Allport's Contact Hypothesis and Reducing Prejudice

Introduction

The literature covering the nature of prejudice, its scope, its effects, and methods to reduce it is among the most extraordinary bodies of work in all of social science. The total volume of research on prejudice reflects several decades of scholarly investigation into its meaning, assessment, etiology, consequences, and reduction. Very few areas of study have attracted a greater range of theoretical perspectives. Theorizing about the nature and manifestation of prejudice has been accompanied by spirited debates about the appropriate way to conceptualize reduction strategies, resulting in a rich body of measurement instruments and intervention approaches.

The most enduring strategy for reducing prejudice is known as the contact hypothesis, which states that under certain conditions, contact between groups leads to a decrease in prejudice. The current paper reviews some of the literature both for and against the effectiveness of intergroup contact as a means of prejudice reduction.

Statement of the Problem

For the purposes of this paper, prejudice is defined as it normally appears in the literature: an unfair negative attitude directed toward a particular social group or toward a member of that group. Stereotypes, by contrast, are defined as overgeneralizations about a particular group that are especially rigid, most often factually incorrect, and frequently accompany the negative feelings and attitudes associated with prejudice. Discrimination is defined as the unjust treatment of members of different social groups originating from prejudicial attitudes and stereotyping (Allport, 1954). Thus, prejudicial attitudes toward certain groups are the driving force behind negative beliefs and unscrupulous behaviors directed at those groups. Developing functional and practical methods to reduce prejudice should lead to corresponding reductions in stereotyping and discrimination.

While the methodological complexities and abundance of theoretical contributions found in the prejudice literature are impressive, applying that practical knowledge can sometimes be less straightforward. The study of prejudice attracts considerable attention because researchers and scholars endeavor to understand and address the social problems associated with it — inequality, discrimination, and prejudicially motivated violence. These goals are also shared by many government officials, and large sums of money are spent annually on interventions aimed at reducing prejudice in schools, in the workplace, and in areas afflicted by intergroup conflict. Given these practical objectives, it is important to understand what the extensive body of research has revealed about effective ways to reduce prejudice. The current paper focuses on the most enduring theoretical method for doing so: Gordon Allport's contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954).

References

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

Aron, A., Aron, E., & Coups, E. (2011). Statistics for the behavioral and social sciences: A brief course (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

Bar-Haim, Y., Ziv, T., Lamy, D., & Hodes, R. M. (2006). Nature and nurture in own-race face processing. Psychological Science, 17(2), 159–163.

Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., Maquil, A., Demoulin, S., & Leyens, J. (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.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

Fozdar, F., Wilding, R., & Hawkins, M. (2009). Anti-racism. In F. Fozdar, R. Wilding, & M. Hawkins (Eds.), Race and ethnic relations (pp. 256–285). Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford University Press.

Guerin, B., & Guerin, P. (2007). Lessons learned from participatory discrimination research: Long-term observations and local interventions. The Australian Community Psychologist, 19, 137–149.

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

Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century — 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 137–174.

Stathis, S., & Crisp, R. J. (2008). Imagining intergroup contact promotes projection to outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 943–957.

Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Turner, R. N., Crisp, R. J., & Lambert, E. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10(4), 427–441.

Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007). Reducing explicit and implicit outgroup prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 369–388.

Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Berkeley: Stanford University Press.

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.