PSPXXX10.1177/0146167218756033Personality and Social BulletinPettigrew research-article7560332018

Article

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin The Emergence of Contextual Social 2018, Vol. 44(7) 963­–971 © 2018 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc Psychology Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218756033 10.1177/0146167218756033 journals.sagepub.com/home/pspb Thomas F. Pettigrew1

Abstract Social psychology experiences recurring so-called “crises.” This article maintains that these episodes actually mark advances in the discipline; these “crises” have enhanced relevance and led to greater methodological and statistical sophistication. New statistical tools have allowed social to begin to achieve a major goal: placing psychological phenomena in their larger social contexts. This growing trend is illustrated with numerous recent studies; they demonstrate how cultures and social norms moderate basic psychological processes. Contextual social psychology is finally emerging.

Keywords contextual social psychology, social psychology crises, multilevel analysis, cultural effects, normative effects, replication

Received September 28, 2017; revision accepted January 4, 2018

Every generation or so, social psychologists seem to enjoy European social psychologists also participated in this era experiencing a “crisis.” While sympathetic to the underlying of critique. Holzkamp’s (1964a, 1964b) “critical psychol- intentions underlying these episodes—first the field’s rele- ogy” garnered considerable attention in Germany. Israel and vance, then the field’s methodological and statistical rigor— Tajfel (1972) criticized American social psychology for its the term crisis seems to me overly dramatic. inattention to the cultural and structural context of its phe- Placed in a positive light, social psychology’s presumed nomena and its greater focus on equity than on equality. The “crises” actually marked advances in the discipline. The first Europeans, in common with many of their North American such episode was triggered by the large-scale entrance into colleagues, held the view that the field had strayed from its the field of young, politically liberal doctorates who were purpose to further human betterment, had become too dis- influenced by the marked changes going on during the 1960s tanced from “real life,” too trivial, too reductionist, and too and early 1970s throughout the Western world. (More radical asocial (Greenwood, 2004). Adding to the malaise, ethical young social scientists tended to enter sociology.) This was concerns were raised about the deceptive methods employed the largest cohort of new PhD’s ever to enter the field. And by some social psychological experimenters and typified by those who entered at that fateful time were often disappointed Milgram’s (1974) famous and controversial study of that the discipline was not more active in social change. obedience. Pre–World War II social psychology in North America The second “crisis” now underway concerning “false pos- had been far more interested in addressing social issues. itives” and replication failures is also overblown. This article Witness the formation of SPSSI (Society for the Psychological will later provide a detailed discussion to support this view, Study of Social Issues) in 1936 (Pettigrew, 2011). Extensive but here again the discipline can potentially sharpen its shifts in social psychology following the war—narrowing its research procedures from these recent debates despite the theoretical focus, breaking ties with the other social sciences, exaggerations involved. focusing on laboratory experiments as its prime method, los- To be candid, I have never been much affected by these ing interest in action research—triggered what was extrava- so-called “crises.” I have just kept plugging away for more gantly termed a “crisis” in social psychology (Pettigrew, than six decades, confident that social psychology was an 2018). A host of critiques from all directions ensued from important field that can benefit society in many ways. established members of the field as well as others who had entered the field during the political turmoil of the 1960s 1University of California, Santa Cruz, USA (e.g., Cartwright, 1979; Elms, 1975; Gergen, 1973; Helmreich, 1975; McGuire, 1973; Ring, 1967; Sherif, 1977). Corresponding Author: Thomas F. Pettigrew, Department of Psychology, Social Sciences 2, Newcomers to the discipline and others rightly challenged University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA. the field’s relevance. Email: [email protected] 964 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 44(7)

analysis—micro, meso, and macro. Fiske (2000) made a con- vincing case that social psychology has acted in recent years to connect the micro- with the meso-levels (Paths B and E). Placing such personality variables as authoritarianism and social dominance orientation in their situational contexts is a prime example. And this has been a growing trend over recent decades in both personality and social psychology (Pettigrew, 2018). But here we are focusing on Paths A, C, D, and F that link the micro- and meso-levels with the broad macro-con- texts that are the focus of the other social sciences. In joining with the earlier call of Cacioppo, Berntson, Sheridan, and McClintock (2000) for multilevel analyses, I believe that in the years since their article appeared, social psychology has in fact been developing such analyses. A major reason for applying multilevel analyses is to avoid the recurrent problems posed by the compositional and ecological fallacies (Pettigrew, 1997). The compositional fallacy involves drawing conclusions at the macro-level of Figure 1. Six causal paths from three levels of analysis. Source. Adapted from Pettigrew (1997). analysis from individual data alone—a problem that all-too- often arises in psychological theorizing. This is a fallacy because organizations and societies are social systems and as Although it was hardly a “crisis” either, I did become frus- such are more than the sum of their individual parts. Macro- trated when the “cognitive revolution” became so dominant units have unique properties of their own that the macro- in social psychology that emotion and groups were virtually social sciences specialize in studying. ignored (Pettigrew, 1981). I was not alone in my discomfort. The ecological fallacy involves the exact opposite confu- Ivan Steiner (1974) was moved to object to the cognitive sion of levels. Here, we draw conclusions about individuals concentration of social psychology by asking, “Whatever from macro-level data alone—a mistake often seen in state- happened to the group in social psychology?” ments made about individual voters from aggregate voting The near-exclusive attention to cognition greatly expanded results alone. This is a fallacy because macro-units are too our understanding of stereotypes and many other phenom- broad to determine individual data, and individuals also have ena. But it led to two problems. First, it seriously diverted unique properties that cannot be inferred from macro data. attention away from the social context of psychological phe- Working at both levels simultaneously protects against these nomena. Second, it obscured the importance of emotion. common fallacies in social science. And, if you specialize in the study of prejudice and race rela- To be sure, multilevel approaches are complex, but “the tions or many other fields, you can never ignore emotion— real world” is complex. Consequently, multilevel perspectives hate, resentment, envy, fear, and a host of other negative are arguably closer to real-life circumstances. Paradoxically, emotions. this complexity can often untangle puzzles that arise at a sin- Contrary to dominant opinion at present, I believe the dis- gle level of analysis. For example, Wagner, van Dick, cipline is finally beginning to live up to its promise as an Pettigrew, and Christ (2003) were able to explain persistent important contributor to understanding our complex social differences in prejudice between the macro-units of East and world. Ask yourself: What differentiates social psychology West Germany using individual differences in intergroup con- from general psychology? Surely, the very title of the field tact. They found that the greater prejudice in East Germany implies that social psychologists specialize in placing psy- was largely a result of East Germans having far less contact chological phenomena in their social contexts. As such, the with minorities than West Germans enjoyed. discipline should be acting as a meso-level link between the To be fair, it is social psychologists in psychology who micro-level of psychology and the macro-level of the other have strayed in the past from the contextualizing task. Many social sciences—sociology, political science, social anthro- social psychologists in sociology have continuously pursued pology, and economics. This focus was certainly a major this goal (e.g., Taylor, 1998). A striking example of the D goal of the founders of the field from and his and E causal paths is provided by the work of Alex Inkeles Volkerpsychologie (Graumann, 2001) to the Allports, Kurt in six developing nations (Inkeles & Smith, 1974). He dem- Lewin, Gardner Murphy, Muzafer Sherif, and Henri Tajfel. onstrated that industrialization leads to similar forms of Recall Lewin’s classic formula: Behavior = f (Person, social organization in all six countries. In turn, these “mod- Environment). ern” organizations shape face-to-face situations that in time Figure 1 clarifies how this article is broadly defining produce similar patterns of “modern” beliefs, , social context. Six paths connect the three basic levels of and values. Pettigrew 965

At present, I am excited that psychological social psychol- outcomes (Pettigrew, 2015, 2016; Smith, Pettigrew, Pippin, ogy is finally getting the tools to put its phenomena in such & Bialosiewicz, 2012; Walker & Smith, 2001). broader social contexts. While we focus on whether we can Smith and her colleagues (under review) first used national trust p values, we should also be teaching, using, and advocat- assessments of individual-collectivism, power distance, and ing the new tools that allow us to meet belatedly the original economic inequality to code 303 effect sizes from 31 different thrust of social psychology. To name a few such methods, countries with 200,578 participants. RD predicted all types of structural equation modeling, moderator and mediator analy- outcomes more strongly within individualistic nations. ses, meta-analysis, and especially multilevel analyses. Next, these investigators employed a survey of 6,113 The following two sections will offer recent examples of undergraduate university students from 28 different countries research in social psychology that consider cultural and nor- that confirmed the importance of cultural differences for RD mative contexts. These examples of strong contextual effects. The relationship between individual relative depriva- effects are necessarily drawn from social psychological phe- tion (IRD) and different outcomes was again stronger for nomena with which I am most familiar. Social psychologi- undergraduates who lived in more individualistic countries. cal readers will undoubtedly be able to think of many other Group relative deprivation (GRD) also predicted political trust recent contextual articles in their specialty fields. By late more strongly for undergraduates who lived in countries 2017, PsycInfo explicitly listed the term “contextual social marked by lower power distance. Thus, RD effects are also psychology” as a major subject in 94 references and as a key culturally bounded. In particular, RD is more likely to moti- word in 109 references. vate reactions within individualistic countries that emphasize individual agency and achievement as a source of self-worth. Cultural Contexts for Basic Social Consider, too, the ingroup favoritism phenomenon found Psychological Phenomena repeatedly by research on the ingroup attribution bias (Hewstone, 1989, 1990; Pettigrew, 1979). People in Western A number of prominent social psychologists—such as Fiske, societies tend to attribute positive behaviors by ingroup Kitayama, Markus, and Nisbett (1998) and Triandis (1994)— members to internal, dispositional causes while typically have long focused on cultural effects. But social psycholo- attributing the same behaviors by outgroup members to situ- gists generally have not been active in this domain using the ational causes. For negative behaviors, the opposite process latest multilevel statistical tools. Cross-Cultural Analysis is typical: for ingroup members, such behaviors are typically (Davidov, Schmidt, & Billiet, 2011), a leading volume for this explained away with situational causes while attributing the area, has 51 contributors only one of whom is a self-identified same negative actions by outgroup members to dispositional social . causes. “We did it because we had to in that situation; they This situation is now starting to change. The new method- did it because that is just the way they are.” ological tools have encouraged social psychologists to begin But, once again cultural context is critical. Some cultures to consider how culture influences basic social psychological are far less prone to this attributional bias. Repeatedly, phenomena at multiple levels. Consider recent studies that research has found that some Asian cultures are less prone to employ these new methods to place fundamental social psy- dispositional attributions in general and to group attribution chological processes in their cultural contexts. Kende, Phalet, bias in particular (Hewstone & Ward, 1985; Khan & Liu, Van Den Noortgate, and Fisher (in press) meta-analytically 2008; Menon, Morris, Chiu, & Hong, 1999; Morris, Nisbett, tested intergroup contact theory across 36 different cultures. & Peng, 1995; Morris & Peng, 1994). Using the meta-analytic base of Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) The pervasiveness of cultural contextual effects puts into and 477 separate studies with 187,025 participants, they question the possibility of cross-cultural consistencies of found such contact had larger effects in cultures character- social psychological phenomena. This places a premium on ized by egalitarian values. Consistent with contact theory’s finding such cross-cultural universals; but here, too, the field contention that intergroup contact typically reduces preju- has advanced. As an especially noteworthy example, the ste- dice, all of the 36 cultures revealed a negative relationship reotype content model with its focus on competence and between intergroup contact and prejudice. But although the warmth seems to meet the valuable property of operating effect still operated in cultures with hierarchical values, it similarly across vastly different cultures and groups (Fiske, was markedly reduced in these cultures. Indeed, Kende et al. Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). determined that cultural context made a difference somewhat greater than the important moderator of equal status in the Normative Contexts for Basic Social contact situation measured at the individual level. Psychological Phenomena Similarly, culture shapes the effects of relative depriva- tion (RD). RD is the judgment that one or one’s ingroup is Norms are critically important determinants of behavior worse off compared with some relevant standard coupled even if social and personality psychologists have too often with feelings of anger and resentment with this situation. ignored them (Gelfand, Harrington, & Jackson, 2017; When properly measured, RD predicts a wide range of Pettigrew, 1991). Even such classics as The Authoritarian 966 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 44(7)

Personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & prejudice of native Germans, immigrants tended to turn Sanford, 1950, pp. 130, 171, 267, 817ff) failed to consider inward and work to maintain their culture rather than more the importance of context. This famous study recorded its actively work to adopt their new host culture. Hostile inter- highest F scale average in an infamously harsh prison with- group norms lead to reduced assimilation efforts. out considering the authoritarian context in which the In another study, Christ et al. (2014) assessed evidence for inmates were taking the measure. For these imprisoned a contextual effect of positive intergroup contact. They respondents, some of the authoritarian items were literally checked to see if the effect of intergroup contact between true. Later work, however, has repeatedly demonstrated the social contexts (the between-level effect) on outgroup preju- ubiquitous interaction between such personality syndromes dice is greater than the effect of individual-level contact as authoritarianism and the social context. For instance, within contexts (the within-level effect). Across seven large- authoritarianism rises in times of societal threat and recedes scale surveys (five cross-sectional and two longitudinal), in times of calm (Sales, 1973). using multilevel analyses, they found an important and reli- Now recent advances in multilevel analyses have made it able contextual (normative) effect. That is, intergroup con- possible to check systematically on how norms at the macro- tact across social contexts had a strong effect on diminishing level of analysis provide critical contexts for social psycho- prejudice. Moreover, this effect was found in multiple coun- logical phenomena at the micro- and meso-levels of analysis. tries, across time, and at multiple levels (regions, districts, In psychological social psychology, Oliver Christ and and neighborhoods), and with and without controlling for an Ulrich Wagner have advocated and demonstrated the impor- array of demographic and context variables. tance of multilevel analyses using probability survey data These findings support the view that intergroup contact (Christ, Sibley, & Wagner, 2012; Christ & Wagner, 2013). has a significant role to play in prejudice reduction at various One immediate advantage of such analyses is that context in social levels. Indeed, contact has great policy potential to the past was characteristically measured as individually per- improve intergroup relations. Because it can shape norms, ceived, whereas now multilevel analyses also typically use intergroup contact can affect large numbers of people who do an objective context. For example, earlier work often asked not themselves experience such contact. respondents how many minorities live in their neighborhood Another example of multilevel research also reveals how (e.g., Wagner & Zick, 1995), but now objective data are also minority groups are influenced by the climate of the social typically employed. And these two types of measures can be context in which they reside (Kauff, Green, Schmidt, quite dissimilar (e.g., Pettigrew, Wagner, & Christ, 2010). Hewstone, & Christ, 2016). Intergroup contact theory has Consider the following examples of recent multilevel been criticized for ignoring the larger context in which such research that demonstrate the importance of normative cli- contact occurs. In particular, single-level studies have shown mate on social psychological phenomena. that minority members who have experienced the most inter- The effect of the intergroup climate on acculturation pref- group contact are in general more reluctant to protest for erences among host-majority and immigrant group members change (Dixon et al., 2010; Dovidio, Gaertner, Ufkes, Saguy, has long been acknowledged in the acculturation literature. & Pearson, 2016; Saguy, Tausch, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2009; But only recently has multilevel research made it possible to Wright & Lubensky, 2008). Thus, it seems as if intergroup examine directly the effect of the intergroup climate on contact leads minorities to like the majority more and this in acculturation preferences. Christ and his colleagues (2013) turn reduces their motivation for change. adopted a multilevel approach to examine the effect of the However, the multilevel analyses of Kauff and his col- intergroup norms and climate (social context level of analy- leagues challenge this finding. Using two cross-sectional sis) on immigrants’ acculturation preferences (at the indi- general population surveys (one across 22 countries, another vidual level of analysis) over and above individual-level across Switzerland’s 136 districts), they examined whether predictors of acculturation preferences. They employed ethnic majority members’ positive contact influences ethnic German cross-sectional survey data, and examined the accul- minority members’ support for ingroup rights at the social turation preferences (cultural maintenance and maintenance context level. Applying multilevel path analysis, they show of intergroup relations) of members of immigrant groups liv- that minority members are more, not less, likely to support ing in various districts in Germany. anti-discrimination laws and immigrant rights when they live At the social context level, they used the mean prejudice in social contexts in which majority members have more and acculturation preferences scores of nonimmigrant positive intergroup contact experiences. What the single- German respondents as indicators of the dominant intergroup level studies missed was that widespread positive intergroup norms and climates within these districts. Results of their contact in an area influences the intergroup norms of the area multilevel path analysis revealed that on the contextual level, (Pettigrew & Hewstone, 2017). Positive norms encourage a negative intergroup climate (i.e., a higher amount of preju- minorities to seek change as a viable, attainable goal. dice of the German respondents within the districts) was While the Kauff study revealed contrasting effects of con- systematically related to a stronger desire for cultural main- tact at the micro and macro levels of analysis, other studies tenance among the immigrants. When faced with greater find similar effects emerging at both levels. Take, for Pettigrew 967 example, the results of a recent European study of GRD. shores. When the number of refugees from Syria, Meuleman, Abts, Schmidt, Pettigrew, and Davidov (in press) Afghanistan, and African states to Germany increased to analyzed data from the seventh edition of the European nearly 900,000 in 2015, 150 German social psychologists Social Survey across 20 European nations. Employing mul- signed a petition and sent it directly to the German chancel- tilevel structural equation modeling (MLSEM), they deter- lor and parliament. They made recommendations based on mined that GRD had major effects on attitudes toward social psychological knowledge about intergroup relations immigrants at both the individual and national levels. GRD and intergroup contact for a humanitarian political handling did so by mediating the impact of individual and contextual of this immigration (see in German: https://www.uni- indicators of ethnic threat. Phrased differently, the sense of marburg.de/fb04/team-sozialpsychologie/aktuelles/ GRD at both the individual and national levels enhanced the document.2016-02-10.0875762241). Although Chancellor perceived ethnic threat posed by Europe’s recent massive Angela Merkel never directly responded, social psychologi- in-migration. cal knowledge did diffuse into the political debate, espe- cially with discussions in the Bundestag and elsewhere of The Crisis of Relevance the positive effects of intergroup contact. This notable German effort suggests the need for a similar As we have noted, newcomers to the discipline and others collective response from American social psychologists, rightly challenged the field’s relevance in the 1960s and joined hopefully by other social scientists, especially sociol- 1970s. Their efforts succeeded in making applications of ogists and political scientists. We have helpful things to say social psychology to social policy a central concern. on bringing together the nation’s sharp political divides as Membership in SPSSI increased, and the organization later well as improving the acceptance of immigrants. And, like moved its office to Washington to play the “honest broker” our German counterparts, we should address political leaders role of supplying social science information to policy makers directly. (Pettigrew, 1967). More recently, SPSSI began publishing a journal that explicitly addresses social policy—Social Issues The Latest “Crisis” and Policy Review. Numerous outstanding examples of the field’s relevance The more recent second “crisis” is a direct consequence in have emerged. One of the most ambitious attempts to apply the field’s increasing statistical and methodological sophisti- social psychological principles to a major social problem is cation. How can that be a dire development? Indeed, this Herbert Kelman’s efforts to ease Middle Eastern tensions increasing sophistication is a major driving force behind the through carefully constructed problem-solving workshops growth in such contextual social psychological studies as (Kelman & Fisher, 2016). Explicitly using contextual prin- just reviewed. And it is part of a general trend of major ciples, Kelman managed to employ the small group as (a) a advances throughout the social sciences. To quote Glaeser microcosm of the larger macro-system, (b) a laboratory for (2017 pg. 78), “ . . . progress is still being made at a ferocious creating inputs to the larger macro-system, (c) a setting for pace, and the contours of [the social sciences] are rapidly direct interaction of significant members of each side of the evolving.” conflict, (d) a coalition across the conflict lines, and (e) a The latest “crisis” has two interrelated parts; one focuses nucleus for a fresh new relationship between the conflicting on “false positives,” the other on replication failures. The parties. Kelman’s ambitious efforts provide a useful model concerns over false positives, even if sharply overstated, can for similar efforts in other conflict arenas. potentially be a step forward in statistical practice in social Consider another such example provided by Fiske, psychology (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011, 2017). Bersoff, Borgida, Deaux, and Heilman (1991) in the ground- But it does not represent, in the journalistic hyperbole of the breaking gender discrimination case of Price Waterhouse v. New York Times, a “revolution” that could render “ . . . vast Hopkins. This was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme amounts of research, even entire sub-fields, . . . unreliable” Court used social psychological research on sex stereotyp- (Dominus, 2017). ing. effectively testified to the antecedent condi- What is distressing about this debate is its personal nature tions, indicators, consequences, and remedies of stereotyping as reported by Dominus (2017). I have been proud of the on the basis of extensive social psychological research. Her professional stance of social psychology throughout my long testimony was cited at length by the trial and appeals courts career. But unrefereed blogs and social media attacks sent to as well as the Supreme Court. The plaintiff won the case; and thousands can undermine the professionalism of the disci- this episode surely meets the earlier concerns about the pline. Accusing authors of studies you reject as being either field’s relevance to the world’s problems. stupid or dishonest has no place in social psychology or any At present, European social psychologists are using their other science—save in such lamentable situations as the research findings on intergroup contact and related phenom- affair. ena to help generate greater acceptance of the enormous Yet there are valuable things to be learned in this latest number of immigrants suddenly reaching the continent’s “crisis.” Simmons et al. (2011, 2017) proposed six somewhat 968 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 44(7) burdensome requirements for authors to meet to reduce the contextual social psychology. Not surprisingly, then, these possibility of p-hacking. These suggestions deserve thought- poorly replicated studies turned out to be 4 times more likely ful consideration. to fail to support the original findings. But the term “p-hacking” implies intentional distortion. The retort to the Gilbert paper did not sufficiently address That this occurs cannot be denied, yet I am unconvinced that its claims (Anderson et al., 2016; Gilbert et al., 2017). it is as widespread as the critics of the field maintain. John, Indeed, it even acknowledged that the opposite conclusion Loewenstein, and Prelec (2012) reported that various “ques- of high reliability in psychological studies could also be tionable research practices” are common in psychology, with inferred from their project’s results. Apparently, social psy- prevalence estimates of up to 100%. Norbert Schwarz (2012), chological studies do replicate at reasonable levels, and this a survey specialist, pointed out that their survey purporting finding also speaks against the claims of John et al. (2012) to show this widespread p-hacking suffered from a very low of widespread “questionable research practices.” If there are response rate (24%), selective attrition from an extremely indeed acceptable levels of replication, then p-hacking and high break-off rate, and seriously biased questions—even other questionable practices cannot be as extensive as these questions for which any answer counted as a “questionable authors claim. In any event, the large-scale effort of the practice.” Open Science Collaboration has at least served a valuable Moreover, some adjustments to research data are fully purpose by renewing attention to the importance of justified, and some even raise p levels (e.g., removing replications. extreme outliers that favor the hypothesis). These justifiable We should note that the incivility that marked the “p-hack- adjustments should continue, but they need a footnote to ing” debate did not occur in this exchange about replication. show the reader how they are affecting the p level. Gilbert emphasized that no one in the Collaboration was try- Now some social scientists, following earlier writers (e.g., ing to deceive anyone. And a leader of the Collaboration, Schmidt & Hunter, 1995), are suggesting either to stop giv- Brian Nosek, actually made useful suggestions to Gilbert and ing special privilege to significance levels (Amrheim & his colleagues for their rebuttal (Gilbert et al., 2017). Greenland, 2017) or to reduce the p level from .05 to .005 All scientists favor replications, but the issue is more (Benjamin, Berger, & Johnson, 2017). This last suggestion complex than often presented. Some critics seem to think immediately raises questions about the large increase in Type that replication problems are largely an issue for social psy- II errors that would necessarily occur from lowering the chology. But, of course, replication is important for all p level for significance. Benjamin et al. (2017) offered an empirical sciences. interesting option; they suggest a third category of “sugges- Also forgotten in much of the replication discussion in tive” for low p levels above .005. These various possibilities social psychology is the fact that the discipline’s major stud- seem premature for social psychology at this point, but they ies upon which much of its basic theory is based have been are certainly worth debate. Yet different levels are appropri- successfully replicated repeatedly. Recall the influential ate for different fields. Physics can easily afford to have far experiments of Solomon Asch (1955, 1956) on conformity more rigorous standards than the social sciences; and there and Stanley Milgram (1974) on obedience. Asch carefully may well be differences among the social sciences and even repeated his conformity experiment over and over, constantly within psychology itself. testing rival explanations for his surprising results. Milgram, It is also useful for the discipline to think more deeply who had studied with Asch, did the same thing with his unan- about replications. The publication in Science of the replica- ticipated obedience results. Consistent with the findings of tion findings by the Open Science Collaboration (2015) the reproducibility study (Open Science Collaboration, brought on this so-called “replication crisis” by apparently 2015), these legendary studies had strong effects initially— showing that psychological research in general and social the primary predictor of reproducibility. And each of the psychological and personality research in particular often Asch and Milgram tests not only replicated their original fails to replicate. Gilbert, King, Pettigrew, and Wilson (2016, findings but tested a different explanation for their unex- 2017) calmed the waters by showing that this conclusion was pected results. Thus, this careful work also avoided the sin- simply not justified. They demonstrated that when the gle factor fallacy (Pettigrew & Hewstone, 2017). Collaboration’s analyses are corrected for error, power, and Meta-analysis, which social psychology has often suc- bias, “ . . . the pessimistic conclusions that many have drawn cessfully employed, also provides evidence that research in from this article—namely, that there is a ‘replication crisis’ the field is not in the dire position its critics would have us in psychology—are unwarranted” (Gilbert et al., 2017). believe. Consider the five meta-analyses conducted on inter- An especially damaging part of the Gilbert critique was group contact theory. First, Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) that many of the replication studies were in fact quite differ- showed that hundreds of studies found a solid relationship ent from the original studies. For instance, the replications of with reduced prejudices of many types. Next, Davies, Tropp, two studies conducted in the United States were actually car- Aron, Pettigrew, and Wright (2011) found that contact stud- ried out in Italy and the Netherlands. Such extensive contex- ies involving friends led to an even stronger relationship tual differences can be critical—the fundamental point of between contact and lessened prejudice. Pettigrew 969

Then Beelmann and Heinemann (2014) demonstrated that Acknowledgment structured contact programs promoted positive intergroup The author wishes to thank Professors Oliver Christ, Chris Crandall, attitudes in children and adolescents. And Lemmer and Susan Fiske, Peter Schmidt, Norbert Schwarz, Heather Smith, Wagner (2015) found that studies conducted outside of the Ulrich Wagner, and two anonymous reviewers for their consider- laboratory using direct and indirect contact interventions able assistance. also reduced ethnic prejudice. Finally, Miles and Crisp (2014) analyzed studies of imagined intergroup contact. Declaration of Conflicting Interests They uncovered in these studies a significant reduction in The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect both implicit and explicit intergroup prejudice. Although to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. there is some overlap in the research included in these five meta-analyses, together they boasted roughly a third of a Funding million different subjects across almost 700 separate studies. The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- Their summary statistics were significant for both published ship, and/or publication of this article. and unpublished studies, and emerged across a broad range of target outgroups and contexts. References Greenfield (2017) raised yet another key consideration. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, She notes that cultures change over time, so failures to rep- R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: licate may simply reflect this change. Greenfield’s point can Harper. be extended to dissimilar contexts in general. In social psy- Amrheim, V., & Greenland, S. (2017). Remove, rather than rede- chology, as Gilbert and his colleagues (2016, 2017) empha- fine, statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(9), 1. sized, disparate contexts of the experiments can easily lead Anderson, C. J., Bahnik, S., Barnett-Cowan, M., Bosco, F. A., to differential results. A study done in the United States may Chandler, J., Chartier, C. R., . . . Zuni, K.(2016). Response to not replicate in Switzerland because of cultural differences comment on “estimating the reproducibility of psychological between the two nations. Studies of crowding and personal science.” Science, 351, 1037. space in spacious parts of North America may not replicate Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific in Tokyo, the densely populated Netherlands, or the even American, 193, 31-35. more densely populated German state of North Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Rhine-Westphalia. Monographs, 70, 1-70. Narrower contexts can also disrupt replications. For Beelmann, A., & Heinemann, K. S. (2014). Preventing prejudice and instance, college campuses vary widely in the composition improving intergroup attitudes: A meta-analysis of child and of their student bodies from which most social psychological adolescent training programs. Journal of Applied Developmental experiments draw their subjects. Thus, replicated results Psychology, 35, 10-24. from studies conducted on a broad variety of campuses are Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., & Johnson, V. E. (2017). Redefine likely to be the most firmly grounded. statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(9), 1-5. Survey research also needs to be carefully replicated. It Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Sheridan, J. F., & McClintock, is often too expensive to repeat large surveys, but a simple, M. (2000). Multilevel integrative analyses of human behavior: if somewhat crude, method with large surveys is available Social neuroscience and the complementing nature of social and but rarely employed. Random subsamples can be tested to biological approaches. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 829-843. Cartwright, D. (1979). Contemporary social psychology in histori- see how closely their results align with those of the total cal perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 82-93. sample. Christ, O., Asbrock, F., Dhont, K., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wagner, U. (2013). The effects of intergroup climate on immigrants’ A Final Word acculturation preferences. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 221, 252-257. On multiple grounds, this article argues strongly that social Christ, O., Schmid, K., Lolliot, S., Swart, H., Stolle, D., Tauschf, psychology’s supposed “crises” have exaggerated the field’s N., . . . Hewstone, M. (2014). Contextual effect of positive difficulties. Indeed, each of these episodes has actually intergroup contact on outgroup prejudice. Proceedings of the marked advances in the field’s theory, applications, and National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, research methods. And these contentions apply with special 11, 3996-4000. force to the recent uproar about “false positives” and Christ, O., Sibley, C. G., & Wagner, U. (2012). Multilevel modeling in personality and social psychology. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder replication. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychol- More importantly, new theory and methods have aided ogy (pp. 239-260). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. social psychology to begin to situate its phenomena in their Christ, O., & Wagner, U. (2013). Methodological issues in the study broad social contexts. This is an extremely significant of contact: Towards a new wave of research. In G. Hodson & advance in the discipline that should be celebrated and con- M. Hewstone (Eds.), Advances in intergroup contact (pp. 233- tinued. Contextual social psychology is finally emerging. 261). New York, NY: Psychology Press. 970 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 44(7)

Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Billiet, J. (2011). Cross-cultural analy- Helmreich, R. (1975). Applied social psychology: The unfulfilled sis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Routledge. promise. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 548- Davies, K., Tropp, L., Aron, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wright, S. 560. C. (2011). Cross-group friendships and intergroup attitudes: Hewstone, M. (1989). Causal attribution: From cognitive pro- A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology cesses to cognitive beliefs. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Review, 15, 332-551. Hewstone, M. (1990). The “ultimate attribution error”: A review Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., Tredoux, C., Tropp, L., Clack, B., & of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European Eaton, L. (2010). A paradox of integration? Interracial contact, Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 311-335. prejudice reduction and perceptions of racial discrimination. Hewstone, M., & Ward, C. (1985). Ethnocentrism and causal attri- Journal of Social Issues, 66, 401-416. bution in Southeast Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Dominus, S. (2017, October 18). When the revolution came to Amy Psychology, 48, 614-623. Cuddy. The New York Times. Holzkamp, K. (1964a). Theorie und experiment in der Psychologie: Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Ufkes, E. G., Saguy, T., & Pearson, Eine grundlagenkritische Untersuchung [Theory and experi- A. R. (2016). Included but invisible? Subtle bias, common ment in psychology: A foundation-critical study]. Berlin, identity, and the darker side of “we.” Social Issues and Policy Germany: De Gruyter. Review, 10, 4-44. Holzkamp, K. (1964b). Wissenschaft als Handlung: Versuch einer Elms, A. C. (1975). The crisis of confidence in social psychology. neuen Grundlegung der Wissenschaftslehra [Science as action: American Psychologist, 30, 967-976. Essay for a new foundation of the philosophy of science]. Fiske, A. P., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. The cultural matrix of social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Inkeles, A., & Smith, D. (1974). Becoming modern: Individual Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology change in six developing countries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard (4th ed., pp. 915-981). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. University Press. Fiske, S. T. (2000). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination Israel, J., & Tajfel, H. (Eds.). (1972). The context of social psychol- at the seam between the centuries: Evolution, culture, mind ogy. London, England: Academic Press. and brain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 299- John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the 322. prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & Heilman, M. for truth-telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524-532. E. (1991). Social science research on trial: The use of sex ste- Kauff, M., Green, E. G. T., Schmidt, K., Hewstone, M., & Christ, reotyping research in Price Waterhouse V. Hopkins. American O. (2016). Effects of majority members positive intergroup Psychologist, 46, 1049-1060. contact on minority members’ support for ingroup rights: Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model Mobilizing or demobilizing effects? European Journal of of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth Social Psychology, 46, 833-839. respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Kelman, H. C., & Fisher, R. J. (Eds.). (2016). Herbert C. Kelman: A Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902. pioneer in the social psychology of conflict analysis and reso- Gelfand, M. J., Harrington, J. R., & Jackson, J. C. (2017). The lution. New York, NY: Springer. strength of social norms across human groups. Perspectives on Kende, J., Phalet, K., Van Den Noortgate, W., & Fisher, R. (in Psychological Science, 12, 800-809. press). Equality revisited: A cultural meta-analysis of the con- Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of tact hypothesis. Social and Psychological Sciences. Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 309-320. Khan, S. S., & Liu, J. H. (2008). Intergroup attributions and ethno- Gilbert, D. T., King, G., Pettigrew, S., & Wilson, T. D.(2016). centrism in the Indian subcontinent: The ultimate attribution Comment on “estimating the reproducibility of psychological revisited. Journal of Cross-, 39, 16-36. science.” Science, 351, 1037. Lemmer, G., & Wagner, U. (2015). Can we really reduce ethnic Gilbert, D. T., King, G., Pettigrew, S., & Wilson, T. D. (2017). A prejudice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect response to the reply to our technical comment on “estimating contact interventions. European Journal of Social Psychology, the reproducibility of psychological science.” Retrieved from 45, 152-168. https://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/gkpw_response_to_ McGuire, W. J. (1973). The yin and yang of progress in social psy- oscrebutal.pdf chology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, Glaeser, E. L. (2017). Social sciences still young. Harvard 446-456. Magazine, 114(1), 78-79. Menon, T., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1999). Culture Graumann, C. E. (2001). Introducing social psychology histori- and the construal of agency: Attribution to individual ver- cally. In M. Hewstone & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Introduction to sus group dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social social psychology: A European perspective (3rd ed., pp. 3-11). Psychology, 76, 701-717. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Meuleman, B., Abts, K., Schmidt, P., Pettigrew, T. F., & Davidov, Greenfield, P. M. (2017). Culture change over time: Why replica- E. (in press). Group relative deprivation and ethnic threat per- bility should not be the gold standard in psychological science. ceptions in a cross-national perspective. Journal of Migration Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 762-771. and Ethnic Studies. Greenwood, J. D. (2004). The disappearance of the social in Miles, E., & Crisp, R. J. (2014). A meta-analytic test of the imag- American social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge ined contact hypothesis. Group Processes & Intergroup University Press. Relations, 17, 3-26. Pettigrew 971

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony New York, NY: Harper & Row. of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations Morris, M. W., Nisbett, R. E., & Peng, K. (1995). Causal attribu- for equality. Psychological Science, 20, 114-121. tion and cultures. In D. Sperber & A. J. Premack (Eds.), Causal Sales, S. (1973). Threat as a factor in authoritarianism: An analysis cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (pp. 577-614). New of archival data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, York, NY: Oxford University Press. 28, 44-57. Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. E. (1995). The impact of data-analysis and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal methods on cumulative research knowledge: Statistical sig- of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949-971. nificance, testing, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility Evaluation & the Health Professions, 18, 408-427. of psychological science. Science, 349, 943. Schwarz, N. (2012, January). Open letter re “false-positive find- Pettigrew, T. F. (1967, Fall). SPSSI as honest broker. Society for ings” symposium at SPSP 2012. Sent to SPSP mailing list. the Psychological Study of Social Issues Newsletter, 117, 1-3. Sherif, M. (1977). Crisis in social psychology: Some remarks Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending towards breaking through the crisis. Personality and Social Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Psychology Bulletin, 3, 368-382. Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461-476. Simmons, P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False- Pettigrew, T. F. (1981). Extending the stereotype concept. In D. : Undisclosed flexibility in data collec- L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and tion and analyses allows presenting anything as significant. intergroup behavior (pp. 303-331). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Perspectives on Psychological Science, 22, 1359-1366. Erlbaum. Simmons, P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2017). False- Pettigrew, T. F. (1991). Normative theory in intergroup rela- positive citations. Perspectives on Psychological Science. tions: Explaining both harmony and conflict. Psychology and Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2916240 Developing Societies, 3, 3-16. Smith, H., Pettigrew, T. F., Pippin, G., & Bialosiewicz, S. (2012). Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Personality and social structure: Social psy- Relative deprivation: A theoretical and meta-analytic critique. chological contributions. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 203-232. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of (pp. 417- Smith, H., Ryan, D., Jaurique, A., Pettigrew, T. F., Jetten, J., 438). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ariyanto, A., Autin, F., ... Karasawa, M. (2018). Relative Pettigrew, T. F. (2011). SPSSI and racial research. Journal of Social deprivation and national values. Manuscript under review. Issues, 67, 137-149. Steiner, I. (1974). Whatever happened to the group in social psy- Pettigrew, T. F. (2015). Samuel Stouffer and relative deprivation. chology? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 94- Social Psychology Quarterly, 30, 1-18. 108. Pettigrew, T. F. (2016). In pursuit of three theories: Authoritarianism, Taylor, M. C. (1998). How White attitudes vary with the racial relative deprivation, and intergroup contact. Annual Review of composition of local populations: Numbers count. American Psychology, 67, 1-21. Sociological Review, 63, 512-535. Pettigrew, T. F. (2018). The intertwined history of personality and Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York, social psychology. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford NY: McGraw-Hill. handbook of personality and social psychology (2nd ed.). New Wagner, U., van Dick, R., Pettigrew, T. F., & Christ, O. (2003). York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ethnic prejudice in East and West Germany: The explanatory Pettigrew, T. F., & Hewstone, M. (2017). The single factor fallacy: power of intergroup contact. Group Processes and Intergroup Implications of missing critical variables from an analysis of Relations, 6, 22-36. intergroup contact theory. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11, Wagner, U., & Zick, A. (1995). The relation of formal education 8-37. to ethnic prejudice: Its reliability, validity and explanation. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. (2006). A meta-analytic test of European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 41-56. intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Walker, I. & Smith, H. (Eds.). (2001). Relative deprivation: Psychology, 90, 1-33. Specification, development and integration. New York, NY: Pettigrew, T. F., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2010). Population Cambridge University Press. ratios and prejudice: Modeling both contact and threat effects. Wright, S. C., & Lubensky, M. (2008). The struggle for social equal- Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36, 635-650. ity: Collective action vs. prejudice reduction. In S. Demoulin, Ring, K. (1967). Experimental social psychology: Some sober ques- J. P. Leyens, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunder- tions about some frivolous values. Journal of Experimental standings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291-310). Social Psychology, 3, 113-123. New York, NY: Psychology Press.