Intergroup contact is widely recognized as one of the most validated methods of improving attitudes toward out-groups. Yet what is intergroup contact "good for" beyond this function? To answer this question we take a panoramic view of the literature, beginning with the recognition that contact is multifaceted in both form (e.g., face-to-face, indirect, simulated) and outcome (e.g., attitudes, cognition, behavior). Taking this highly inclusive view of what contact is and what contact does suggests that it plays a fundamental role in the shaping of human cognition. An increasingly diverse body of research demonstrates that contact exerts a generalizing reaction across target out-groups, making respondents less inward looking and more open to experiences. Contact shapes ideology regarding how the world ought to operate (i.e., ideologies about social hierarchy or regulation); over time, it can promote new ways of problem-solving, enhance cognitive flexibility, and foster creativity. For these reasons, we believe that contact is a key liberalizing agent that shapes human cognition and experience; consequently, contact theory should now share the stage with other prominent theories (e.g., cognitive dissonance) that speak to a broader understanding of human nature.

No abstract

No abstract

The contact hypothesis proposes that bringing groups together under favorable conditions can improve intergroup relations. It is now well established that intergroup contact can improve attitudes not only toward the out-group as a whole but also toward other, noncontacted groups ( secondary transfer effect). We review evidence of a further, higher-order generalization effect whereby intergroup contact also impacts more general cognitive processes outside of the intergroup context (i.e., tertiary transfer effects). We present a taxonomy of transfer effects that explains these generalization effects as distinct outcomes of the contact process yet contingent on the same component process, specifically, the assessment of the semantic distance between the target (e.g., contacted individual) and the frame (e.g., group prototype). This conceptualization provides an explanatory framework for uniting the disparate forms of transfer effect in the contact literature, clarifying why primary and secondary transfer effects are facilitated by low semantic distance and why contact is more cognitively demanding under conditions of high semantic distance, but with greater potential for cognitive growth.

Negative attitudes toward vegetarians/vegans (i.e., veg*ns) are common, particularly among those who desire/like/consume meat more. In two studies, we replicated and extended past work, showing that visual reminders of meat’s animal origins (vs. images of meat alone) decreased meat consumption willingness via increased empathy for animals, distress about meat consumption, and disgust for meat. We also assessed how animal–meat reminders influence antiveg*n attitudes. In Study 1 ( N = 299) experimental animal–meat reminders (vs. meat-alone images) indirectly reduced negative attitudes toward veg*ns via increased empathy and distress (together, but not independently). The same manipulation in Study 2 ( N = 280) lowered antiveg*n attitudes through greater empathy and lowered veg*n threat through greater distress. Implications for promoting less antiveg*n attitudes are discussed.