Negativity bias in intergroup contact: Meta-analytical evidence that bad is stronger than good, especially when people have the opportunity and motivation to opt out of contact.

Seventy years of research on intergroup contact, or face-to-face interactions between members of opposing social groups, demonstrates that positive contact typically reduces prejudice and increases social cohesion.Extant syntheses, however, have not considered the full breadth of contact valence (positive/negative) and have treated self-selection as a threat to validity.This research bridges intergroup contact theory with sequential sampling models of impression formation to assess contact effects across all valences.From the premise that positive versus negative contact instigates differential resampling of outgroup experiences when self-selection is possible, we advance and meta-analytically test new predictions for the moderation of valenced contact effects and negativity bias as a function of people's opportunity and motivation to selfselect in and out of contact.Our random-effects synthesis of positive and negative intergroup contact studies (238 independent samples, 936 nested effects; total N = 152,985) found significant valenced contact effects: Positive contact systematically associates with lower prejudice, and negative contact associates with higher prejudice.Critically, the detrimental effect of negative contact is significantly larger than the benefit of positive contact.This negativity bias is particularly pronounced under conditions in which one can selfselect, is motivated to avoid contact, among male-dominated and prejudiced samples, in contact with stigmatized, low status, low socioeconomic status outgroups, along nonconcealable stigma, with nonintimate contact partners in informal settings and in collectivistic societies.Considering individuals' motivation and opportunity to self-select, together with contact valence, therefore offers a more nuanced and integrated platform to design contact-based interventions and policies across varied contact ecologies. Public Significance StatementThis meta-analysis extends earlier analyses of intergroup contact, or face-to-face interactions between members of opposing groups, showing that the quality of contact and opportunities and motivation to avoid contact matter.It demonstrates that positive contact improves intergroup relations, but negative contact worsens them and is more impactful.Negative contact prevails and is thus riskier in real-world settings, offering opportunity and motivation to avoid contact.This enriched knowledgebase can help maximize the benefits of intergroup contact and minimize its risks through more targeted policy and intervention.