There is much to admire in Dixon et al.'s elegantly written piece. Given space limitations, we focus our reply on how research on intergroup contact is characterized within the target article.

By focusing on direct (face-to-face) intergroup contact and the reduction of prejudice, the target article does not adequately capture the complexities in contemporary contact theory. In some ways, the authors attack a “straw man”: there are multiple forms of contact (notably direct and indirect/extended contact; see Harwood et al. Reference Harwood, Hewstone, Hamburger, Tausch and Salomon2013) that affect a wide range of outcomes that are cognitive, affective, and/or behavioral in nature (Hewstone Reference Hewstone2009; for a review, see Hodson et al. Reference Hodson, Hewstone, Swart, Hodson and Hewstone2013). Suggesting that the contact literature is preoccupied with prejudice reduction alone ignores the body of evidence demonstrating that contact goes beyond simply eliminating negative states and perceptions, but also fosters empathy, increases cooperation, and encourages future contact (Hodson et al. Reference Hodson, Hewstone, Swart, Hodson and Hewstone2013). Impressively, contact even works among contact-resistant, prejudiced persons (e.g., those high in authoritarianism or social dominance, see Hodson Reference Hodson2011).

The target authors trivialize research focusing on attitude outcomes as simply “getting us to like one another more.” Although attitude change is not the only, or even the ultimate, outcome variable, achieving increased liking between members of different groups will be seen as a critical achievement for those working in settings where members of different social, ethnic, and religious groups do (have to) coexist (e.g., diverse schools). In other settings (e.g., post-conflict societies such as Northern Ireland), other outcome variables may be considered more important, such as promoting outgroup trust and forgiveness or reducing dehumanization. Fortunately, contact achieves these objectives (Hewstone et al. Reference Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger and Niens2006; Tam et al. Reference Tam, Hewstone, Cairns, Tausch, Maio and Kenworthy2007; Reference Tam, Hewstone, Kenworthy, Cairns, Marinetti, Geddes and Parkinson2008; Reference Tam, Hewstone, Kenworthy and Cairns2009). Arguably, contact's impact on the proximal predictors of attitudes (e.g., reducing anxiety and promoting empathy; for reviews, see Brown & Hewstone Reference Brown, Hewstone and Zanna2005; Hodson et al. Reference Hodson, Hewstone, Swart, Hodson and Hewstone2013) is as important as promoting “mere” liking. We must not do social science research a disservice, nor confuse policy makers, by underplaying the prejudice-relevant achievements of contact. Before the baby is thrown out with the bathwater, we ought to revisit the failures of alternative interventions (see Paluck & Green Reference Paluck and Green2009), compared with the robust meta-analytic support for intergroup contact (see Pettigrew & Tropp Reference Pettigrew and Tropp2006). Moreover, without increased contact, we risk perpetuating segregation and separation. This is no solution, whether under actual apartheid in South Africa pre-1994 or the “benign apartheid” of highly segregated neighborhoods and schools in many countries.

We are sympathetic to the challenge the authors pose between prejudice-reduction and social change solutions. Yet the pressing needs in the social context should guide the research agenda. As such, we consider neither prejudice reduction nor collective action as the de facto outcomes to be pursued. In some situations, and for some scholars, social change may trump other goals (as it seems for the target authors). Elsewhere, the social change agenda may seem less relevant. In contemporary Northern Ireland, for example, there has been a massive reduction in discrimination against Catholics in housing and education and the emergence of a burgeoning Catholic middle class. Here, contact theory's focus on a range of outcomes – e.g., promoting perspective-taking or increasing the complexity of outgroup images – is arguably more relevant than emphasizing collective action. Likewise, in our current work in multiethnic schools in the north of England (the scene of riots in 2001), we see the primary goal being one of promoting positive coexistence through contact, rather than of encouraging further disturbances. As academics, we consider it unwise to encourage collective action that will exert unknown and potentially negative impact on others (typically not ourselves). In the wake of the Arab Spring of 2011 it may be tempting to “ignite struggles” to bring about social change. Yet we find ourselves thinking of Alice's rash journey to Wonderland, compelling us to urge strong caution before going down this particular rabbit hole without seriously considering the potentially negative consequences of encouraging intergroup conflict in the name of social change.

Dixon et al. are right to point to the two models of social change and the possible tensions between them. However prejudice reduction and collective action need not be conceptualized as zero-sum goals. If, as the authors contend, contact is negatively associated with precursors of social change, then it is incumbent upon the field to harness the power of contact to induce change in the dominant group without blunting the subordinate group's striving for equity. There will be less bloodshed when the majority is convinced to change their out-group evaluations and when there is widespread normative support for change. Contact can therefore facilitate social change by bringing majority members to understand the world from the perspective of the disadvantaged minority (Jeffries & Ransford Reference Jeffries and Ransford1969; Mallett et al. Reference Mallett, Huntsinger, Sinclair and Swim2008). It is important, therefore, not to underplay the great successes of intergroup contact. Even knowing about or observing intergroup contact is associated with reduced prejudice (Turner et al. Reference Turner, Hewstone, Voci, Paolini, Christ, Stroebe and Hewstone2007; Wright et al. Reference Wright, Aron, Mclaughlin-Volpe and Ropp1997), and recent longitudinal and multilevel analyses show that contact typically drives effects at the neighborhood level (not simply at the individual level; Pettigrew et al. Reference Pettigrew, Christ, Wagner and Stellmacher2007). In contrast to alternative interventions, contact effects generalize, from individual out-group members to the out-group as a whole (Brown & Hewstone Reference Brown, Hewstone and Zanna2005), and from views of a primary outgroup to secondary outgroups (Tausch et al. Reference Tausch, Hewstone, Kenworthy, Psaltis, Schmid, Popan and Hughes2010). Such research on contact's “secondary transfer effects” allay the target authors' concerns that, for members of a minority group, contact with the majority group negatively impacts attitudes toward other minorities.

Although contact is only part of the solution, not the solution, its role remains essential. As social psychologists, we see great value in exploring the potential of multiple forms of intergroup contact to impact multiple outcomes, via multiple mediating processes, at micro- meso-, and societal-levels (Pettigrew Reference Pettigrew1996; Wagner & Hewstone Reference Wagner, Hewstone and Tropp2012). This view does not negate or deny the importance of collective action, but rather sets the record straight about what contact can achieve and situates contact-based attitude change and social change as complementary (not inherently conflicting) objectives.