Abstract:Seventy years of research on intergroup contact, or face-to-face interactions between members of opposing social groups, demonstrates that positive contact typically reduces prejudice and increases social cohesion. Extant syntheses, however, have not considered the full breadth of contact valence (positive/negative) and have treated self-selection as a threat to validity. This research bridges intergroup contact theory with sequential sampling models of impression formation to assess contact effects across all valences. From the premise that positive versus negative contact instigates differential resampling of outgroup experiences when self-selection is possible, we advance and meta-analytically test new predictions for the moderation of valenced contact effects and negativity bias as a function of people's opportunity and motivation to self-select in and out of contact. Our random-effects synthesis of positive and negative intergroup contact studies (238 independent samples, 936 nested effects; total N = 152,985) found significant valenced contact effects: Positive contact systematically associates with lower prejudice, and negative contact associates with higher prejudice. Critically, the detrimental effect of negative contact is significantly larger than the benefit of positive contact. This negativity bias is particularly pronounced under conditions in which one can self-select, is motivated to avoid contact, among male-dominated and prejudiced samples, in contact with stigmatized, low status, low socioeconomic status outgroups, along nonconcealable stigma, with nonintimate contact partners in informal settings and in collectivistic societies. Considering individuals' motivation and opportunity to self-select, together with contact valence, therefore offers a more nuanced and integrated platform to design contact-based interventions and policies across varied contact ecologies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)

Why more contact may increase cultural polarization

What sustains cultural diversity and what undermines it? Axelrod and beyond

Paths to Polarization: How Extreme Views, Miscommunication, and Random Chance Drive Opinion Dynamics

Local Convergence and Global Diversity: From Interpersonal to Social Influence

Opinion Polarization by Learning from Social Feedback

Mass media destabilizes the cultural homogeneous regime in Axelrod's model

Effects of Mass Media action on the Axelrod Model with Social Influence

About renegades and outgroup-haters: Modelling the link between social influence and intergroup attitudes

Biased processing and opinion polarization: experimental refinement of argument communication theory in the context of the energy debate

Equilibria of culture contact derived from ingroup and outgroup attitudes

The Axelrod model for the dissemination of culture revisited

Is there negative social influence? Disentangling effects of dissimilarity and disliking on opinion shifts

Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

Exploring the formation dynamics of affective polarization by considering a coupled feedback

Dynamics of Affective Polarization: From Consensus to Partisan Divides

Biased Assimilation, Homophily and the Dynamics of Polarization

Comfort-driven mobility produces spatial fragmentation in Axelrod's model

Algorithmic bias amplifies opinion polarization: A bounded confidence model

Negativity bias in intergroup contact: Meta-analytical evidence that bad is stronger than good, especially when people have the opportunity and motivation to opt out of contact.

Competing Activists--Political Polarization

Reconciling long-term cultural diversity and short-term collective social behavior