ArticleCommunications psychology2026
A comparative multi-method re-analysis of the longitudinal evidence for causal intergroup contact effects on attitudes.
Article in Communications psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intergroup contact has been promoted as a powerful means to improve intergroup relations, but causal evidence for the effectiveness of contact in affecting outgroup attitudes is scarce. One important and increasingly used approach to estimate causal effects in contact research relies on naturalistic longitudinal survey data. However, causal inference based on longitudinal data depends strongly on the control of (un)observed confounders. The cross-lagged panel model (CLPM), commonly used in contact research, is an analytical model that has been criticised for biasing causal inference by insufficiently accounting for unobserved confounders, and advanced statistical models have been proposed, including the full-forward (FF-CLPM) and random-intercept CLPM (RI-CLPM). To explore the extent of potential bias between the three models introduced by the varying level of control for unobserved confounders, we investigated the robustness of longitudinal positive and negative contact-attitude effects in a systematic re-analysis using 31 datasets from 21 published studies (N = 33,348). Using internal meta-analysis, we found substantial discrepancies between the models: While the CLPM provided significant longitudinal effects of both non-valenced/positive and negative intergroup contact on outgroup attitudes, analytical models that more strongly controlled for the effects of unobserved confounders found no such longitudinal evidence (FF-CLPM and RI-CLPM), but substantial between-person correlations which cannot be causally interpreted (RI-CLPM). Thus, the potential of intergroup contact to longitudinally affect outgroup attitudes in naturalistic survey data remains questionable. We discuss theoretical and methodological implications of these results and outline potential routes for future research to develop a more robust and informative longitudinal (contact) research.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.