fei75766_ch12_377-407.indd 398  02/06/20 12:56 PM
Part IV    Dispositional Theories398
Onefascinating discovery from allthese years ofresearch onoptimal contact is
thespecial importance ofcross-group friendship inreducing prejudice. AsPettigrew etal.
(2011) point out,friendship involves extended contact across avariety of settings, 
andthisfacilitates strong, positive attitudes toward theoutgroup thatareresistant to
change. Oneparticularly moving study conducted inNorthern Ireland illustrates this
power offriendship. Init,friendships between Catholics andProtestants engendered 
bothtrustandforgiveness oftheother religious group, andthiseffect wasthestrongest 
among those whohadsuffered directly from thereligious violence inthearea(Hews -
tone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, &Niens, 2006).
Some ofthestudies included inThomas Pettigrew andLinda Tropp’s reviews 
(2006, 2011) involved relatively simple methods ofmerely asking people howmany 
friends theyhavewhoareofaminority group (ameasure ofcontact) andthenhaving 
them complete various self-report measures designed tocapture theextent towhich 
participants endorse stereotypical views ofminority groups. Other studies included 
inthereview, however, involved amore complex methodology whereby participants 
wererandomly assigned toeither groups thatinvolved optimal contact withmembers 
ofaminority group asprescribed byAllport orgroups thatdidnotinvolve theopti-
malcontact prescribed byAllport. Although bothtypes ofstudies found thatoptimal 
contact reduces prejudice, theexperiments inwhich people wererandomly assigned 
toengage inoptimal contact ornotshowed thestrongest reduction inprejudice 
(Pettigrew &Tropp, 2006). Ofcourse, there isnoreason suchoptimal contact must 
takeplace inalaboratory, andPettigrew andTropp’s (2006) findings demonstrate the
great potential forcommunity programs tobedeveloped based onAllport’s prescrip -
tionforprejudice reduction. Ifsuchprograms wereimplemented, research shows that
relations between majority andminority groups would likely begreatly improved.
More recently, Pettigrew andhiscolleague Anthony Greenwald (Greenwald &
Pettigrew, 2014) reviewed research onaheretofore under examined feature ofprejudice 
thatAllport (1954) alsoposited. Weoften assume adirect connection between preju -
diceanddiscrimination. Indeed, most definitions ofprejudice explicitly connect itto
negative evaluation and/or treatment of outgroups .However, inhisbook The Nature of 
Prejudice ,Allport (1954) argued thatthisconnection between prejudicial attitudes and
discriminatory behavior isanempirical one,notonetobeassumed. Much discrimina -
tion,Allport hypothesized, might actually beaccomplished byingroup favoritism, not
outright hostility toward outgroups. Greenwald andPettigrew (2014) reviewed compel -
lingevidence fromavariety ofdifferent areas ofstudy within psychology andsociology 
supporting therather surprising claim thatindeed discrimination doesnotrequire hostil -
ity,andthatunequal treatment isinfactmore easily produced byingroup members’ bias
toward helping oneanother, thanbytheirhurting members ofadisadvantaged outgroup. 
Oneexemplary research finding (among many) thatshows thiseffect isthe
“minimal group paradigm” which wasfirstdiscovered 40years ago(Tajfel, 1970). 
Since itsdiscovery, many studies havedemonstrated thatpeople aremore motivated 
byingroup favoritism (even when the“group” theybelong toisutterly arbitrary) than
bythedesire topunish ordisfavor anoutgroup. Conformity isanother empirically 
validated contributor tothisingroup favoritism finding, anditwasposited byAllport 
(1962) aswell.Sociologists havelongstudied “norms” andstudies show thatunpreju -
diced people typically follow theiringroup’s norms. Ifthese norms arecharacterized 
bypreferential treatment oftheingroup, most members willconform, evenintheFinal PDF to printer