Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Stephan et al. (2000) found that their 17-item measure of negative contact correlated significantly and posi-
tively with outgroup prejudice (.26 #r#.38), and realistic (.17 #r#.37) and symbolic (.26 #r#.31) threat
(see Table 23.1 for all inter-item correlations). Stephan et al. (2002) reported weak (but significant) correlations
between negative contact and ingroup identity (Black: r#.13; White: r#.19). Stephan et al. (2002) reported sig-
nificant positive correlations between the shorter 14-item negative contact scale and prejudice (.40 #r#.48),
intergroup anxiety (.41 #r#.47), and realistic (.39 #r#.49) and symbolic threat (.34 #r#.45).
SeeAberson and Gaffney (2008) for similar correlation coefficients.
Divergent/Discriminant
Aberson and Gaffney (2008) included both positive and negative contact in the same study and reported weak
negative correlations between the two types of contact ( r#/C0.05). They also reported a significant negative cor-
relation between negative contact and explicit outgroup attitudes ( r5/C0.35).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Aberson and Gaffney (2008) entered the 14 negative contact items into an EFA (alongside positive contact
items) and found that all the negative contact items were loaded significantly by the negative contact factor (all
factor loadings $.40). Furthermore, they reported low cross-construct correlations (all negative contact items
were loaded #.14 by the positive contact factor; all positive contact items were loaded #.20 by the negative con-
tact factor). Next, using a partial disaggregation approach (see Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998 ) to create three item par-
cels of between four to five items per parcel, they entered the negative contact items into a CFA (alongside a host
of other variables). Once again, they found that the three negative contact item parcels were loaded significantly
by their specified negative contact latent variable (all factor loadings $.84).
Criterion/Predictive
Stephan et al. (2000) reported that negative contact was significantly positively associated with outgroup preju-
dice (Studies 1, 2, and 3), symbolic threat (Studies 1 and 3), and intergroup anxiety (Study 3).2Stephan et al.
(2002) , for their Black and White sample, respectively, reported that the short-form negative contact scale was
positively and significantly associated with outgroup prejudice ( β5.06 and .07), symbolic threat ( β5.23 and .23),
realistic threat ( β5.23 and .32), and intergroup anxiety ( β5.33 and .30).TABLE 23.1 Correlates of Negative Contact Experience
Variable Study
CW11CW21CW31WGB1WGW1A&G1
Explicit Prejudice .29* .38* .26* .40* .35* 2.35*2
Intergroup Anxiety .16 .14 .18* .41* .34* .25*
Intergroup Conflict 222 .11* .24* .15*
Status Difference 222 .17* .14* 2.02
Realistic Threat .37* .28* .17* .39* .34* .34*
Symbolic Threat .30* .31* .26* .34* .43* .38*
Negative Stereotypes .19* .05 .11 .16* .26* .24*
Ingroup Identification 222 .13* .19* .07
Positive Contact 2222 2 2 .05
Implicit Attitudes 2222 2 2 .01
Notes:
1CW1/2/3 5Stephan et al. (2000) , Study 1/2/3; WGB/W 5Stephan et al. (2002) , Black/White sample; A&G 5Aberson & Gaffney (2008) .
2Reverse coded as compared with other studies, *p ,.05.
2We have not included regression weights as it is unclear whether the reported values are standardized or unstandardized.662 23. MEASURES OF INTERGROUP CONTACT
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT