Contact hypothesis

SIGNIFICANCE: According to the contact hypothesis, intergroup bias (prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination) arises in part from ignorance and misinformation, and favorable face-to-face contact between members of different groups will foster more accurate perceptions, greater intergroup attraction, and less bias directed at one another.

Intergroup bias manifests itself in three interrelated yet distinctive manners: feelings and attitudes (prejudice), generalized beliefs (stereotypes), and behaviors that favor one group over another (discrimination). In general, persons who are biased against members of another social group dislike those persons (prejudice), believe that they possess unpleasant or negative characteristics (stereotypes), and actively avoid or denigrate them (discrimination). Social psychologists have studied how intergroup bias arises and what tactics may be employed to ameliorate it. They have observed that persons generally feel a sense of self-investment and identification with groups to which they belong (in-groups) rather than with groups to which they do not belong (out-groups). Consequently, they may associate with fellow in-group members more than with out-group members and obtain a more accurate and complete knowledge of the in-group than of the out-group.

Ignorance of the out-group may contribute to intergroup bias, as persons are motivated to maintain a positive view of themselves by assuming the best about their in-groups and the worst about out-groups. Accurate information about an out-group that disconfirms negative expectations (prejudice and stereotypes) should improve intergroup relations, and accurate information may be obtained through face-to-face contact with members of the disliked out-group.

The Hypothesis

The contact hypothesis refers to the proposition that bias between groups can be reduced by bringing members of different groups together for face-to-face interaction. The contact hypothesis rests on two assumptions. First, intergroup bias is frequently based on ignorance or misinformation. Contact between group members provides the opportunity to disconfirm their erroneous beliefs and feelings about the groups. Second, the contact experience(s) will be sufficiently positive or pleasant to preclude exacerbation of existing bias.

Gordon Allport, in The Nature of Prejudice (1954), most clearly articulated the contact hypothesis when he argued that bringing members of disliked groups together can have a beneficial impact on intergroup relations, provided that the contact occurs under what have been termed favorable conditions. These include cooperative interaction, common goals, support from authorities or institutions outside the groups, and some degree of personal (as opposed to formal or superficial) contact. Research has generally supported these criteria as important in fostering contact that reduces bias between groups. Cooperation between groups produces more pleasant intergroup experiences than competition in which one group’s gain comes at the expense of the other. Pursuit of a common goal, in particular a superordinate goal, encourages cooperation. Support for the contact from authorities and institutions helps to maintain it. Personal contact between members of the different groups can foster interpersonal attachments and reveal similarities and common interests between members of the different groups. Following Allport, the most influential voices in the area of the contact hypothesis have been Stuart Cook and Thomas F. Pettigrew.

Much of Cook’s influential research has focused on the benefits of intimate contact with out-group members. Using laboratory groups engaged in cooperative tasks, Cook has found that contact is most effective in disconfirming stereotypes when it has “acquaintance potential.” In other words, contact is most helpful when the different groups interact individually and get to know one another as unique persons, rather than as representatives of their groups. Unfortunately, Cook’s research also indicates that while intergroup contact can improve relations among those involved in the contact experience, generalization of the positive experience to the out-group as a whole or to specific out-group members not present during the contact experience is often problematic.

Pettigrew has argued that to be successful, favorable contact with an out-group member must be interpreted positively by the parties. The attributions that group members make about the contact experience will determine the success of the experience. Thus, favorable contact with an out-group member may be ineffective if that experience is discounted as an atypical event, one that does not reflect the true intentions or dispositions of the out-group members. For the experience to be most effective, out-group members who behave positively in a contact setting must be seen as having behaved voluntarily (not forced to act pleasantly) and as being typical of others in their group (not exceptions to the rule). Laboratory research has found support for this conclusion.

Criticisms

Proponents of social identity theory have raised some criticisms of the contact hypothesis. Factors that maximize the success of intergroup contact in promoting positive relations among persons in the contact setting may yield the least generalization to the out-group as a whole. As mentioned, contact that involves positive, intimate experiences with out-group members is likely to create friendship bonds and reveal interindividual similarities that cut across the different group memberships, thereby diminishing the importance of the group categories for one’s self-identity in that setting. Yet the contact person(s) may be perceived to be less representative of others in their group, with the result that generalization of the favorable contact experience to the out-group as a whole should suffer. For contact to be most effective, therefore, the contact persons must be judged to be very typical of their respective groups while behaving in an unexpectedly positive manner.

A related difficulty with the contact hypothesis is the assumption that contact will be effective to the extent that it reduces assumed differences between the groups. Yet reducing differences between groups may threaten each group’s sense of uniqueness and identity. Social identity researchers argue that contact will be most successful if it focuses on diminishing negative beliefs and feelings between the groups yet still perpetuates some distinctive differences between the groups. Ideally, then, the contact experience should not strive to eliminate all differences between the groups but rather should reduce unfavorable and inaccurate beliefs while preserving those differences that cast both groups in a positive light.

Finally, the success of contact depends in part on the measurements used to assess its impact. Although contact may foster a change in beliefs or feelings about an out-group, it may not always yield a change in behavior. For example, one may feel more positively toward a group following a favorable contact experience but may be reluctant to act differently toward members of that group because of social pressure from prejudiced members of one’s own group. On the other hand, one may feel obligated to behave positively toward members of an out-group who have treated one well but may still harbor prejudice and unfavorable stereotypes of the out-group as a whole. For contact to be effective in producing the broadest change in intergroup bias, it not only must be favorable (involve cooperation in pursuit of common goals) but also should occur frequently across many situations and with many members of the out-group.

The Theory and Desegregation

The contact hypothesis has served as an argument for school and residential racial desegregation within the United States. The argument has been that racial prejudice in the United States can be attributed in part to the ignorance and misinformation that is the legacy of segregation. In American society, interracial contact experiences have historically been characterized by unequal status, with White people occupying a superior role, such as employer or landowner. Consequently, much of the contact has not met the equal-status, cooperative, and intimate conditions that maximize the probability that contact will dispel negative stereotypes and modify prejudice. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954 decision in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed racial segregation in public schools, researchers have looked at the schools as a testing ground for the contact hypothesis.

Evidence indicates that contact is effective only under the limited conditions already discussed. Merely throwing Black students and White students together in classrooms is not sufficient to reduce intergroup bias. Indeed, forced contact can exacerbate bias when community and institutional support is absent. Moreover, contact situations may fail because persons feel uncomfortable in the unfamiliar position of interacting with the out-group, preferring to seek out fellow in-group members.

Interracial contact in the classroom appears to work best when students are placed in integrated work groups in which all members are peers with equal status. The groups are given tasks to solve as a team so that cooperation is reinforced, rather than the interpersonal competition that characterizes many traditional classrooms. Under these circumstances—where contact is of equal status, is cooperative in pursuit of a common goal, and is sanctioned by authorities (a teacher)—the contact experience produces a marked improvement in interracial relations.

Bibliography

Allport, Gordon Willard. The Nature of Prejudice. 25th anniv. ed. Cambridge: Perseus, 1979.

Amir, Yehuda. “The Role of Intergroup Contact in Change of Prejudice and Ethnic Relations.” Towards the Elimination of Racism. Ed. Phyllis A. Katz. New York: Pergamon, 1976. 245–308.

Dovidio, John F., Peter Glick, and Laurie A. Rudman, eds. On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years after Allport. Malden: Blackwell, 2005.

Hewstone, Miles, and Rupert Brown, eds. Contact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.

Laurence, James. "Reconciling the Contact and Threat Hypotheses: Does Ethnic Diversity Strengthen or Weaken Community Inter-ethnic Relations?" Ethnic and Racial Studies 37.8 (2014): 1328–49.

McKeown, Shelley, and John Dixon. “The ‘Contact Hypothesis.’ Critical Reflections and Future Directions.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass, vol. 11, no. 1, 13 Jan. 2017, doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12295. Accessed 9 Dec. 2024.

Miller, Norman, and Marilynn B. Brewer, eds. Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation. Orlando: Academic, 1984.