Intergroup contact is one of the most promising and effective strategies for reducing prejudice. Importantly, intergroup contact not only improves attitudes towards an encountered outgroup member but also to the outgroup as a whole (i.e., primary transfer effects), to other outgroups (i.e., secondary transfer effects), and even enhances cognitive functioning beyond intergroup relations (i.e., tertiary transfer effect). In this article, we first review the recent developments on primary, secondary, and tertiary contact generalization. We then summarize mechanisms that underlie and condition each of these generalizations. Third, we highlight key critiques against the contact literature identifying avenues for future research on generalization processes. Lastly, we underline the policy value of research on generalization effects.

In a society burdened with the most severe type of intergroup conflict, we examined the association between willingness to reconcile with former adversary, intergroup contact with, and perceived threat from former adversary. We focused on three reconciliatory acts—forgiveness to the outgroup, support for ingroup apology and support for financial compensation to the outgroup. We included different forms of positive and negative intergroup contact—direct and indirect (extended and mass‐mediated). In the link between contact and reconciliation, we tested the mediating role of two types of intergroup threat—realistic and symbolic. The sample comprised Bosniaks (N = 267) and Croats (N = 278) from Bosnia and Herzegovina. In both samples, reconciliation associated with indirect forms of intergroup contact even when controlling for its link with direct contact. This indicates the potential of indirect contact to promote reconciliation in the lack of direct contact, characteristic for segregated post‐conflict societies. Symbolic threat mediated the relationship between intergroup contact and symbolic forms of reconciliation—forgiveness and support for ingroup apology. Realistic threat mediated the link between intergroup contact and a more tangible form of reconciliation—support for financial compensation. This highlights the importance of considering different types intergroup threat when targeting distinct reconciliatory acts. Our results suggest that practitioners promoting reconciliation in post‐conflict societies need to implement different means when tailoring interventions that should enhance different sides of peace‐making process.