985 ). Effects of stereotypes on decision making and information-processing strategies . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 48 ( 2 ), 267 – 282 .

Brewer , M. B . ( 1979 ). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis . Psychological Bulletin , 86 ( 2 ), 307 – 324 .

Brewer , M. B. , & Miller , N . ( 1984 ). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation . In M. Hewstone & R. J. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 281 – 302 ). Oxford: Blackwell .

Brown , R. J . ( 2000 ). Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell .

Brown , R. , & Hewstone , M . ( 2005 ). An integrative theory of intergroup contact . In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255 – 343 ). San Diego, CA: Academic Press .

Brown , R. J. , & Wade , G. S . ( 1987 ). Superordinate goals and intergroup behaviour: The effects of role ambiguity and status on intergroup attitudes and task performance . European Journal of Social Psychology , 17 ( 2 ), 131 – 142 .

Cascio , W. E . ( 2000 ). Managing virtual workplace . The Academy of Management Executive , 14 ( 3 ), 81 – 90 .

Climent , S. , Moré , J. , Oliver , A. , Salvatierra , M. , Taulé , M. , Sanchez , I. , & Vallmanya , L . ( 2003 ). Bilingual newsgroups in Catalonia: A challenge for machine translation . Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 9 (1) . Retrieved April 28, 2006, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol9/issue1/climent.html

Cook , S. W . ( 1962 ). The systematic analysis of socially significant events: A strategy for social research . Journal of Social Issues , 18 ( 2 ), 66 – 84 .

Coughlin , D . ( 2001 ). Correlating automated and human assessments of machine translation quality . In Proceedings of MT Summit IX (pp. 63 – 70 ). New Orleans, LA.

Dennis , A. R . ( 1996 ). Information exchange and use in group decision making: You can lead a group to information but you can’t make it think . MIS Quarterly , 20 ( 4 ), 433 – 455 .

Dennis , A. R. , & Kinney , S. T . ( 1998 ) Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality . Information Systems Research , 9 ( 3 ), 256 – 274 .

Galegher , J. , & Kraut , R. E . ( 1994 ). Computer-mediated communication for intellectuall teamwork: An experiment in group writing . Information Systems Research , 5 ( 2 ), 110 – 138 .

Garcia-Marques , L. , & Mackie , D. M . ( 1999 ). The impact of stereotype incongruent information on perceived group variability and stereotype change . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 77 ( 5 ), 979 – 990 .

Hamburger , Y . ( 1994 ). The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Effects of the atypical outgroup member on the outgroup stereotype . Basic Applied Social Psychology , 15 ( 3 ), 339 – 358 .

Hewstone , M. , & Brown , R. J . ( 1986 ). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the Contact Hypothesis . In M. Hewstone & R. J. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1 – 44 ). Oxford: Blackwell .

Hewstone , M. , & Hamberger , J . ( 2000 ). Perceived variability and stereotype change . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 36 ( 2 ), 103 – 124 .

Hogg , M. A . ( 1993 ). Group cohesiveness: A critical review and some new directions . European Review of Social Psychology , 4 , 85 – 111 .

Islam , M. R. , & Hewstone , M . ( 1993 ). Dimensions of contact as predictors of inter-group anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 19 ( 6 ), 700 – 710 .

Lambert , A. J. , Payne , B. K. , Shaffer , L. M. , Jacoby , L. L. , Chasteen , A. , & Khan , S . ( 2003 ). Stereotypes as dominant responses: On the “social facilitation” of prejudice in anticipated public contexts . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84 ( 2 ), 277 – 295 .

Leary , M. R . ( 1983 ). Social anxiousness: The construct and its measurement . Journal of Personality Assessment , 47 ( 1 ), 66 – 75 .

McClendon , M. J . ( 1974 ). Interracial contact and the reduction of prejudice . Sociological Focus , 7 ( 4 ), 47 – 65 .

McKenna , K. Y. A. , & Bargh , J. A . ( 1999 ). Causes and consequences of social interaction on the Internet: A conceptual framework . Media Psychology , 1 , 249 – 269 .

McKenna , K. Y. A. , & Bargh , J. A . ( 2000 ). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 4 ( 1 ), 57 – 75 .

McKenna , K. Y. A. , Buffardi , L. E. & Seidman , G . ( 2005 ). Self presentation to friends and strangers online . In K.-H. Renner , A. Schutz , & F. Machilek (Eds.), Internet and personality (pp. 176 – 189 ). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers .

McKenna , K. Y. A. , & Green , A. S . ( 2002 ). Virtual group dynamics . Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice , 6 ( 1 ), 116 – 127 .

McKenna , K. Y. A. , Green , A. S. , & Gleason , M . ( 2002 ). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues , 58 ( 1 ), 9 – 31 .

McKenna , K. Y. A. , & Seidman , G . ( 2005 ). Social identity and the self: Getting connected online . In W. R. Walker & D. Hermann (Eds.), Cognitive technology: Essays on the transformation of thought and society . Jefferson, NC: MacFarland and Company, Inc .

McKenna , K. Y. A. , Seidman , G. , Buffardi , L. E. , & Green , A. S. (in preparation). Social anxiety and self-expression to friends and strangers in Internet and face-to-face interactions .

Miller , N . ( 2002 ). Personalization and the promise of contact theory . Journal of Social Issues , 58 ( 2 ), 387 – 410 .

Miller , N. , & Harrington , H. J . ( 1992 ). Social categorization and intergroup acceptance: Principles for design and development of cooperative learning teams . In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 203 – 227 ). Cambridge, UK: University Press .

Pettigrew , T. F . ( 1971 ). Racially separate or together? New York: McGraw-Hill .

Pettigrew , T. F . ( 1997 ). The affective component of prejudice: Empirical support for the new view . In S. A. Tuch & J. K. Martin (Eds.), Racial attitudes in the 1990s: Continuity and change (pp. 76 – 90 ). Westport, CT: Praeger .

Pettigrew , T. F . ( 1998 ). Intergroup contact theory . Annual Review of Psychology , 49 , 65 – 85 .

Pettigrew , T. F. , & Tropp , L. R . ( 2000 ). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings . In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 93 – 114 ). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .

Postmes , T. , Spears , R. , Sakhel , K. , & De Groot , D . ( 2001 ). Social influence in computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity on group behavior . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 27 ( 10 ), 1243 – 1254 .

Riordan , C. , & Ruggiero , J . ( 1980 ). Producing equal-status interaction: A replication . Social Psychology Quarterly , 43 ( 1 ), 131 – 136 .

Rosenberg , M. J . ( 2002 ). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age . New York: McGraw Hill .

Scarberry , N. , Ratcliff , C. , Lord , C. G. , Lanicek , D. , & Desforges , D. M . ( 1997 ). Effects of individuating information on the generalization part of Allport’s contact hypothesis . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 23 ( 12 ), 1291 – 1299 .

Slavin , R. E . ( 1985 ). Cooperative learning: Applying theory in desegregated schools . Journal of Social Issues , 41 ( 3 ), 45 – 62 .

Spears , R. , & Lea , M . ( 1994 ). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication . Communication Research , 21 ( 4 ), 427 – 459 .

Spears , R. , Lea , M. , & Lee , S . ( 1990 ). De-individuation and group polarisation in computer-mediated communication . British Journal of Social Psychology , 29 ( 2 ), 121 – 134 .

Spears , R. , Postmes , T. , Lea , M. , & Wolbert , A . ( 2002 ). When are net effects gross products? The power of influence and the influence of power in computer-mediated communication . Journal of Social Issues , 58 ( 1 ), 91 – 107 .

Sproull , L. , & Faraj , S . ( 1997 ). Atheism, sex, and databases: The net as a social technology . In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet (pp. 35 – 51 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .

Sproull , L. , & Kiesler , S . ( 1991 ). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

Stephan , W. G. , & Cookie , W . ( 2001 ). Improving intergroup relations . Newbury, CA: Sage .

Stephan , W. G. , & Stephan , C. W . ( 1985 ). Intergroup anxiety . Journal of Social Issues , 41 ( 3 ), 157 – 175 .

Stephan , W. G. , & Stephan , C. W . ( 1996 ). Cognition and affect in stereotyping: Parallel interactive networks . In D. W. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect cognition and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 111 – 136 ). Orlando, FL: Academic Press .

Taylor , M. , Dube , L. , & Bellerose , J . ( 1986 ). Intergroup contact in Quebec: Myth or reality? In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 107 – 118 ). Oxford: Blackwell .

Thompson , L. , & Nadler , J . ( 2002 ). Negotiating via information technology: Theory and application . Journal of Social Issues , 58 ( 1 ), 109 – 124 .

Trew , K . ( 1986 ). Catholic-Protestant contact in Northern Ireland . In M. Hewstone & R. J. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 93 – 106 ). Oxford: Blackwell .

Walther , J. B . ( 1996 ). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction . Communication Research , 23 ( 1 ), 3 – 43 .

Walther , J. B . ( 1997 ). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration . Human Communication Research , 23 ( 3 ), 342 – 369 .

Wilder , D. A . ( 1993 ). The role of anxiety in facilitating stereotypic judgments of out-group behavior . In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.) Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 87 – 109 ). San Diego, CA: Academic Press .

Wilder , D. A. , & Shapiro , P . ( 1989 ). Role of competition-induced anxiety in limiting the beneficial impact of positive behavior by an out-group member . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 56 ( 1 ), 60 – 69 .

Zajonc , R. B . ( 1965 ). Social facilitation . Science , 149 , 269 – 274 .

Yair Amichai-Hamburger is a social-industrial psychologist, and an assistant professor in the Psychology Department, Bar-Ilan University, Israel. He has written widely on the impact of the Internet on well-being and has recently edited The Social Net: Understanding Human Behavior in Cyberspace . Oxford University Press.

Address: Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel

Katelyn Y. A. McKenna (Yael Kaynan) is a Senior Lecturer at Ben-Gurion University and a lecturer at The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya in the departments of Communication. Her research interests are in the areas of relationship cognition, the self, and social identity, particularly in terms of their applicability to Internet interactions.

Address: Bldg 72, Room 550, Department of Communication Studies, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, 84105, Israel

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

  • Recommend to Your Librarian
  • Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

  • Online ISSN 1083-6101
  • Copyright © 2024 International Communication Association
  • About Oxford Academic
  • Publish journals with us
  • University press partners
  • What we publish
  • New features  
  • Open access
  • Institutional account management
  • Rights and permissions
  • Get help with access
  • Accessibility
  • Advertising
  • Media enquiries
  • Oxford University Press
  • Oxford Languages
  • University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

  • Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
  • Cookie settings
  • Cookie policy
  • Privacy policy
  • Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

  • Best-Selling Books
  • Zimbardo Research Fields

The Stanford Prison Experiment

  • Heroic Imagination Project (HIP)
  • The Shyness Clinic

The Lucifer Effect

Time perspective theory.

  • Psychology Definitions

contact hypothesis psychology definition

Contact Hypothesis: Psychology Definition, History & Examples

The Contact Hypothesis posits that interpersonal interaction between groups can reduce prejudice and intergroup conflict . This concept , rooted in social psychology, suggests that under appropriate conditions, cooperative contact can diminish stereotypes and improve relations among people from diverse backgrounds.

Originating from the work of psychologist Gordon Allport in 1954, the hypothesis has been a foundational framework for understanding and addressing social division. Subsequent empirical research has tested and refined the conditions under which contact reduces animosity, such as equal group status, common goals, and institutional support.

Examples of the Contact Hypothesis in action include integrated education programs and community-building activities.

This introduction outlines the Contact Hypothesis by presenting its definition, tracing its historical development, and illustrating its application through real-world examples.

Table of Contents

The Contact Hypothesis is the idea that when people from different groups interact with each other in certain ways, it can help to reduce prejudice and challenge stereotypes.

It suggests that if people have equal status, common goals, cooperate with each other, and have support from authorities, they are more likely to change their prejudiced attitudes through contact with others.

Many studies have supported this idea and explored the complexities of intergroup interactions.

The Contact Hypothesis, a term in psychology, originated in the midst of the 20th century as a response to the prevalent racial segregation issues. It was first formulated by psychologist Gordon Allport, who proposed that interpersonal contact could effectively reduce prejudice between majority and minority group members, given certain conditions. Allport’s ideas on the Contact Hypothesis were presented in his influential 1954 book, ‘The Nature of Prejudice’, which laid the groundwork for understanding how intergroup contact could bring about attitude changes and reduce intergroup conflict.

Since its inception, the Contact Hypothesis has undergone empirical investigation and has been scrutinized for its applicability in various scenarios and populations. Researchers have systematically tested and refined the theory , exploring different variables that may influence its effectiveness. These variables include factors such as equal status between groups, common goals, and institutional support.

One significant event that contributed to the evolution of the Contact Hypothesis was the landmark desegregation case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. This Supreme Court decision declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, highlighting the need for contact between racial groups to promote integration and reduce prejudice.

Another study that furthered the understanding of the Contact Hypothesis was the Robbers Cave experiment conducted by Muzafer Sherif and colleagues in 1954. This study demonstrated the potential of intergroup contact to reduce hostility and create harmonious relations between groups.

Over the years, further research has expanded our knowledge of the Contact Hypothesis, examining its effectiveness in various contexts, such as racial, ethnic, and cultural relations. The work of notable figures such as Thomas F. Pettigrew, John F. Dovidio, and Samuel L. Gaertner has played a crucial role in advancing the theory and providing empirical evidence for its application.

  • In a neighborhood with diverse cultural backgrounds, a community center organizes regular events where residents can come together and engage in activities like cooking classes, sports tournaments, and art workshops. Through these shared experiences, people from different backgrounds have the opportunity to interact and learn from one another, breaking down stereotypes and fostering understanding.
  • A company implements a mentorship program where senior employees are paired with junior employees from different departments. By working closely together on projects and tasks, individuals from different backgrounds gain a greater appreciation for each other’s skills and perspectives, leading to improved collaboration and a more harmonious work environment .
  • In a school, a teacher organizes a class project that requires students to work in groups with peers who have different strengths and abilities. Through this collaborative project, students develop empathy and understanding for their classmates, realizing that everyone has something valuable to contribute. This experience helps break down social barriers and reduces prejudice among students.
  • At a town hall meeting, community members gather to discuss a controversial issue that has divided the town. The facilitator ensures that individuals with opposing viewpoints are given equal opportunities to express their opinions and listen to others. By engaging in respectful dialogue, community members begin to understand each other’s perspectives, leading to increased empathy and a more cohesive community.
  • In a sports team, players from diverse backgrounds are encouraged to share their cultural traditions and experiences during team bonding activities. Through these interactions, teammates develop a deeper appreciation for each other’s backgrounds and cultures, fostering a sense of unity and camaraderie on the field.

Related Terms

Understanding the Contact Hypothesis involves familiarizing oneself with several related terms that elucidate its application in social psychology.

Prejudice, a negative attitude towards a person based on their group membership, is a central concept that the Contact Hypothesis aims to reduce.

Stereotype is another pertinent term, referring to an overgeneralized belief about a particular category of people. The efficacy of contact is often measured against changes in stereotypical thinking.

Intergroup anxiety , which denotes the discomfort one might feel when interacting with members of a different group, is a psychological state that the hypothesis posits can be alleviated through increased contact.

Equal status contact emphasizes that for contact to be effective in reducing prejudice, the groups involved must interact on an equal standing.

Other closely linked terms to the Contact Hypothesis include:

  • Ingroup bias: This term refers to the tendency of individuals to favor members of their own group over members of other groups. Ingroup bias can contribute to the development and maintenance of prejudice. The Contact Hypothesis aims to reduce ingroup bias by promoting positive interactions between different groups.
  • Social norms: These are the shared expectations and rules that guide behavior within a group or society. Social norms can influence prejudice and discrimination by shaping the attitudes and behaviors that are deemed acceptable. The Contact Hypothesis suggests that promoting positive contact between different groups can help shift social norms towards more inclusive and accepting attitudes.
  • Empathy: This term refers to the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. Empathy plays a crucial role in reducing prejudice as it allows individuals to connect with and relate to members of different groups. The Contact Hypothesis suggests that increased contact can lead to the development of empathy, which in turn can help break down stereotypes and reduce prejudice.

While these related terms are closely linked to the Contact Hypothesis, they each have a distinct focus and contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence intergroup relations and prejudice reduction.

Consistently, research on the Contact Hypothesis is supported by a robust body of scholarly work, with key studies and theoretical advancements cited across numerous academic articles and books. These references underpin the empirical evidence for the Contact Hypothesis and are critical to advancing the understanding of intergroup relations.

The sources range from seminal works by Gordon W. Allport (Allport, 1954), who originally formulated the hypothesis, to contemporary quantitative meta-analyses that evaluate the conditions and outcomes of intergroup contact (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).

In analyzing these references, scholars scrutinize the methodology and contexts of studies, seeking patterns that affirm or challenge the hypothesis. This rigorous examination ensures that the Contact Hypothesis is not a static concept but a dynamic framework subject to refinement as new data emerges from diverse social contexts.

References:

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. Psychology Press.

These references provide academically credible sources for further reading on the Contact Hypothesis and its foundational studies.

RECOMMENDED POSTS

contact hypothesis psychology definition

  • Stay Connected
  • Terms Of Use

Find over 25,000 psychological definitions

contact hypothesis

Browse dictionary by letter, psychology term of the day.

March 13th 2024

Encyclopedia of psychology

CONTACT HYPOTHESIS

The contact hypothesis is a theory that suggests that increased contact between members of two different social groups can lead to a reduction in prejudice and increased intergroup understanding and cooperation (Allport, 1954). The contact hypothesis was first proposed by American psychologist Gordon Allport in 1954, and has since been tested and supported with empirical evidence in a variety of contexts.

The contact hypothesis is based on two underlying assumptions. The first is that contact between members of different groups will lead to intergroup understanding and a reduction in prejudice. The second is that the contact must be characterized by certain conditions in order to be effective. These conditions include equal status between the two groups, cooperation between them, a common goal, and the support of authorities (Allport, 1954).

Research examining the contact hypothesis has found that it can be effective in reducing prejudice and increasing intergroup understanding. For example, in a study by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006), participants who were exposed to intergroup contact in the form of structured conversations between members of different groups showed decreased prejudice and increased intergroup understanding. Similarly, a study by Desforges and Aboud (2003) found that intergroup contact was associated with decreased prejudice and increased acceptance of the outgroup.

Despite the evidence supporting the contact hypothesis, there are also limitations to its effectiveness. In some cases, contact between two groups can lead to increased prejudice rather than decreased prejudice. This is often due to the presence of negative stereotypes and negative emotions between the two groups (Desforges & Aboud, 2003). In addition, contact between two groups may not be enough to reduce prejudice if it is not accompanied by other forms of intergroup interaction, such as cooperative activities (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).

In conclusion, the contact hypothesis is a theory that suggests that increased contact between members of two different social groups can lead to a reduction in prejudice and increased intergroup understanding and cooperation. Research examining the contact hypothesis has found that it can be effective in reducing prejudice and increasing intergroup understanding, although there are also limitations to its effectiveness.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Desforges, D. M., & Aboud, F. E. (2003). Effects of direct and indirect contact on prejudice: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 431-446.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783.

Related terms

Canophilia – definition, origin, and signs, corpus striatum (striped body), creativity tests, cyclothymic personality (cycloid personality), common cold, community mental health centers.

IMAGES

  1. Contact Hypothesis [Intergroup Contact Theory]

    contact hypothesis psychology definition

  2. PPT

    contact hypothesis psychology definition

  3. The history connection

    contact hypothesis psychology definition

  4. PPT

    contact hypothesis psychology definition

  5. PPT

    contact hypothesis psychology definition

  6. What is a Hypothesis

    contact hypothesis psychology definition

COMMENTS

  1. Contact Hypothesis [Intergroup Contact Theory]

    Contact Hypothesis. The Contact Hypothesis is a psychological theory that suggests that direct contact between members of different social or cultural groups can reduce prejudice, improve intergroup relations, and promote mutual understanding. According to this hypothesis, interpersonal contact can lead to positive attitudes, decreased ...

  2. What Is the Contact Hypothesis in Psychology?

    The contact hypothesis suggests that interpersonal contact between groups can reduce prejudice. According to Gordon Allport, who first proposed the theory, four conditions are necessary to reduce prejudice: equal status, common goals, cooperation, and institutional support. While the contact hypothesis has been studied most often in the context ...

  3. Contact hypothesis

    Contact hypothesis. In psychology and other social sciences, the contact hypothesis suggests that intergroup contact under appropriate conditions can effectively reduce prejudice between majority and minority group members. Following WWII and the desegregation of the military and other public institutions, policymakers and social scientists had ...

  4. All you need is contact

    A longstanding line of research that aims to combat bias among conflicting groups springs from a theory called the "contact hypothesis." Developed in the 1950s by Gordon Allport, PhD, the theory holds that contact between two groups can promote tolerance and acceptance, but only under certain conditions, such as equal status among groups and common goals.

  5. Contact Hypothesis

    Intergroup Relations and Culture. Karmela Liebkind, in Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology, 2004. 7.2 Mechanisms by Which Contact Reduces Intergroup Bias: The Role of Category Salience. The contact hypothesis does not specify the processes that are responsible for the positive effects or how the positive effects of contact generalize beyond the immediate situation to other situations, from the ...

  6. Contact Hypothesis theory explained

    The contact hypothesis is a psychology theory suggesting that prejudice and conflict between groups can be reduced by allowing members of those groups to interact with one another. This notion is also called intra-group contact. Prejudice and conflict usually arise between majority and minority group members.

  7. Intergroup Contact: The Past, Present, and the Future

    The Contact Hypothesis has long been considered one of psychology's most effective strategies for improving intergroup relations. In this article, we review the history of the development of the Contact Hypothesis, and then we examine recent developments in this area.

  8. Contact Hypothesis Definition, Conditions & Limitations

    The contact hypothesis is a theory that explains that intergroup contact can reduce prejudice amongst the members of two different groups. The basis of the theory is that consideration of ...

  9. Contact hypothesis

    Contact hypothesis We learned earlier that one of the reasons that people may hold stereotypes and prejudices is that they view the members of outgroups as different from them. Sometime we fear that our interactions with people from different racial groups will be unpleasant, and these anxieties may lead us to avoid interacting with people from ...

  10. The "contact hypothesis": Critical reflections and future directions

    Although it is now a truism that intergroup contact can reduce intergroup prejudice, these developments emphasize the importance of maintaining a critical perspective on the "contact hypothesis" as a model for promoting social change in historically divided and unequal societies. They also lay the foundations for future developments in the ...

  11. Intergroup Contact Theory: Past, Present, and Future

    The Contact Hypothesis. The intergroup contact hypothesis was first proposed by Allport (1954), who suggested that positive effects of intergroup contact occur in contact situations characterized by four key conditions: equal status, intergroup cooperation, common goals, and support by social and institutional authorities (See Table 1 ...

  12. What is CONTACT HYPOTHESIS? definition of ...

    contact hypothesis By N., Sam M.S. the theory that individuals belonging to one class can come to be less biased against people belonging to other classes simply by elevating the amount of communication they have with them.

  13. The "contact hypothesis": Critical reflections and future directions

    Although it is now a truism that intergroup contact can reduce intergroup prejudice, these developments emphasize the importance of maintaining a critical perspective on the "contact hypothesis" as a model for promoting social change in historically divided and unequal societies.

  14. The Extended Contact Hypothesis: A Meta-Analysis on 20 Years of

    According to the extended contact hypothesis, knowing that in-group members have cross-group friends improves attitudes toward this out-group. This meta-analysis covers the 20 years of research that currently exists on the extended contact hypothesis, and consists of 248 effect sizes from 115 studies.

  15. PDF The Parasocial Contact Hypothesis

    The Parasocial Contact Hypothesis Edward Schiappa, Peter B. Gregg, & Dean E. Hewes We propose a communication analogue to Allport's (1954) Contact Hypothesis called the ... One of the most important and enduring contributions of social psychology in the past 50 years is known as the Contact Hypothesis (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami,

  16. Intergroup Contact Theory

    Allport's intergroup contact hypothesis inspired a vast amount of research with a marked increase in more recent years (Pettigrew, Tropp, Wagner, & Christ, 2011; Vezzali & Stathi, 2017).Based on their extensive meta-analytic synthesis of intergroup contact research, Pettigrew and Tropp (2006, p. 768) concluded that "there is little need to demonstrate further contact's general ability to ...

  17. Research Hypothesis In Psychology: Types, & Examples

    Examples. A research hypothesis, in its plural form "hypotheses," is a specific, testable prediction about the anticipated results of a study, established at its outset. It is a key component of the scientific method. Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding.

  18. The Contact Hypothesis Reconsidered: Interacting via the Internet

    The contact hypothesis reconsidered: interacting via internet. The contact hypothesis has been described as one of the most successful ideas in the history of social psychology (Brown, 2000).Allport (1954) presented the first widely-accepted outline of the contact hypothesis, claiming that true acquaintance lessens prejudice. In other words, knowledge, on its own, will not cause people to ...

  19. [PDF] The "contact hypothesis": Critical reflections and future

    The "contact hypothesis": Critical reflections and future directions. Shelley McKeown, John Dixon. Published 2017. Sociology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. Research on intergroup contact has grown exponentially over the past decade.

  20. Contact Hypothesis: Psychology Definition, History & Examples

    Definition. The Contact Hypothesis is the idea that when people from different groups interact with each other in certain ways, it can help to reduce prejudice and challenge stereotypes. It suggests that if people have equal status, common goals, cooperate with each other, and have support from authorities, they are more likely to change their ...

  21. Imagined contact hypothesis

    The imagined contact hypothesis is an extension of the contact hypothesis, a theoretical proposition centred on the psychology of prejudice and prejudice reduction. It was originally developed by Richard J. Crisp and Rhiannon N. Turner and proposes that the mental simulation, or imagining, of a positive social interaction with an outgroup ...

  22. contact hypothesis definition

    contact hypothesis the proposition that interaction among people belonging to different groups will reduce intergroup prejudice. Research indicates that the prejudice-alleviating effects of contact are robust across many situations, but that they are strengthened when the people from the different groups are of equal status, are not in competition with each other, and do not readily categorize ...

  23. CONTACT HYPOTHESIS Definition in Psychology

    The contact hypothesis is a theory that suggests that increased contact between members of two different social groups can lead to a reduction in prejudice and increased intergroup understanding and cooperation (Allport, 1954). The contact hypothesis was first proposed by American psychologist Gordon Allport in 1954, and has since been tested ...