In this scoping review our aim is to get more insight into which primary school age student outcomes are related to interventions based on intergroup contact. The impetus for this review is threefold. Firstly, the original aim of research on intergroup contact was broad focusing not only on social, but also societal change (Allport, 1954). And while meta-analytic testing indeed validates the premise that intergroup contact typically reduces intergroup prejudice (Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), over the years the broad scope of intergroup contact research has been narrowed down to seemingly focus primarily on short interventions aimed at (temporary) prejudice reduction towards specific outgroups (Durrheim & Dixon, 2018). While for research purposes such an approach might be fruitful, in terms of social and societal change these short-term effects can be considered limited. Secondly, learning to deal with diversity in the societal context has been a primary focus of citizenship education (Rinnooy Kan et al., 2021). For the past two decades across the globe citizenship education has become an educational priority (Eurydice, 2017). Despite the increased attention for citizenship education, more insight in how to work impactfully on the associated goals and competencies remains necessary, especially in the realm of primary education as most research is focused on the context of secondary education (i.e. Schulz et al., 2023). And thirdly, this focus on the primary school age seems especially relevant as the developmental trajectory of attitudes towards members of one’s outgroups seems to have its roots in early childhood and mostly seems to stabilize from early adolescence onwards (e.g. Aboud, 2008 ; Nesdale, 2007). Therefore the primary school age seems to mark a crucial moment to address and influence these outgroup attitudes.  In this scoping review our aim therefor is to shed light on the range of outcomes associated with intergroup contact interventions and the range of interventions that have been developed, executed and researched. The insights from this review will help to inform educational practices focused on supporting children in the process of learning to deal with others who differ from them and will help to identify the role, and relevant characteristics, of interventions focused on intergroup contact herein.   

Our main research question is: Which student outcomes are associated with intergroup contact interventions aimed at primary school age children (4 - 12 years old)?

To further our understanding of intergroup contact interventions suitable for primary school age children and the related outcomes we conducted a scoping review (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). The rationale for this approach was to allow for mapping a broad array of associated outcomes, and study designs. For the purpose of our scoping review we created a search string based on the following criteria: - There must be an intergroup component - The study must include a form of an intervention - The study must include children in primary school age (between 4 and 12 years old) - The following criteria have additionally been applied during screening: - The study must include a form of intergroup contact - The study must be conducted in school/an educational setting - The study must focus on at least one student outcome Beyond these criteria we have included peer reviewed research using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods designs. After removing duplicates this search strategy led to 1483 studies. The second phase of screening started with a pilot of 100 studies, which both authors and a research assistant screened. After checking if the inclusion protocol was clear and if decisions indeed were in line with each other the remaining studies were divided amongst the authors and the research assistant. After screening titles and abstracts based on the selection criteria 230 studies were selected for full-text screening. This third phase of screening started with a pilot of 10% (23 studies) to check if the decisions of the authors aligned, the remaining studies were divided between the authors. Finally 79 studies were included in the review. A data charting form was developed to include all relevant information from these studies to be able to answer our main research question. This form included a description of the research design, participants (focusing on age, as well as relevant background characteristic), a description of the intervention (including the type of intergroup contact, the outgroup, materials used, and duration of the intervention), a description of the student outcomes and related measures and results. This form provided the basis for the next phase of the scoping review: collating, summarizing and reporting results.

In contrast to a systematic review, which generally aims to synthesize evidence and aggregate findings, a scoping review generally takes a more narrative approach (Arksey & O’Mally, 2005). In this study we do so in two ways. First, we focus on the distribution of studies in terms of age groups included and types of outcomes. Secondly, we focus on thematically organizing the studies in terms of the types of interventions that were studied, looking at what kind of contact was the focus of the intervention and in what ways this contact was facilitated. While we are still in the midst of analyzing our findings, preliminary results indicate that interventions based on intergroup contact have been executed and studied among the full age range of primary school students, and for all age groups both direct and indirect contact interventions have been studied. Most of the studies take only affective outcomes in to account, some add intended behavior, but hardly any include behavioral and cognitive outcomes. Most of the studies focus on students from dominant groups in society as the ingroup and members of marginalized groups in society as the outgroup. In terms of scientific and practical implications, the preliminary findings of this study point towards the value of integrating, and evaluating, intergroup contact based interventions combined with practices that focus on increasing students’ knowledge about specific outgroups in particular and more general social and societal mechanisms of exclusion and inclusion. Furthermore, research including participants from marginalized groups in society seems necessary to better understand the impact of intergroup contact interventions in the context of diverse classrooms, and diverse societies.

Aboud, F. E. (2008). A social-cognitive developmental theory of prejudice. In: Quintana, S.M. & McKown, C. (Eds.) Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child, John Wiley & Sons (pp. 55-71). Allport, G. (1954) The nature of prejudice. Basic Books Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology, 8(1), 19-32. Beelmann, A., & Heinemann, K. S. (2014). Preventing prejudice and improving intergroup attitudes: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent training programs. Journal of applied developmental psychology, 35(1), 10-24. Durrheim, K. & Dixon, J. (2018) Intergroup Contact and the Struggle for Social Justice. In: Hammack, P. L. (Ed.) The Oxford handbook of social psychology and social justice, Oxford University Press, (pp. 367 – 378). Eurydice (2017) Citizenship education at school in Europe. (https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/publications/citizenship-education-school-europe-2017) Nesdale, D. (2007). The development of ethnic prejudice in early childhood. Contemporary perspectives on socialization and social development in early childhood education, 213-240. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of personality and social psychology, 90(5), 751. Rinnooy Kan, W. F., März, V., Volman, M., & Dijkstra, A. B. (2021). Learning from, through and about differences: A multiple case study on schools as practice grounds for citizenship. Social Sciences, 10(6), 200. Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Losito, B., Agrusti, G., Valeria, D., & Friedman, T. (2023). Education for citizenship in times of global challenge. IEA International civic and citizenship education study 2022 international report.