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)

Stereotyping by omission: Eliminate the negative, accentuate the positive.

The Audience-Tuning Effect of Negative Stereotypes in Communication

Is good more alike than bad? Positive-negative asymmetry in the differentiation between options. A study on the evaluation of fictitious political profiles

Differentiation in social perception: Why later-encountered individuals are described more negatively.

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.

Take Me Out of the Loop

Dispersion vs Disparity: Hiding Variability Can Encourage Stereotyping When Visualizing Social Outcomes

Warmth and competence predict overoptimistic beliefs for out-group but not in-group members

Negative media portrayals of immigrants increase ingroup favoritism and hostile physiological and emotional reactions

Do Mass Media Shape Stereotypes About Intellectually Gifted Individuals? Two Experiments on Stigmatization Effects From Biased Newspaper Reports

When News Reporters Deceive: the Production of Stereotypes

Does attitude importance moderate the effects of person-first language? A registered report

Devaluation by Omission: Limited Identity Options Elicit Anger and Increase Identification

Twice the negativity bias and half the positivity offset: Evaluative responses to emotional information in depression

Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes and Backlash Toward Agentic Women

The complexity and ambivalence of immigration attitudes: Ambivalent stereotypes predict conflicting attitudes toward immigration policies.

Intergroup biases: a focus on stereotype content

Biased, but expert: Trade-offs in how stigmatized versus non-stigmatized advocates are perceived and consequences for persuasion

The surprising costs of silence: Asymmetric preferences for prosocial lies of commission and omission.

Let’s Face It: We Are Biased, and It Should Not Be That Way

Good Intentions Aside: Stereotype Threat in the Face of Media Strategies to Counter Age Bias