ABSTRACT
The notion that contact with others leads to more favorable attitudes towards the target has considerable intuitive appeal. The so-called contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) postulates the rather simple premise that contact with an out-group member can result in more favorable attitudes towards the contact partner that subsequently generalize to the out-group as a whole (see also Brown & Hewstone, 2005). Over 60 years of research on the topic provides clear evidence that contact serves this function (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; see also Hodson & Hewstone, 2013a). Until recently, however, it was much less clear who is drawn to (or pushed from) intergroup contact, and even more pressingly, who benefits from its potential effects (Hodson, 2011). We suspect that those well-schooled in the intergroup relations literature view Lincoln’s statement with considerable bemusement if not skepticism.1 Is human nature such that all people alike desire out-group contact and are amenable (or at least susceptible) to positive attitude change as a result of contact? This question, we argue, is fundamental for the contact field to address. If contact primarily works among low-prejudiced (LP) persons, or worse, is ineffective (or even backfires) among those highly prejudiced (HP), then contact has questionable utility as a strategy for prejudice reduction or social change. If, on the other hand, contact works well among prejudice-prone persons despite their dislike of out-group interaction, such evidence would provide a strong test of contact’s potential. The present chapter reviews the latest advances in our understanding of this empirical yet often overlooked question, before addressing shortcomings in the field’s knowledge and recommending future directions.
