Question 2 encourages listing ignored or unmention-
able groups, and Question 3 encourages listing of own
groups; both are categories people sometimes neglect. If
these two questions bias the groups listed, it is only
toward conventional ingroups and outgroups, not
toward the SCM’s innovative mixed quadrants; only
Question 1 allows the listing of the SCM’s signature
ambivalent outgroups.
Phase 2
Instructions: ‘We would like to invite you to partici-
pate in a study about impressions of different types of
groups in society. We intend to investigate the way dif-
ferent groups are viewed by American society. Thus, we
are not interested in your personal beliefs, but in how
you think these groups are viewed by others.
Please answer the following questions, using the
5-point scales (1, not at all ,t o5 , extremely ) shown in the
following pages.
Finally, we remind you that the questionnaire is
anonymous, and the data collected will be used for sci-
entific purpose only.’
Note: The questionnaire appears as a groups x items
matrix, with group names appearing as column headers
and the following items as row labels, with respondents
inserting a number from 1 to 5 in each cell of the matrix.Warmth Items
To what extent do most Americans view members of
this group as friendly ?
 ...sincere ?
Competence Items
 ...capable?
 ...competent?
Status Predictors
How prestigious are the jobs generally held by ...?
How economically successful have ...been?
Cooperation /C0Competition Predictors
If resources go to ..., to what extent does that take
resources away from the rest of society?
The values and beliefs of ...are NOT compatible
with the beliefs and values of most Americans.
Notes :
Items usually appear in rows and group in columns,
with respondents inserting a number from 1 (not at
all) to 5 (extremely).
All items are answered from the perspective of
respondents’ society, its name inserted for each
warmth and competence items. Groups’ names are
inserted for predictor items derived from Fiske et al.
(2002) , and updated by Kervyn et al. (in press) .
Reproduced with permission.
Symbolic Racism Scale (SRS)
(Henry & Sears, 2002 ).
Variable
Symbolic racism theory developed one of the earliest and widely used measures of the new racisms (see
Biernat & Crandall, 1999 ;Sears & Henry, 2005 for reviews). From a cultural perspective, old-fashioned racism
became less influential in the 1970s. Instead, research revealed that real and perceived threats to Whites’ personal
lives were less powerful than other forms of racial beliefs in predicting opposition to Black politicians and poli-
cies. Sears and colleagues argued that some Whites’ early socialization created a blend of negative affect toward
Blacks and traditional conservative values, resulting in racial antipathy.
Description
The SRS, cobbled together from existing survey questions ( Sears & Kinder, 1971 ), included items suggesting
Black Americans could get by without welfare if they tried, should not push themselves where not wanted, and
get too much attention from city officials; these items predicted voting preferences for a White versus Black Los
Angeles mayoral candidate, for liberals and conservatives alike, suggesting a factor other than political identity
at work here. Evolving over the next decades, almost always using representative sample surveys, the current
8-item form ( Henry & Sears, 2002 ) includes items such as ‘How much discrimination against blacks do you feel
there is in the United States today, limiting their chances to get ahead?’ and ‘Irish, Italian, Jewish, and many other
minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same’, as well as variants on the
earlier items.691 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT