Page 197 - Ana Kozina and Nora Wiium, eds. ▪︎ Positive Youth Development in Contexts. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2021. Digital Library, Dissertationes (Scientific Monographs), 42.
P. 197
contact-based interventions to reduce ethnic prejudice ...
Direct contact produced a smaller effect on a negative affective out-
come compared to behavioural and cognitive outcomes, which contradicts
the findings of a meta-analysis by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) that inter-
ventions based on direct contact are expected to produce the largest effects
on negative affective outcomes. However, only one measurement of a neg-
ative affective outcome for direct contact interventions was included in the
analysis, and thus we cannot generalise our findings.
Consistent with the results of Paolini et al. (2007), our analysis shows
direct contact interventions produce moderate effects on behavioural out-
comes even after a longer period of time, as Berger et al. (2016) reported sig-
nificant positive effects on behavioural outcomes (i.e. number of intergroup
friendships) 15 months after the intervention.
Indirect contact-based interventions produced small-to-moderate ef-
fects on cognitive outcomes, small effects on behavioural outcomes, and
negligible effects on affective outcomes (see Table 1). This is consistent with
Paolini et al. (2007) who state that indirect contact interventions could have
a greater effect on cognitive outcomes than behavioural and affective ones.
Direct contact interventions produced larger effects on all three types
of outcomes, which is consistent with Turner et al. (2007). A particularly
large difference in effect can be seen for affective outcomes, which may in-
dicate that direct contact is particularly efficacious at reducing affective as-
pects of prejudice, as reported by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006). Still, these
differences cannot be generalised because the number of studies that con-
ducted a direct contact intervention was extremely small.
Limitations and directions for future research
Several prominent limitations of this review should be addressed. First, we
investigated a limited amount of potentially relevant factors that contribute
to intervention effectiveness. Intervention effectiveness might also vary de-
pending on the cultural environment and specifics of the intergroup con-
tact (Ülger et al., 2018). Not all interventions included in the present paper
can be compared with each other as they were executed in quite different
cultural settings, which explains why some of our results may be deemed
inconclusive. The study by Berger et al. (2016), for example, stands out from
the other studies included as the ethnic minority group (i.e. Palestinians)
is native to Israel while the other studies mostly focused on reducing prej-
udice against recently migrated ethnic minorities. Conducting an inter-
vention in such a setting may require a different approach from the rest
197
Direct contact produced a smaller effect on a negative affective out-
come compared to behavioural and cognitive outcomes, which contradicts
the findings of a meta-analysis by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) that inter-
ventions based on direct contact are expected to produce the largest effects
on negative affective outcomes. However, only one measurement of a neg-
ative affective outcome for direct contact interventions was included in the
analysis, and thus we cannot generalise our findings.
Consistent with the results of Paolini et al. (2007), our analysis shows
direct contact interventions produce moderate effects on behavioural out-
comes even after a longer period of time, as Berger et al. (2016) reported sig-
nificant positive effects on behavioural outcomes (i.e. number of intergroup
friendships) 15 months after the intervention.
Indirect contact-based interventions produced small-to-moderate ef-
fects on cognitive outcomes, small effects on behavioural outcomes, and
negligible effects on affective outcomes (see Table 1). This is consistent with
Paolini et al. (2007) who state that indirect contact interventions could have
a greater effect on cognitive outcomes than behavioural and affective ones.
Direct contact interventions produced larger effects on all three types
of outcomes, which is consistent with Turner et al. (2007). A particularly
large difference in effect can be seen for affective outcomes, which may in-
dicate that direct contact is particularly efficacious at reducing affective as-
pects of prejudice, as reported by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006). Still, these
differences cannot be generalised because the number of studies that con-
ducted a direct contact intervention was extremely small.
Limitations and directions for future research
Several prominent limitations of this review should be addressed. First, we
investigated a limited amount of potentially relevant factors that contribute
to intervention effectiveness. Intervention effectiveness might also vary de-
pending on the cultural environment and specifics of the intergroup con-
tact (Ülger et al., 2018). Not all interventions included in the present paper
can be compared with each other as they were executed in quite different
cultural settings, which explains why some of our results may be deemed
inconclusive. The study by Berger et al. (2016), for example, stands out from
the other studies included as the ethnic minority group (i.e. Palestinians)
is native to Israel while the other studies mostly focused on reducing prej-
udice against recently migrated ethnic minorities. Conducting an inter-
vention in such a setting may require a different approach from the rest
197
