| Course | PS 303 Social Psychology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Applied social psychology paper |
| Length | About 1,020 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PS 303 Unit 8
Two Rival Towns, One High School: Taking the Intergroup Contact Finding Into a Composite Rural School Consolidation, What It Predicts There and What the Transfer Risks Losing
Student Name
Psychology, Herzing University
PS 303: Social Psychology
Instructor Name
June 30, 2026
Two Rival Towns, One High School: Taking the Intergroup Contact Finding Into a Composite Rural School Consolidation, What It Predicts There and What the Transfer Risks Losing
The Finding
This paper takes one well-supported result from social psychology into a setting where someone would have to act on it. The result is that contact between members of different groups is associated with reduced prejudice between them. Allport (1954) proposed that contact reduces prejudice best under certain conditions: equal status within the situation, common goals, cooperation rather than competition, and the support of authorities or institutions. Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) tested the idea in a meta-analysis of 515 studies with over 250,000 participants. Greater contact was associated with less prejudice across many kinds of groups and settings, with a modest average effect, and the effect was larger in studies where Allport's conditions were met, though contact was associated with reduced prejudice even when they were not all present. The result is among the most consistently supported in the study of intergroup relations, which is why it was chosen.
Why This Finding
Other results from the course could have been chosen, but several are weaker foundations for action. Some well-known demonstrations have not held up well under replication or reanalysis, as earlier units showed, and building a school's plan on one would be risky. The contact finding rests on hundreds of studies, a large combined sample and a clearly stated set of conditions, which gives a practitioner something specific to arrange rather than a general hope. It also concerns a problem the setting genuinely has. A finding chosen because it is famous, rather than because it fits the setting and is well supported, tends to produce advice that sounds scientific without being so.
The Setting
The setting is a composite. Two small towns in a rural county, each with its own high school of about two hundred students, have been rivals for decades, especially in football and basketball. Falling enrollment has led the county to consolidate the schools into one high school in a renovated building in the larger town, starting in the fall. Parents in both towns have voiced concern; students from the smaller town expect to be treated as outsiders, and some students in the larger town have described the newcomers in dismissive terms on social media. The new principal must plan the first year.
What the Finding Predicts There
Contact itself will happen: students will share classes, hallways and teams. The finding predicts that this contact will, on average, reduce hostility between the two student groups over time. It also predicts, through Allport's conditions, that the size of the reduction will depend on how the contact is structured.
Equal status
If the consolidated school treats both towns' students as equals, for example by giving the new school a new name, colors and mascot rather than adopting the larger school's, the condition of equal status is supported. Adopting one school's identity would signal that one group absorbed the other.
Common goals and cooperation
Mixed teams, clubs and class projects in which students from both towns depend on each other to succeed meet the conditions of common goals and cooperation. Classrooms or activities where students compete along town lines, or where they sort themselves by town, work against them.
Institutional support
The principal, teachers and coaches visibly endorsing the merged school as one community, and responding consistently to town-based teasing, supply the authority support Allport described.
A related finding strengthens these predictions. Gaertner et al. (1989) found in laboratory groups that leading members of two groups to think of themselves as one larger group reduced bias between them, mainly by making former outgroup members seem more like ingroup members. A shared new identity for the school is a direct application of that idea.
What the Transfer Risks Losing
Taking the finding into this school risks losing several things that made it hold in the research.
The groups differ. Most studies in the meta-analysis concerned prejudice toward ethnic, racial, national or other social groups, not rivalries between towns of similar background. The mechanisms may be similar, but the evidence base for town rivalries is thin.
The contact is not chosen. Many studies measured contact people sought out, and people who choose contact may already be less prejudiced. Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) reported that the association held in studies where participants had little choice about contact, which is encouraging, but a forced consolidation that many families opposed is a demanding test.
The conditions may not hold. A football team that wins mostly with players from one town, or a schedule that tracks students into classes that happen to separate the towns, would undermine equal status and cooperation without anyone intending it.
Negative contact is possible. Contact under tension can produce conflicts that confirm stereotypes. The meta-analysis describes averages; it does not promise that every instance of contact helps.
The effect is modest and gradual. Even under favorable conditions, the average association in the meta-analysis was modest. A principal expecting rivalry to disappear in the first semester would be expecting more than the research supports. Patience is therefore part of applying the finding correctly, not a sign that it has failed.
What the Principal Could Watch
Because the transfer is uncertain, the principal would need to watch whether contact is working: whether students from the two towns sit together at lunch by spring, whether mixed friendships form, whether town-based incidents decline and whether students from the smaller town report feeling part of the school. These are observations, not proof, but they would tell the school whether the conditions the finding depends on are actually present. The principal would also want to know whether any changes appear unevenly, for example whether mixing happens in sports but not in classrooms, because Allport's conditions may be met in one part of school life and not another. A short survey of students in the fall and again in the spring, approved by the district and kept anonymous, would add a second kind of evidence to the observations, though it would still describe one school, not a general result.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 239-249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.239
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Reading the PS 303 Unit 8 instructions
The final PS 303 unit asks students to take one well-supported finding into a real or realistic setting. Expect to select a finding and justify the choice by its evidence, describe the setting, work out what the finding predicts there, and report what the transfer risks losing. The safest foundations are findings supported by meta-analyses or large replications rather than single famous demonstrations. The paper does not need to draw on the whole term; one finding in depth is the point. A setting where you work is acceptable if described without identifying people or the employer, though a composite often works better. Transfer risks should be specific to the setting rather than general cautions.
How this PS 303 Unit 8 example is built
The finding is set out with Allport's conditions and Pettigrew and Tropp's meta-analytic results. A short section explains why this finding was chosen over others from the course. The consolidation is described, including the rivalry and the principal's task. Predictions follow under run-in headings for equal status, common goals and cooperation, and institutional support, with Gaertner and colleagues supporting a shared identity. Five transfer risks are set out one by one. A closing section lists observations the principal could watch, including uneven change across school life and a possible anonymous survey. Every prediction is tied to one of the conditions in the research.
PS 303 Unit 8 rubric: what full points look like
The rubric for the applied social psychology paper typically rewards a well-supported finding with its evidence, a clearly described setting, specific predictions derived from the finding, an honest account of transfer risks and practical attention to how results would be observed, plus writing. The finding earns credit when its evidence base and effect size are reported. The setting scores when its relevant features are concrete. Predictions are often the most heavily weighted element, rewarding papers that tie each to a condition in the research. Transfer risks earn points when specific. Observation is credited when the paper explains how anyone would know whether the finding held. Papers that explain why their finding was chosen over others usually score higher.
Common PS 303 Unit 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Applied papers lose points when they choose a famous finding with weak replication support. Another frequent weakness is asserting that a finding applies without deriving specific predictions. Students often skip transfer risks, implying that laboratory or survey results carry over unchanged. Some promise large, quick effects the research does not support. Others describe a real workplace in identifiable detail. Forgetting to say how anyone would know whether the finding held in the setting leaves the paper without a test. Treating the conditions of a finding as optional extras is another weakness, since effects in the research were larger where those conditions were met. Promising quick change in a setting with a long history of rivalry is a final overstatement the research does not support.
Get a PS 303 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
The final unit needs three things from you: the Unit 8 instructions, the PS 303 rubric, and the setting the assignment names if it names one. Back comes an example that reports the finding's evidential strength, reasons the application out, and measures the distance from the research. First one free, 24 to 48 hours.
More PS 303 papers and psychology samples
- PS 303 Unit 1: Social cognition paper
- PS 303 Unit 2: Attribution analysis
- PS 303 Unit 3: Attitudes and persuasion paper
- PS 303 Unit 4: Conformity and obedience paper
- PS 303 Unit 5: Group processes paper
- PS 303 Unit 6: Prejudice and stereotyping paper
- PS 303 Unit 7: Research ethics analysis
- PS 210 Unit 8: Case analysis with recommendations
- PS 323 Unit 8: Applied or policy paper
- PS 350 Unit 8: Applied cognition paper
- PS 101 Unit 8: Final applied paper
PS 303 Unit 8 questions, answered
Which finding makes the safest foundation?
One with a replication record you can point at. A result repeated across independent samples gives the application something solid underneath it, while a famous demonstration whose standing is disputed puts the whole paper on contested ground. If your instructions name the finding, work with it and report its standing honestly rather than quietly upgrading it.
Can the setting be somewhere I actually work?
Use the kind of setting rather than the place. What the application needs is the conditions: how many people, what they are trying to do, what constrains them. Naming your employer, your colleagues or a particular site adds nothing the reasoning uses and puts an identifiable workplace into a document you will not control once it is submitted.
Does the paper have to draw on the whole term?
Rarely, and the attempt usually costs more than it earns. Most sections want one result carried properly into one setting, so check the verb in your instructions before you plan anything wider. If the wording does call for more than one finding, choose results that bear on the same setting, because unrelated findings listed together produce coverage rather than reasoning.
Where can I find a free PS 303 Unit 8 sample paper?
Free and complete, the PS 303 Unit 8 applied social psychology paper includes the contact finding, the school predictions, the transfer risks and margin notes. Taking a different finding into a different setting? Share the assignment and a custom paper is drafted free, typically within 48 hours.
Which finding makes the safest foundation for PS 303 Unit 8?
One backed by a meta-analysis or large replication. The sample uses intergroup contact because hundreds of studies support it and its conditions give a practitioner something specific to arrange.