{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021311475409836064, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.49079754601227, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Do Ideologically Intolerant People Benefit From Intergroup Contact?

The time-tested notion that increased contact improves intergroup attitudes, particularly under optimal conditions, is well established. Yet early theorists doubted whether contact could benefit intolerant, prejudice-prone persons. Without tackling the question directly, the contemporary contact field embraces an assumption opposed to that of its predecessors: that contact benefits intolerant individuals, given its general effectiveness. However, other prejudice interventions have failed or backfired among such people. Thus, established contact benefits among people generally may mask the failure of such interventions among intolerant people. I review contemporary evidence and conclude that the contact hypothesis retains its prominence among prejudice-reduction strategies: Intergroup contact and friendships work well (and often best) among intolerant and cognitively rigid persons—by reducing threat and anxiety and increasing empathy, trust, and outgroup closeness. Historically untested assumptions about contact have therefore tested favorably. Future imperatives involve directly addressing contemporary criticisms of contact research.