The Contact Hypothesis: Breaking Down Barriers for Mutual Understanding

In a world brimming with diversity, the quest for harmony among varied social groups remains a pivotal challenge. The Contact Hypothesis, a beacon of hope in social psychology, posits that under the right conditions, direct interaction between members of different groups has the power to dismantle barriers of prejudice and foster a landscape of mutual understanding. First proposed by Gordon W. Allport in 1954, this theory has not only stood the test of time but has also ignited a flame of research and application across the globe.

As we delve into the intricacies of the Contact Hypothesis, we uncover the layers of its potential to transform society. From its historical roots in the aftermath of World War II to its modern-day implications in a world that is more interconnected than ever, the Contact Hypothesis offers a roadmap to navigate the complexities of intergroup relations. This article aims to explore the fertile ground upon which the Contact Hypothesis stands, examining the conditions under which it thrives and the psychological processes it sets in motion to bridge the chasms that divide us.

Understanding the Contact Hypothesis

People by nature are suspicious of those they don’t know. We further alienate ourselves from those that we perceive as different from us. The fear of outgroups, or ‘outgroup bias,’ is considered to have an evolutionary basis. Evolutionary psychology suggests that such biases may have developed as adaptive responses in our ancestral environments. Identifying with and supporting one’s group could have been crucial for survival, leading to a natural wariness of strangers or those from outside the group.

This inclination towards ethnocentrism and the tendency to view outgroups with suspicion or as a threat can be traced back to primordial tribal sentiments. These sentiments were adaptational for the success of a group in the past. However, in modern societies, these innate tendencies can be manipulated by politics or social influences, leading to communal tensions or prejudice.

It’s important to note that while there may be an evolutionary component to outgroup fear, it is not deterministic. Humans also have the capacity for cooperation and embracing diversity, which can counteract these primitive instincts. National integration and democracy, for example, can foster solidarity beyond one’s immediate group and promote cultural rights for all citizens.

Gordon Allport suggested that contact between in-groups and out-groups may provide a partial solution to these natural divisions that lead to prejudice. We refer to Allport’s theory as the contact hypothesis. Basically, by interacting with and getting to know members of different groups in a supportive environment, individuals may challenge stereotypes, reduce anxiety, and develop empathy and understanding. This hypothesis has been an important concept in the study of social psychology and has implications for promoting social harmony and cooperation in diverse settings.

Categorization, In-Group, Out-Group, and Prejudice

Categorization

Social categorization is a fundamental aspect of human psychology that involves the classification of individuals into social groups based on shared characteristics. Social categorization is a subconscious cognitive process that allows individuals to simplify and make sense of the complex social world.

Allport wrote:

“The human mind must think with the aid of categories. Once formed, categories are the basis for normal prejudgment. We cannot possibly avoid this process. Orderly living depends on it” (Allport, 1955).

This process of categorization plays a significant role in shaping perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors towards others.

Mahzarin R. Banaji and Anthony G. Greenwald explain that categories “are not only extremely convenient—they are essential in permitting us to get about the business of our lives” (Banaji & Greenwald, 2016, p. 80). Basically, we could not manage the massive flow of information without the foundation of categories to help organize and process every stimuli.

Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson wrote:

“Cognitive psychologists consider stereotypes to be energy-saving devices that allow us to make efficient decisions on the basis of past experience; help us quickly process new information and retrieve memories; make sense of real differences between groups; and predict, often with considerable accuracy, how others will behave or how they think. We wisely rely on stereotypes and the quick information they give us to avoid danger, approach possible new friends, choose one school or job over another, or decide that that person across this crowded room will be the love of our lives (Tavris & Aronson, 2015).

In-Group, Out-Group

However, although this process is natural and an unavoidable part of the human psyche, it has some downsides. Categories are not truths. They are subjective divisions. They resemble the folders that we create and label in the filing cabinet. Each folder having its own description and properties. Culture, experience, and natural biases influence these categories.

One byproduct of Categorizing people involves dividing people into in-groups (groups to which an individual belongs) and out-groups (groups to which an individual does not belong). These categories can be based on various factors such as age, gender, race, occupation, or interests.

Philip Zimbardo explains that as a part of the in-group, outgroup divisions we begin attributing non-human traits to the out-groups. He calls this infrahumanization.

Zimbardo explains:

“Out-group infrahumanization is a newly investigated phenomenon in which people tend to attribute uniquely human emotions and traits to their in-group and deny their existence in out-groups. It is a form of emotional prejudice” (Zimbardo, 2007).

While we attribute “infrahumanness” to out-groups, as less than human, we tend to see ourselves as more human than others (Zimbardo, 2007).

Prejudice

Tavris and Aronson explain that prejudices “emerge from the disposition of the human mind to perceive and process information in categories. ‘Categories’ is a nicer, more neutral word than ‘stereotypes,’ but it’s the same thing” (Tavris & Aronson, 2015).

We may divide individuals in legitimate categories. We do have different ages, genders, races, occupations, and interests. These are all legitimate categories. New ideas about gender are dividing traditional categories into subcategories and entirely new categories. Moreover, we often describe ourselves by citing some of the categories that we belong to.

The categories in and of themselves are not bad. However, the definition and traits that we attach to these categories can be. In our categorization process, we attach descriptive traits to the category. We then project these categorical traits onto everybody in the category. Consequently, it is the attaching of traits to the categories and generalizing those traits onto every member of the group that is hurtful and wrong.

These prejudices operate unconsciously. While they are arbitrary subjective descriptions, they operate as imperative truths, tainting our vision of others. According to the Contact Hypothesis, interaction between in and out-groups is a partial solution. When we interact with others, we are more likely to see errors to our prejudiced generalizations. These enlightenments may motivate a reorganization of our categories and descriptive labels.

Basic Points of the Contact Hypothesis

The Contact Hypothesis is a significant concept in social psychology that addresses how intergroup contact can reduce prejudice and improve relations between different social or cultural groups. The opposite of contact is segregation. Traditional practices of segregation worked to enhance in-group, out-group prejudices. Evan Staub wrote that social psychologists have shown that “although contact between different groups (for example, blacks and whites in America) does not guarantee a loss of prejudice, separation and segregation maintain it” (Staub, 1992).

Allport wrote in his introduction to his chapter on contact that it has sometimes been held that “merely by assembling people without regard for race, color, religion, or national origin, we can thereby destroy stereotypes and develop friendly attitudes. This is not the case” (Allport, 1955). Accordingly, contact alone is not enough. And in some cases, contact may ignite violent clashes.

Necessary Elements in the Contact Hypothesis

• Equal Status Between Groups: For contact to be effective in reducing prejudice, the members of different groups must interact as equals, without any group holding power over the other.
• Common Goals: The groups should work towards shared goals, which necessitates cooperation and interdependence.
• Cooperation: Working together in a cooperative manner, rather than in competition, is essential for reducing negative stereotypes and fostering positive intergroup attitudes.
• Institutional Support: The contact should be supported by law, customs, or local authorities, which helps legitimize the interaction and the equality of the groups (Allport, 1955).

These conditions, when met, can lead to reduced prejudice, decreased stereotypes, and increased acceptance between individuals from different groups.

Successive Stages of Group Relationships

We know relationships never develop without contact. Boundaries are maintained, stereotypes left unchallenged and fear and suspicion expand. However, relationships do not naturally materialize with contact. Relationships typically progress through stages. Allport listed four stages:

• Sheer contact: casual contact between groups is not sufficient to break down stereotypes. In many cases, the brief contacts may support erroneous beliefs through protective cognitive processes such as selective information processing.
• Competition: Continued contact through shared environments often progresses to competition over resources.
• Accomodation: Overtime, a more integrated community eads to accommodation. This represents a reasonable tolerance of outside groups.
• Assimilation: The final stage is an assimilation of the out-group into one’s in-group (Allport, 1955).

According to the contact hypothesis the ultimate ending of assimilation may only occur through contact.

Other Theories Related to the Contact Hypothesis

• Extended Contact Effect: The idea that simply knowing that a member of one’s own group has a friendship with a member of an out-group can reduce prejudice (Zhou et al., 2019).
• Imagined Contact Hypothesis: This concept suggests that merely imagining a positive interaction with a member of an out-group can reduce prejudice (Miles & Crisp, 2014).
• E-Contact: The use of electronic communication to facilitate positive intergroup contact, which can also contribute to reducing prejudice (Amichai-Hamburger, & McKenna, 2006).

Example of Contact Hypothesis

Robbers Cave Experiment

The Robbers Cave experiment, conducted by Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues in the 1950s, is a landmark study that significantly contributed to our understanding of the Contact Hypothesis. The experiment took place in a summer camp setting with 22 boys who were divided into two groups, each unaware of the other’s existence at first.

• Phase 1: In-group Formation During the initial phase, each group engaged in activities that fostered internal cohesion and identity. They developed their own norms and even chose names for themselves (The Eagles and The Rattlers).
• Phase 2: Intergroup Conflict The researchers then introduced competitive tasks, such as games and challenges, which led to hostility and conflict between the two groups. This phase demonstrated how competition over resources could exacerbate intergroup tensions.
• Phase 3: Reducing Conflict The final phase of the experiment involved introducing cooperative tasks that required both groups to work together towards shared goals. This cooperation led to a reduction in conflict and prejudice, highlighting the role of shared objectives in resolving group tensions (Sherif et al., 1988).

The Robbers Cave experiment supports the Contact Hypothesis by illustrating that under certain conditions, specifically cooperative interaction towards common goals, intergroup contact can reduce prejudice and conflict. It also emphasizes the importance of superordinate goals—objectives that are important to both groups and can only be achieved through their joint efforts.

This experiment has had a profound impact on social psychology, demonstrating that circumstances, goals, and structured interaction can significantly alter behavior and attitudes between groups. It provides empirical evidence for the Contact Hypothesis, showing that positive contact between groups can lead to better relations, provided the right conditions are met.

See Robbers Cave Experiment for more on this social psychology study

Sports Leagues and the Contact Hypothesis

Sports have long been recognized as a powerful tool for promoting unity and social change. Here are some examples of communities using sports leagues to unite rival gangs:

• Chicago’s South Side Church Basketball Program: In Chicago, a church on the South Side initiated a basketball program aimed at bringing together young people from rival gangs. The program provided a safe space for them to interact and engage in friendly competition, fostering a sense of community and reducing violence.
• Midnight Basketball Leagues: Originating in the 1980s, Midnight Basketball Leagues were designed to offer young men in high-crime areas a constructive alternative to unlawful nighttime activities. These leagues often involved individuals from rival neighborhoods or gangs, using the sport as a means to break down barriers and reduce gang-related activities.
• Homeboy Industries in Los Angeles: Founded by Father Greg Boyle, Homeboy Industries is an organization that helps former gang members and previously incarcerated individuals. Among its many programs, it uses sports and recreational activities to build camaraderie and teach teamwork, which can help in dissolving gang affiliations and rivalries.
• Boston’s Gang Alliances and Rivalries: In Boston, during the city’s most violent period, sports team apparel was used to identify gang territories. Efforts have been made to use sports, including basketball leagues, as a way to bridge gaps between rival gangs and reduce violence.

These initiatives demonstrate the potential of sports to create neutral grounds where individuals from conflicting groups can come together, fostering dialogue and understanding through shared interests and goals. It’s a testament to the unifying power of sports and its role in community development and peace-building.

Empirical Support for the Contact Hypothesis

Empirical evidence for the Contact Hypothesis is extensive and has been gathered from a variety of studies across different contexts. Here are some key findings that support the hypothesis:

• Meta-Analyses: A meta-analysis by Pettigrew and Tropp in 2006, which reviewed over 500 studies, found that intergroup contact typically reduces prejudice. This was true across different types of contact, including face-to-face and virtual interactions (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Paluck, Green, & Green, 2019).
• Conditions for Effective Contact: Research has identified specific conditions under which contact is most effective at reducing prejudice. These include equal status between groups, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and support from authorities, laws, or customs (Allport, 1955).
• Virtual Contact: Studies have also explored the impact of virtual contact through the internet on intergroup relations. Findings suggest that even online interactions, when structured effectively, can lead to positive attitude changes (Amichai-Hamburger, & McKenna, 2006).
• Positive Outcomes: Empirical research has shown that contact between members of different social groups can lead to more positive attitudes towards outgroup members. It can increase empathy and perspective-taking. Additionally, it reduces anxiety and hostility towards members of other groups.

These pieces of evidence highlight the robust nature of the Contact Hypothesis and its relevance in various settings, from personal interactions to institutional policies aimed at fostering better intergroup relations. The hypothesis continues to be a foundational concept in understanding and improving intergroup dynamics.

References:

Allport, Gordon W. (1955). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. ISBN-13: 9780201001792; APA Record: 1954-07324-000
(Return to Main Text)

Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & McKenna, K. (2006). The Contact Hypothesis Reconsidered: Interacting via the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(3), 825-843. DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00037.x
(Return to Main Text)

Banaji, Mahzarin R.; Greenwald, Anthony G. (2016). Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People. Bantam; Reprint edition. ISBN-10: 0345528433; APA Record: 2012-31920-000
(Return to Main Text)

Miles, E.; Crisp, R. (2014). A meta-analytic test of the imagined contact hypothesis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(1), 3-26. DOI: 10.1177/1368430213510573
(Return to Main Text)

Paluck, E. L.; Green, S. A.; Green, D. P. (2019). The Contact Hypothesis Re-Evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129–158. DOI: 10.1017/bpp.2018.25
(Return to Main Text)

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. DOI: 10.1037%2F0022-3514.90.5.751
(Return to Main Text)

Sherif, Muzafer; Harvey, O. J.; Hood, William R.; Sherif, Carolyn W.; White, Jack (1988). The Robbers Cave Experiment: Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation. ‎Wesleyan University Press; Illustrated edition. ISBN: 9780819561947
(Return to Main Text)

Staub, Ervin (1992). The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence. Cambridge University Press; Revised ed. edition. ISBN-10: 0521422140; DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_2
(Return to Main Text)

Tavris, Carol; Aronson, Elliot (2015). Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts. Mariner Books; Revised, New edition edition. ISBN-10: 0547416032 APA Record: 2007-07067-000
(Return to Main Text)

Zimbardo, Philip (2008). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. ‎Random House; 1st edition. ISBN-10: 0812974441; APA Record: 2007-04177-000
(Return to Main Text)

Zhou, S.; Page-Gould, E.; Aron, A.; Moyer, A.; Hewstone, M. (2019). The Extended Contact Hypothesis: A Meta-Analysis on 20 Years of Research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(2), 132-160. DOI: 10.1177/1088868318762647
(Return to Main Text)