Table 3.
Correlational Studies Evaluating the Relation Between Contact and Collective Action.
| Study | Participants and groups | Out-groups | Country | Type of contact | Mediator(s) | Moderator(s) | Dependent variable(s) | Contact effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Albzour et al. (2019) | Disadvantaged: 159 Palestinian adults | Advantaged: Israelis | West Bank | Direct contact | Support for normalization of the relation with the advantaged group (normative collective action and out-group attitudes)B* | / | Motivation and willingness to engage in revolutionary resistance (non-normative collective action) | Sedative (correlation with contact and indirect effect) |
| Bagci and Turnuklu (2019) | Disadvantaged: 151 Kurd university students | Advantaged: Turks | Turkey | Positive and negative direct contact | Perceived discrimination (personal and group discrimination) (no effect)A*
In-group identificationC* Relative deprivationA* |
/ | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Sedative (positive direct contact: indirect effect) No effect (nonsignificant correlation for both positive and negative direct contact, nonsignificant indirect effect for negative contact) |
| Bagci et al. (2018) | Disadvantaged: 269 physically adults with disability | Advantaged: individuals without disability | Turkey | Direct contact (cross-group friendships) | Collective self-esteemC*
Perceived advantaged group’s attitudes (meta-perceptions) (no effect) B* |
/ | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Mobilization (correlation with contact and indirect effect) |
| Barth and Parry (2009) | Advantaged (possibly including some members of the disadvantaged group): 760 adults | Disadvantaged: gay people | United States | Direct contact | / | / | Support for a range of policies benefitting the rights of gay people (normative collective action) | Mobilization |
| Barth et al. (2009) | Advantaged (possibly including some members of the disadvantaged group): 760 adults | Disadvantaged: gay people | United States | Direct contact | / | / | Support for a referendum against the rights of gay people (normative collective action) | Mobilization |
| Berg (2009) | Advantaged: 708 White adults | Disadvantaged: immigrants | United States | Direct contact | / | / | Support for social policies favoring immigrants (normative collective action) | Mobilization |
| Brambilla et al. (2013) | Advantaged: 146 Italian adults | Disadvantaged: immigrants | Italy | Direct contact | Out-group morality B*
Sociability (no effect) B* Competence (no effect)B* |
/ | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Mobilization (correlation with contact and indirect effect) |
| Brannon (2018, Study 1) | Advantaged: 998 White university students Disadvantaged: 959 Asian university students |
Disadvantaged: ethnic minority groups | United States | Direct contact (including a measure of cross-group friendships) | / | / | Support for university commitment to racial and ethnic diversity (normative collective action) | Mobilization (only cross-group friendships) |
| Brannon (2018, Study 2) | Advantaged: 1075 White university students Disadvantaged: 249 Asian university students |
Disadvantaged: ethnic minority groups | United States | Direct contact (including a measure of cross-group friendships) | / | / | Support for affirmative action (normative collective action) Support for university commitment to racial and ethnic diversity (multicultural vs. colorblind approach) (normative collective action) |
No effect |
| K. T. Brown et al. (2003) | Advantaged: 375 White university students | Disadvantaged: Black people, ethnic minority groups | United States | Direct contact | / | / | Support for social policies benefiting Black people (normative collective action) Support for university policies benefitting ethnic minority groups (normative collective action) |
No effect (for support for social policies benefitting Black people) Mobilization (for support for university policies benefiting ethnic minority groups) |
| Cakal et al. (2021, Study 1) | Advantaged: 336 Turkish Cypriot adults | Disadvantaged: immigrants | Cyprus | Direct contact (cross-group friendships) | Intergroup anxiety (no effect)B*
Intergroup trust B* Perspective-taking B* |
/ | Support for immigrants’ engagement in collective action (normative collective action) | Mobilization (correlation with contact, indirect effect) |
| Cakal et al. (2021, Study 2) | Advantaged: 197 Romanian university students | Disadvantaged: Hungarian immigrants | Romania | Direct contact (cross-group friendships) | Intergroup anxiety B*
Intergroup trust B* Perspective-taking B* |
/ | Support for Hungarians’ engagement in collective action (normative collective action) | Mobilization (correlation with contact, indirect effect) |
| Cakal et al. (2021, Study 3) | Advantaged: 240 Israeli Jew university students | Disadvantaged: Israeli Palestinians | Israel | Direct contact (cross-group friendships) | Intergroup anxiety B*
Intergroup trust B* Perspective-taking B* |
/ | Support for Israeli Palestinians’ engagement in collective action (normative collective action) | Mobilization (correlation with contact, indirect effect) |
| Cakal et al. (2016, Study 2) | Disadvantaged: 209 Kurdish adults | Advantaged: Turks | Turkey | Direct contact (cross-group friendships) | Intergroup threat (realistic and symbolic)A* |
/ | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Sedative (correlation with contact, indirect effect) |
| Cakal et al. (2011, Study 1) | Disadvantaged: 488 Black South African university students | Advantaged: White South Africans | South Africa | Direct contact | In-group relative deprivationA*
In-group efficacy (no effect)C* |
/ | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) Support for social policies benefiting South Africans (normative collective action) |
Sedative (for both outcome variables: correlation with contact, indirect effect) |
| Cakal et al. (2011, Study 2) | Advantaged: 244 White South African university students | Disadvantaged: Black South Africans | South Africa | Direct contact | In-group relative deprivation (no effect) A*
In-group efficacy (no effect)C* |
/ | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) Support for social policies benefiting South Africans (normative collective action) |
Mobilization (correlation with contact) |
| Calcagno (2016) | Advantaged: 85 heterosexual adults | Disadvantaged: gay people | United States | Direct contact (cross-group friendships) | / | Gender4* (no effect) | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) Collective action intentions to fight bullying toward gay people (normative collective action) |
Mobilization (for both outcome variables) |
| Carter et al. (2019) | Advantaged: 1,021 White university students Disadvantaged: 110 ethnic minority university students |
Disadvantaged: ethnic minorities Advantaged: Whites |
United States | Direct contact (cross-group friendships) | Perceived injusticeA* | Group1* | Engagement in activism to foster university inclusiveness (normative collective action) | Mobilization (for Whites: direct and indirect effect) Sedative (for ethnic minority: direct and indirect effect) |
| Celebi et al. (2016) | Advantaged: 337 Turkish university students Disadvantaged: 288 Kurdish university students |
Disadvantaged: Kurds Advantaged: Turks |
Turkey | Direct contact (cross-group friendships) | / | Group1* | Support for Kurdish language rights (normative collective action) | Mobilization (for Turks: direct effect) No effect (for Kurds: nonsignificant direct effect) |
| Cernat (2019) | Disadvantaged: 604 Hungarian adults Disadvantaged: 602 Roma adults |
Advantaged: Romanians Disadvantaged: Roma (for Hungarians), Hungarians (for Roma) |
Romania | Direct contact (with the advantaged group, and with the other disadvantaged group (interminority contact) | / | Group1* | Support for non-specific social policies for Hungarians (normative collective action) Support for specific social policies for Hungarians (normative collective action) Support for non-specific social policies for Roma (normative collective action) Support for specific social policies for Roma (normative collective action) |
Sedative (contact with majority was associated with lower support for pro-disadvantaged policies, especially specific policies) No effect, Sedative (interminority contact was not associated with support for pro-in-group policies, except Roma’s contact with Hungarians which was associated with lower specific pro-in-group policies) Mobilization, Sedative (interminority contact was associated with greater support for non-specific out-group policies, but lower support for specific out-group policies among Hungarians; it was associated with greater support for both types of out-group policies among Roma) |
| Cocco et al. (2022) | Advantaged: 391 Italian adults | Disadvantaged: immigrants | Italy | Positive and negative direct contact | One-group perceptions A*
Out-group morality B* |
/ | Collective action intentions (measures of normative and non-normative collective action) Collective action support (measures of normative and non-normative collective action) |
Mobilization (positive contact: direct effect on normative collective action intentions and support, and on non-normative collective action support; indirect effect on normative collective action intentions and support) Mobilization (negative contact: direct effect on non-normative collective action intentions and support) Sedative (negative contact: direct and indirect effect on normative collective action intentions and support) No effect (positive contact: nonsignificant direct effect on non-normative collective action intentions; nonsignificant indirect effect on non-normative collective action intentions and support) |
| No effect (negative contact: nonsignificant indirect effect on non-normative collective action intentions and support) | ||||||||
| Debrosse et al. (2016) | Advantaged: 458 White South African adults Disadvantaged: 2,496 Black South African adults |
Disadvantaged: newcomers | South Africa | Direct contact | / | Group1*
Realistic threat1* (effect for Blacks) Numeric threat1* (effect for Whites) Newcomer category (race)4* |
Support for the rights of different categories of newcomers (temporary workers, refugees, illegal immigrants) (normative collective action) | Mobilization (Blacks: direct effect, mobilization for some newcomer groups with low realistic threat) No effect, Mobilization (Whites: nonsignificant direct effect, mobilization for some newcomer groups with low numeric threat) |
| Di Bernardo et al. (2022) | Advantaged: 163 Italian adults Disadvantaged: 129 immigrant adults |
Disadvantaged: immigrants Advantaged: Italians |
Italy | Direct contact | Out-group stereotypes B* | Group1* | Support for social policies benefiting the immigrant group (normative collective action) | Mobilization (advantaged: positive correlation with contact, indirect effect; disadvantaged: indirect effect) No effect (disadvantaged: nonsignificant correlation with contact) |
| Di Bernardo et al. (2021) | Advantaged: 392 Italian adolescents Disadvantaged: 165 immigrant adolescents |
Disadvantaged: immigrants Advantaged: Italians |
Italy | Direct contact | Status illegitimacy A*
Status stability (no effect) A* Permeability of group boundaries (no effect) A* |
Group1*
Group salience1* (for Italians) Focus on differences vs. similarities1* (no effect) |
Collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Mobilization (Italians: positive correlation with contact, indirect effect, effects of contact quality significant for high group salience) Mobilization (immigrants: positive correlation with contact, indirect effect for contact quantity) |
| Dixon, Cakal, et al. (2017) | Disadvantaged: 149 Muslim university students | Disadvantaged: disadvantaged people in general | India | Direct contact with disadvantaged groups (interminority contact) Direct with the advantaged Hindus group |
Group efficacy C*
Shared grievances A* |
Direct contact with the advantaged Hindus group1* | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Mobilization (contact with disadvantaged groups: positive correlation with contact, indirect effect, indirect effect for low direct contact with the advantaged Hindus group) No effect (contact with the advantaged group: nonsignificant correlation with collective action, nonsignificant indirect effect) |
| Dixon et al. (2015) | Disadvantaged: 185 Indian South African adults | Disadvantaged: individuals from informal settlements | South Africa | Direct contact (interminority contact) | Perceived group discriminationA*
Intergroup empathy (no effect) B* |
/ | Support for social policies benefiting residents of informal settlements (normative collective action) Collective action intentions (normative collective action) |
Mobilization (correlation with contact for both outcome variables, indirect effect only for collective action intentions) |
| Dixon et al. (2007) | Advantaged: 361 White South African adults Disadvantaged: 1,556 Black South African adults |
Disadvantaged: Black South Africans Advantaged: White South Africans |
South Africa | Direct contact | / | Group1*
Blacks’ socio-economic status4* (no effect) |
Support for social policies benefiting Black South Africans (normative collective action) | Mobilization (White South Africans) Sedative (Black South Africans) |
| Dixon, et al. (2020) | Advantaged: 794 White South African adults | Disadvantaged: disadvantaged racial groups | South Africa | Direct contact | Intergroup threat (realistic and symbolic)A*
Out-group attitudes (only for support for preferential policies)B* Perceived injusticeA* |
/ | Opposition to compensatory social policies benefitting disadvantaged racial groups (normative collective action) Opposition to preferential social policies benefiting disadvantaged racial groups (normative collective action) |
Mobilization (correlation with contact, indirect effect, effects for contact quality) |
| Dixon, et al. (2020) | Equal status: 242 Catholic adults Equal status: 246 Protestant adults |
Equal status: Protestants, for Catholics; Catholics, for Protestants | Northern Ireland | Positive and negative direct contact | Realistic threat A*
Symbolic threat (no effect)A* |
Group1* (no effect) | Support for Government’s decision to remove peace walls (normative collective action) | Mobilization (positive contact: correlation with contact, indirect effect) Sedative (negative contact: correlation with contact, indirect effect) |
| Du Toit and Quayle (2011) | Advantaged: 64 South African adults mostly White with good socio-economic status | Disadvantaged: disadvantaged racial groups | South Africa | Direct and extended contact with multiracial families | / | / | Resistance to social policies benefiting disadvantaged racial groups (normative collective action) | Mobilization (direct contact) No effect (extended contact) |
| Earle et al. (2021) | Advantaged: 71,991 adults (for analyses on lesbian/gay rights support); 70,056 adults (for analyses on transgender rights support) | Disadvantaged: LGBT people | 77 Countries including all Continents | Direct contact | / | Institutional support (Gay/lesbian rights at the Country level)1* (no effect) Transgender rights at the Country level (institutional support)1* |
Support for lesbian/gay people rights (normative collective action) Support for transgender people rights (normative collective action) |
Mobilization (effect of contact stronger when institutional support is low) |
| Ellison et al. (2011) | Advantaged and disadvantaged: approximately 1,100 White and Black adults | Disadvantaged: Latinos | United States | Direct contact | / | / | Support for social policies benefiting immigrants from Latin America (normative collective action) | Mobilization |
| Fasoli et al. (2016) | Advantaged: 125 heterosexual people | Disadvantaged: LGBT people | Italy | Direct contact | / | / | Support for social policies benefiting gay people (normative collective action) | Mobilization |
| Fingerhut (2011) | Advantaged: 202 heterosexual people | Disadvantaged: LGBT people | United States | Direct contact (cross-group friendships) | / | / | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Mobilization |
| Firat and Ataca (2022) | Advantaged: 210 Turkish Muslim adults | Disadvantaged: Syrians | Turkey | Direct contact | Perceived cultural distanceA* | Political orientation1* | Support for refugee rights (normative collective action) | Mobilization (correlation with contact, indirect effect, indirect effect for left-wing participants) |
| Flores (2015) | Advantaged: 1,006 adults | Disadvantaged: LGB individuals, transgenders | United States | Direct contact | Support for LGB rights (normative collective action) A* | / | Support for LGB rights (normative collective action) Support for transgender rights (normative collective action) |
Mobilization (direct effect of LGB contact; nonsignificant direct effect of transgender contact; direct effect LGB contact on support for transgender rights-secondary transfer effect; indirect effect of LGB contact) |
| Gerbert et al. (1991) | Advantaged: approximately 2,000 adults | Disadvantaged: people with AIDS | United States | Direct contact | / | / | Support for social policies denying people with AIDS their rights to work (normative collective action) | Mobilization |
| Gorska et al. (2017) | Advantaged: 27,409 heterosexual people | Disadvantaged: LGB people | 28 European countries | Direct contact | / | / | Support for LGB rights (normative collective action) | Mobilization (direct effect both at the individual and at the societal level) |
| Graf and Sczesny (2019) | Advantaged: 471 Swiss university students | Disadvantaged: immigrants | Switzerland | Positive and negative direct contact | Out-group attitudes B* | Political orientation1* | Intended financial support to a Swiss NGO helping migrants (normative collective action) | Mobilization (positive direct contact: correlation with contact, stronger indirect effect for right-wing individuals) Sedative (negative direct contact: correlation with contact, stronger indirect effect for right-wing than center individuals, no effect for left-wingers) |
| Hassler et al. (2020) | Advantaged: 3,216 ethnic majority group adults Advantaged: 4,898 cis-heterosexual adults Disadvantaged: 1,000 ethnic minority adults Disadvantaged: 3,883 LGBTIQ+ |
Disadvantaged: ethnic minorities Disadvantaged: LGBTIQ+ people Advantaged: ethnic majorities Advantaged: cis-heterosexual people |
69 Countries including all Continents | Positive and negative direct and extended contact | / | Group1* | High-cost and low-cost collective action intentions for the two disadvantaged groups (normative collective action) Support for social policies empowering the two disadvantaged groups (normative collective action) Intentions to work in solidarity with the two disadvantaged groups (normative collective action) |
Mobilization (advantaged group: positive contact) Sedative (advantaged group: negative contact) Mobilization (disadvantaged group: negative contact; positive contact for the measure of intentions to work in solidarity) Sedative (disadvantaged group: positive contact) |
| Hassler et al. (2022, Study 1) | Disadvantaged: 689 ethnic minority adults | Advantaged: ethnic majorities | Chile, Germany, Kosovo, UK, United States | Direct contact (five different operationalizations including measures of positive contact, cross-group friendships) | / | Supportive contact1*
Perceived illegitimacy1* |
Support for social change (five different operationalizations) (normative collective action) |
Sedative (direct effect, stronger effect for high perceived illegitimacy) Mobilization (direct effect, stronger effect for high supportive contact) |
| Hassler et al. (2022, Study 2) | Disadvantaged: 3,883 LGBTIQ+ | Advantaged: cis-heterosexual people | 18 Countries | Direct contact (five different operationalizations including measures of positive contact, cross-group friendships) | / | Supportive contact1*
Perceived illegitimacy1* |
Support for social change (five different operationalizations) (normative collective action) |
Sedative (direct effect, stronger effect for high perceived illegitimacy) Mobilization (direct effect, stronger effect for high supportive contact, stronger effect for high perceived illegitimacy) |
| Hassler et al. (2022, Study 3) | Advantaged: 2,937 ethnic majority group adults | Disadvantaged: ethnic or religious minorities | Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Germany, Israel, Kosovo, Poland, Serbia | Direct contact (five different operationalizations including measures of positive contact, cross-group friendships) | / | Supportive contact1*
Perceived illegitimacy1* |
Support for social change (five different operationalizations) (normative collective action) |
Mobilization (direct effect, stronger effect with high perceived illegitimacy) Sedative (stronger effect with high supportive contact) |
| Hassler et al. (2022, Study 4) | Advantaged: 4,203 cis-heterosexual adults | Disadvantaged: LGBTIQ+ people | 19 Countries | Direct contact (five different operationalizations including measures of positive contact, cross-group friendships) | / | Supportive contact1*
Perceived illegitimacy1* |
Support for social change (five different operationalizations) (normative collective action) |
Mobilization (direct effect, stronger effect with high supportive contact, stronger effect with high perceived illegitimacy) Sedative (stronger effect with high supportive contact, stronger effect with high perceived illegitimacy) |
| Hayes and Dowds (2006) | Advantaged: 781 majority citizens | Disadvantaged: immigrants | Northern Ireland | Direct contact | / | / | Support for social policies benefiting immigrants (normative collective action) | Mobilization |
| Hayward et al. (2018) | Disadvantaged: 195 Black adults Disadvantaged: 170 Latino adults |
Advantaged: Whites | United States | Positive and negative direct contact | Perceived group discriminationA*
Intergroup angerB* |
Group1* | Self-reported collective action behavior (normative collective action) Collective action intentions (normative collective action) |
Mobilization (direct effect of negative contact on both outcome variables for both groups; direct effect of positive contact on collective action intentions for Blacks; indirect effect of negative contact via perceived discrimination [not for collective action behavior for Latinos] and anger (not for collective action intentions for Latinos) for both groups) Sedative (indirect effect of positive contact via anger (except for Latinos for collective action intentions) and via perceived discrimination (for collective action intentions for Latinos) |
| Hong and Peoples (2020), student sample | Advantaged: 214 White university students | Disadvantaged: Blacks | United States | Direct contact | / | / | Behavioral collective action—Participation in the Black Lives Matter movement (normative collective action) | Mobilization |
| Hong and Peoples (2020), general sample | Advantaged: 108 White adults | Disadvantaged: Blacks | United States | Direct contact | / | / | Behavioral collective action—Participation in the Black Lives Matter movement (normative collective action) | Mobilization |
| Horne et al. (2017) | Advantaged: 139 heterosexual university students | Disadvantaged: LGB people | Russia | Direct contact | / | / | Support for LGB civil rights (normative collective action) | No effect |
| Huić et al. (2016) | Advantaged: 997 heterosexual people | Disadvantaged: gay people | Croatia | Direct and extended contact | / | / | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Mobilization |
| Jackman and Crane (1986) | Advantaged: 1,648 White adults | Disadvantaged: Blacks | United States | Direct contact | / | / | Support for social policies benefiting Blacks (normative collective action) | Mobilization |
| Kamberi et al. (2017) | Advantaged: 211 Macedonian adolescents Disadvantaged: 214 Albanian adolescents Disadvantaged: 202 Turkish adolescents Disadvantaged: 187 Roma adolescents |
Disadvantaged: Roma people | Republic of North Macedonia | Direct contact (with Roma, for non-Roma participants; with Macedonians, for Roma participants) | Perceived injustice (only for Turkish and Albanian people)A*
Negative out-group stereotypes (except for Roma)B* Positive intergroup emotions (except for Roma)B* |
Group1* | Support for social policies benefiting Roma people (normative collective action) | Mobilization (direct and indirect effect for all non-Roma groups) No effect (Roma people, nonsignificant direct and indirect effect) |
| Kauff et al. (2016, Study 1a) | Advantaged: 39,907 ethnic majority individuals Disadvantaged: 1,660 ethnic minority individuals |
Disadvantaged: ethnic minorities | 21 Countries and Israel | Majority’s positive direct contact | / | / | Support for anti-discrimination laws (normative collective action) | Mobilization (ethnic majority: direct effect both at the individual and at the societal level; ethnic minority: direct effect at societal level of majority’s positive contact) |
| Kauff et al. (2016, Study 1b) | Advantaged: 731 ethnic majority individuals Disadvantaged: 269 ethnic minority individuals |
Disadvantaged: ethnic minorities | Switzerland | Majority’s positive direct contact | / | / | Support for immigrant rights (normative collective action) | Mobilization (ethnic majority: direct effect both at the individual and at the societal level; ethnic minority: direct effect at societal level of majority’s positive contact) |
| King et al. (2009) | Advantaged: 856 Chinese people | Disadvantaged: transgender people | China | Direct contact | / | / | Support for equal opportunities for transgenders (normative collective action) Support for transgender civil rights (normative collective action) Support for anti-discrimination laws for transgenders (normative collective action) |
Mobilization |
| Kokkonen and Karlsson (2017) | Advantaged: initial sample of 9,725 elected political representatives | Disadvantaged: immigrants, women, blue-collar workers, youths, pensioners | Sweden | Direct contact (cross-group friendships) | / | / | Self-reported support for or advancement of political proposals to support the disadvantaged groups (normative collective action) | Mobilization (in favor of all groups except for women, for whom no effect emerged) |
| Lewis (2011) | Advantaged: 38,910 adults | Disadvantaged: LGB people | United States | Direct contact | / | Political orientation1*
Education4* Gender4* (no effect) Race4* (no effect) Religion type4* |
Support for LGB rights (normative collective action) | Mobilization (direct effect; effect stronger for liberals, low educated, evangelical vs. Protestants) |
| Lowinger et al. (2018) | Advantaged: 291 non-Asian university students | Disadvantaged: Asians | United States | Direct contact | Social normsA*
Attitudes toward affirmative action (no effect)A* Out-group attitudes (no effect)B* Intergroup competition (no effect)A* |
/ | Support for affirmative action policies at university benefitting Asians (normative collective action) | Mobilization (correlation with contact, indirect effect) |
| McKeown and Taylor (2017) | Equal status: 85 Catholic university students Equal status: 67 Protestant university students |
Equal status: Protestants, Catholics | Northern Ireland | Direct contact | Realistic threat (no effect)A*
Symbolic threatA* |
Group1* | Engagement in initiatives to support own group (normative collective action) Support for own group’s violent collective action (non-normative collective action) |
No effect (engagement in initiatives to support own group: nonsignificant direct effect) Sedative (support for violent action: direct effect, effect weaker for Protestants, indirect effect only for Protestants) Mobilization (engagement in initiatives to support own group: indirect effect via symbolic threat only for Protestants) |
| McLaren (2003) | Advantaged: 8,124 adults | Disadvantaged: immigrants | 17 European Countries | Direct contact (cross-group friendships) | / | / | Support for social policies benefiting immigrants (normative collective action) | Mobilization |
| Meleady et al. (2017) | Advantaged: 417 British adults | Disadvantaged: immigrants | UK | Positive and negative direct contact | Out-group attitudes B* | / | Voting intentions for the Brexit referendum (normative collective action) | Mobilization (positive contact: direct and indirect effect) Sedative (negative contact: direct and indirect effect) |
| Meleady and Vermue (2019, Study 1) | Advantaged: 202 White British university students and from the general population | Disadvantaged: Black people | UK | Positive and negative direct contact | Social dominance orientationA* | / | Support for the Black Lives Matter movement and collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Mobilization (positive contact: direct and indirect effect) Sedative (negative contact: indirect effect) No effect (negative contact: nonsignificant direct effect) |
| Meleady and Vermue (2019, Study 2) | Advantaged: 275 British university students and from the general population | Disadvantaged: immigrants | UK | Positive and negative direct contact | Social dominance orientation A* | / | Support for protests aimed to sustain immigrants’ rights as a consequence of Brexit and collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Mobilization (positive contact: direct and indirect effect) Sedative (negative contact: direct and indirect effect) |
| Mirete et al. (2022) | Advantaged: 245 university students | Disadvantaged: Individuals with intellectual disability | Spain | Direct contact | / | / | Support for the rights of individuals with intellectual disability (normative collective action) | No effect |
| Neumann and Moy (2018) | Advantaged: 37,623 European respondents | Disadvantaged: immigrants | 20 European Countries | Direct contact (including a measure of cross-group friendships) | / | Intergroup context homogeneity (of neighbourhood)1* | Support for social policies benefiting immigrants (normative collective action) | Mobilization (especially for contact quality and cross-group friendships) Sedative (direct effect of contact quantity, and for contact quantity in homogeneous neighborhood) |
| Pearson-Merkowitz et al. (2016) | Advantaged: 923 non-Latino adults | Disadvantaged: Latinos | United States | Direct contact | / | Political orientation1* | Support for allowing citizenship to illegal immigrants (normative collective action) | Mobilization (direct effect, effect stronger for Democrats) |
| Pereira et al. (2017) | Disadvantaged: 320 Roma people | Advantaged: Bulgarians | Bulgaria | Contact (single scale including direct and extended contact) | Ethnic identification C* | National identification3* | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Mobilization (direct effect) Sedative (indirect effect among low national identifiers) |
| Pettigrew (1997) | Advantaged: 3,806 ethnic majority adults | Disadvantaged: immigrants | 4 European Countries | Direct contact (including a measure of cross-group friendships) | / | / | Support for social policies benefiting immigrants (normative collective action) | Mobilization (direct effect, stronger for cross-group friendships) |
| Piumatti and Salvati (2020) | Advantaged: 5,544 Italian adults | Disadvantaged: gay people | Italy | Direct contact | / | / | Support for gay people rights (normative collective action) | Mobilization |
| Politi et al. (2020) | Disadvantaged: 154 Kosovo Albanian adults | Advantaged: Swiss people | Switzerland | Direct contact (cross-group friendships) | Ethnic identification C* | National identification3* | Support for ethnic activism (normative collective action) | Sedative (indirect contact effect significant only for low national identification) No effect (nonsignificant direct effect) |
| Reimer et al. (2017, Study 1a) | Disadvantaged: 233 sexual minority university students | Advantaged: heterosexual people | UK | Positive and negative direct contact | In-group identification C*
Perceived group discrimination A* Perceived personal discrimination A* Out-group attitudes (no effect) B* |
/ | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) | No effect (positive contact: nonsignificant direct and indirect effect) Mobilization (negative contact: direct and indirect effect) |
| Reimer et al. (2017, Study 1b) | Advantaged: 241 heterosexual university students | Disadvantaged: LGBT people | UK | Positive and negative direct contact | In-group identification (no effect) C*
Movement identification (politicized identity) C* Perceived group discrimination (no effect)A* Out-group attitudes B* |
/ | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Mobilization (positive contact: direct and indirect effect) Sedative (negative contact: direct and indirect effect) |
| Reimer et al. (2022) | Advantaged: 104 General Caste university students Intermediate status: 143 Other Backward Class university students Disadvantaged: 54 Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe university students |
Disadvantaged: Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe individuals Intermediate status: Other Backward Class individuals Advantaged: General Caste individuals, Muslims |
India | Positive and negative direct contact (including a measure of cross-group friendships) | / | Group1* (no effect) | Support for social policies benefiting the different groups in higher education (normative collective action) | No effect |
| Rupar and Graf (2019) | Equal status: 278 Croat university participants Equal Status: 267 Bosniak university participants |
Equal status: Bosniaks, Croats | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Positive and negative direct contact Positive and negative extended contact before, during and after war |
Realistic threat (for negative direct contact) A*
Symbolic threat (for positive direct and extended contact, negative direct contact) A* |
Group1* (no effect) | Support for reparation acts (apology, financial compensation) in favor of the out-group (normative collective action) | Mobilization (positive direct contact: positive correlation with contact, indirect effect; negative direct contact: positive correlation with contact; positive extended contact: positive correlation with contact, indirect effect; negative extended contact: positive correlation with contact) Sedative (negative direct contact: indirect effect) |
| Saab et al. (2017) | Disadvantaged: Syrian refugees | Advantaged: Lebanese people | Lebanon | Direct contact | / | / | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) Support for violent collective action (non-normative collective action) |
Sedative (for both forms of collective action) |
| Saguy et al. (2009, Study 2) | Disadvantaged: 175 Israeli Arab university students | Advantaged: Jewish people | Israel | Direct contact | Out-group attitudes (no effect)B*
Status illegitimacy A* Perceived out-group fairness (meta-perceptions) (no effect) B* |
/ | Support for social change (normative collective action) | Sedative (indirect effect) No effect (nonsignificant correlation with contact) |
| Saleem et al. (2016, Study 2) | Advantaged: 351 adults (mostly Whites) | Disadvantaged: Muslims | United States | Direct contact | Negative intergroup emotions B*
Out-group stereotypes (aggressive) B* |
Reliance on media1* | Support for civic restrictions for Muslims (normative collective action) Support for military action in Muslims’ countries (non-normative collective action) |
Mobilization (correlation with contact [only for support for military action], indirect effect for both outcome variables via negative emotions for high reliance on media and via out-group stereotypes for low reliance on media) |
| Sarrasin et al. (2012) | Advantaged: 1,711 Swiss adults | Disadvantaged: immigrants | Switzerland | Direct contact (cross-group friendships) | Intergroup threat (realistic and symbolic) A* | / | Opposition to anti-racism laws (normative collective action) | No effect (nonsignificant direct effect) Mobilization (indirect effect) |
| Schulz and Taylor (2018) | Equal status: 218 Catholic adults Equal status: 160 Protestant adults |
Equal status: Protestants, Catholics | Northern Ireland | Direct contact | Perspective-takingB*
Out-group attitudes B* |
/ | Support for Syrian resettlement (normative collective action) (secondary transfer effect) | Mobilization (correlation with contact, indirect effect) |
| Selvanathan et al. (2018, Study 1) | Advantaged: 273 White adults | Disadvantaged: Black people | United States | Direct contact | Intergroup empathy B*
Anger against injustice A* |
/ | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) Support for Black Lives Matter (normative collective action) |
No effect (nonsignificant direct effect for both outcome variables) Mobilization (indirect effect for both outcome variables) |
| Selvanathan et al. (2018, Study 2) | Advantaged: 240 White adults | Disadvantaged: Black people | United States | Direct contact | Intergroup empathy B*
Anger against injustice A* |
/ | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) Support for Black Lives Matter (normative collective action) |
Mobilization (direct effect, only for collective action intentions; indirect effect for both outcome variables) |
| Selvanathan et al. (2018, Study 3) | Advantaged: 308 White adults | Disadvantaged: Black people | United States | Direct contact | Intergroup empathy B*
Anger against injustice A* |
/ | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) Support for Black Lives Matter (normative collective action) |
Mobilization (direct effect, only for collective action intentions; indirect effect for both outcome variables) |
| Sengupta and Sibley (2013) | Disadvantaged: 1,008 Maori adults | Advantaged: NZ Europeans | Australia | Direct contact (cross-group friendships) | Support for equality as meritocracy A* | / | Support for the ownership of foreshore and seabed by Maori (normative collective action) | Sedative (indirect effect) No effect (nonsignificant correlation with contact) |
| Skipworth et al. (2010) | Advantaged: 1,090 adults | Disadvantaged: gay people | United States | Direct contact | / | Religion type4*
Race4* Political orientation 1* (no effect) Gender4* (no effect) |
Support for social policies benefiting gay people (normative collective action) | Mobilization (direct effect, significant among Whites, stronger in the general population vs. White Southern evangelical) Sedative (for Black evangelical) |
| Tausch et al. (2015) | Disadvantaged: 112 Latino university students | Advantaged: Whites | United States | Direct contact (cross-group friendships) | Out-group attitudes B*
In-group identification C* Perceived in-group disadvantage (no effect) A* Anger against injustice A* Permeability of group boundaries (no effect) A* Intentions for individual mobility (no effect) A* |
/ | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Sedative (correlation with contact, indirect effect) |
| Tee and Hegarthy (2006) | Advantaged: 151 university students | Disadvantaged: sexual minorities | UK | Direct contact | / | / | Opposition to civil rights of transexuals (normative collective action) | Sedative |
| Tropp and Ulug (2019, Study 1) | Advantaged: 296 non-Hispanic White adult women | Disadvantaged: Blacks | United States | Direct contact | / | Political orientation1* | Intentions to support the Black Lives Matter movement (normative collective action) Actual self-reported support of the Black Lives Matter movement (normative collective action) |
Mobilization (direct effect for both outcome measures, effect for more liberal and moderate participants) |
| Tropp and Ulug (2019, Study 2) | Disadvantaged: 305 non-Hispanic White adult women who attended the 2017 Women’s March | Disadvantaged: Blacks | United States | Direct contact | / | Political orientation 1* (no effect) | Intentions to support protests for racial justice and equality (normative collective action) Actual self-reported support of protests for racial justice and equality (normative collective action) Actual self-reported support of protests for gender justice and equality (normative collective action) (secondary transfer effect) |
Mobilization (direct effect only for intentions to support protests for racial justice and equality) |
| Tropp et al. (2021, Study 1) | Advantaged: 259 White adults | Disadvantaged: Blacks | United States | Direct contact | Communication about power group differences A* | / | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Mobilization (correlation with contact, indirect effect) |
| Tropp et al. (2021, Study 2) | Advantaged: 267 Turkish from the general population | Disadvantaged: Kurds | Turkey | Direct contact | Communication about power group differences A*
Communication about cultural group differences (no effect) A* |
/ | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Mobilization (correlation with contact, indirect effect) |
| Turoy-Smith et al. (2013) | Advantaged: 114 Australian adults | Disadvantaged: refugees, Indigenous Australians | Australia | Direct contact | Intergroup anxiety B*
Out-group attitudes B* |
/ | Support for legislation benefiting refugees or Indigenous Australians (normative collective action) Collective action intentions (normative collective action) |
Mobilization (correlation of contact, only for support for legislation for both target groups, and only for contact quality but not quantity, indirect effect for both outcome variables for both target groups only for contact quality but not quantity) |
| Ulug and Cohrs (2017) | 78 Advantaged: Turks from the general population Advantaged: 307 Turks’ protesting subgroup from the general population (Turks with politicized identity) Disadvantaged: 105 Kurds from the general population |
Disadvantaged: Kurds Advantaged: Turks |
Turkey | Direct contact | Terrorism narrative (for the Turkish politicized subgroup and Kurds) A*
Economic narrative (for the Turkish politicized subgroup and Kurds) A* Democracy and Islam narrative (no effect) A* Democracy and rights narrative (for Kurds) A* Independence narrative (for the Turkish politicized subgroup and Kurds) A* |
Group1* | Support for social policies benefiting Kurds (normative collective action) | Mobilization (correlation with contact for the two Turkish samples, indirect effect for the Turkish politicized subgroup) Sedative (indirect effect for Kurds) No effect (nonsignificant correlation with contact for Kurds, nonsignificant indirect effect for the Turkish sample) |
| Ulug and Tropp (2021, Study 1) | Advantaged: 581 White adults | Disadvantaged: Blacks | United States | Negative vicarious contact (witnessing racial discrimination) | Perceived injustice A* | / | Collective action intentions for the Black Lives Matter movement (normative collective action) | Mobilization (correlation with contact, indirect effect) |
| Ulug and Tropp (2021, Study 2) | Advantaged: 99 White activists | Disadvantaged: Blacks | United States | Negative vicarious contact (witnessing racial discrimination) | Perceived injustice A* | / | Collective action intentions for the Black Lives Matter movement (normative collective action) | Mobilization (correlation with contact, indirect effect) |
| Ünver et al. (2021) | Advantaged: 300 Turkish university students Disadvantaged: 127 Kurd university students |
Disadvantaged: Kurds Advantaged: Turks |
Turkey | Positive and negative direct contact | Out-group attitudes toward primary out-group B*
Out-group attitudes toward Syrian refugees (secondary out-group) B* |
Group1* (no effect) Intergroup threat toward Syrian refugees (secondary out-group) (realistic and symbolic)1* |
Support for the rights of Syrian refugees (secondary transfer effect) (normative collective action) | Mobilization (positive contact: correlation with contact, indirect effect, effect stronger when group threat is low) No effect (negative contact: nonsignificant correlation) Sedative (negative contact: indirect effect, effect stronger when group threat is low) |
| Vázquez et al. (2020, Study 1a) | Disadvantaged: 635 Spanish female university students | Advantaged: men | Spain | Direct contact | Perceived in-group discrimination (no effect) A*
Perceived out-group discrimination (no effect)A* Perceived personal discrimination A* Fusion with the feminist movement (politicized identity) C* Out-group attitudes (no effect) B* In-group attitudes (no effect) C* |
/ | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Sedative (negative correlation with contact for quality but not quantity of contact, indirect effect for quality but not quantity of contact) |
| Vázquez et al. (2020, Study 1b) | Advantaged: 384 Spanish male university students | Disadvantaged: women | Spain | Direct contact | Perceived in-group discrimination (no effect) A*
Perceived out-group discrimination A* Perceived personal discrimination (no effect)A* Fusion with the feminist movement (politicized identity)C* Out-group attitudes (no effect)B* In-group attitudes (no effect)C* |
/ | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Mobilization (correlation with contact, indirect effect for contact quality) |
| Vezzali, Andrighetto, Capozza, et al. (2017) | Advantaged: 195 Italian university students | Disadvantaged: immigrants | Italy | Direct contact (cross-group friendships) | / | Content of contact (focus on differences vs. commonalities)1* | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Mobilization (correlation with contact, effect stronger when contact is focused more on differences than commonalities) |
| Vezzali, Andrighetto, Di Bernardo, et al. (2017) | Advantaged: 113 Italian earthquake survivors | Disadvantaged: immigrants | Italy | Negative direct contact | Support for social policies benefiting immigrant earthquake survivors (normative collective action) A* | / | Support for social policies benefiting immigrant earthquake survivors (normative collective action) Support for social policies immigrants (normative collective action) |
Sedative (correlation with contact, indirect effect) |
| Vezzali and Giovannini (2011) | Advantaged: 78 Italian enterprise owners | Disadvantaged: immigrants | Italy | Direct contact | Out-group stereotypes B* | / | Support for social policies immigrants (normative collective action) | Mobilization (correlation with contact, indirect effect) |
| Vezzali, McKeown, et al. (2021, Study 1) | Advantaged: 211 White adults | Disadvantaged: Blacks (US subsample), refugees (UK subsample) | UK and United States | Negative vicarious contact | Anger against injustice A* | Social dominance orientation1* | Collective action intentions (normative collective action) | Mobilization (indirect effect among individuals low in social dominance orientation) No effect (nonsignificant correlation with vicarious contact) |
| Visintin et al. (2017) | Advantaged: 516 ethnic Bulgarian adults Disadvantaged: 274 Bulgarian Turkish adults (high-status ethnic minority) |
Disadvantaged: Roma people | Bulgaria | Positive and negative direct contact | Out-group attitudes B*
Positive intergroup emotions B* Negative intergroup emotions B* |
Group1* (no effect) | Support for social policies benefiting Roma people (normative collective action) | Mobilization (positive contact: direct and indirect effect for both groups) Sedative (negative contact: direct and indirect effect for both groups) |
| Wilson-Daily et al. (2018) | Advantaged: 1,219 Spanish adolescents Disadvantaged: 379 immigrant adolescents |
Disadvantaged: immigrants Advantaged: Spanish people |
Spain | Direct contact | / | Out-group exposure1* (no effect) Group1* (no effect) Regional identification3* (no effect) National identification3* (no effect) Socio-economic status4* (no effect) |
Support for immigrant rights (normative collective action) | Mobilization |
| Yustisia et al. (2020) | Equal status: 66 Islamic terrorist detainees | Equal status: individuals from other religious groups | Indonesia | Direct contact | Perceived injustice A*
In-group efficacy C* Intergroup threat (realistic and symbolic) A* Identification with the jihadist group (politicized identity) C* |
/ | Support for Islamist terrorism (non-normative collective action) | Sedative (correlation with contact, indirect effect) |
Note. In the column “Moderator(s)” we also included variables that were not formally tested with statistical moderation analyses (e.g., we included “Group” as a moderator also when studies simply ran separate analyses for groups, finding different results). The superscript for moderators indicates inclusion in the categories of: (1*) moderators associated with the intergroup situation, (2*) moderators associated with the out-group, (3*) moderators associated with the in-group, (4*) moderators concerning socio-demographics. In the column “Mediator(s)” the superscripts indicate inclusion in the categories of: (A*) mediators referred to the intergroup situation, (B*) mediators referred to the out-group, (C*) mediators referred to the in-group. In the column “Contact effect,” where we refer to effects for the outcome variable, we specify whether contact lead to mobilization (contact associated with higher collective action) or sedative effects (contact associated with lower collective action) and indicate which types of effects emerged, in case there are more effects available; if only mobilization or sedative effects are mentioned without further specifications, only a direct effect emerged (when a direct effect was not presented, we reported the correlation whenever available). LGBT = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender; LGBTIQQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersexual, queer and questioning; AIDS = acquired immunodeficiency syndrome; NGO = nongovernmental organization.