the four-item and two-item measures of CGF where higher scores indicated more and higher quality cross-group
friendships. The two-item cross-group friendships scale has been successfully used in both cross sectional (e.g.,
Swart, Hewstone, Christ, & Voci, 2010 ) and longitudinal (e.g., Binder et al., 2009 ;Swart, Hewstone, Christ, &
Voci, 2011 ) research.1
Sample
Turner et al. (2007a) measured cross-group friendships with Asian amongst White British high school children
(Study 3, N5164, Mage513.60 years), and White British university students (Study 4, N5142, Mage519.90
years). The mean CGF scores for these two studies were reported as M51.82 (Study 3) and M52.77 (Study 4).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
The two items used to measure cross-group friendships yielded a Cronbach alpha coefficient of α5.84 (Swart
et al., 2010 ) and have been shown to correlate positively with each other ( r5.63,Turner et al., 2007a , Study 4).
The two items have also been shown to correlate positively with each other over a six-month period ( rtime 15.45,
rtime 25.40;Binder et al., 2009 ). Likewise, the Turner et al. (2007a, Study 3) four-item measure of cross-group
friendships yielded an alpha coefficient of α5.82.
Test/C0Retest
Binder et al. (2009) reported a six-month test /C0retest reliability coefficient of r5.73 for the two-item CGF mea-
sure. The Swart et al. (2011) three-wave longitudinal study (with six months separating measurement occasions),
using the two-item CGF measure, reported strong six-month (time 1 and time 2, r5.56; time 2 and time 3,
r5.65) and one year (time 1 and time 3, r5.57) correlations.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
For the two-item measure of cross-group friendships, Turner et al. (2007a, Study 4) reported significant posi-
tive correlations with self-disclosure ( r5.64), intergroup empathy ( r5.21), intergroup attitudes ( r5.22), and
intergroup trust ( r5.43). Swart et al. (2011) reported positive correlations between their two-item measure of
cross-group friendships and affective empathy (.11 #r#.28). Turner et al. (2007a, Study 3) reported significant
positive correlations between their four-item cross-group friendship measure and opportunity for contact
(r5.30), extended friendships ( r5.62, see next section), self-disclosure ( r5.53), and outgroup attitudes ( r5.25).
Divergent/Discriminant
Binder et al. (2009) reported significant negative correlations between the two-item cross-group friendship
measure and intergroup anxiety ( /C0.23#r#/C0.25) as did Swart et al. (2011 ;/C0.18#r#/C0.23). Furthermore,
Binder et al. (2009) reported significant negative correlations between cross-group friendships and social distance
(/C0.35#r#/C0.39) and negative emotions ( /C0.28#r#/C0.33). Turner et al. (2007a, study 3) reported significant
negative correlations between their four-item measure of cross-group friendships and intergroup anxiety
(r5/C0.29).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Turner et al. (2007a) , using similar items to those in Study 4, subjected their two-item CGF measure together
with their measure of outgroup attitudes (Study 1, N560) to an exploratory principal axis factor analysis with
oblimin rotation. Two factors were extracted, with the CGF and intergroup attitude items being loaded signifi-
cantly by their respective factors (all factor loadings for the CGF items were $.66; see Swart et al., 2010 ;Swart
et al. 2011 , for similar findings). Binder et al. (2009) entered the two-item CGF measure into a principal compo-
nents analysis with social distance, intergroup anxiety, quality of contact, positive intergroup emotions, negative
intergroup emotions, and typicality (see section on contact moderators, below). They found that all items loaded
strongly onto their respective factors with minimal cross-loadings. Thus, while Binder and colleagues warned
against possible conceptual overlap between their social distance scale and cross-group friendships (they argued
1Swart et al. (2010, 2011) used the same anchors as Turner et al. (2007a) ;Binder et al. (2009) , while using cross-group friendship items
analogous to the three aforementioned studies, used slightly different anchors.657 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT