statistics for the full version of the scale, however, provide some comfort that an overall ‘intergroup anxiety’ con-
struct is being measured. Paolini et al. (2004) and Turner et al. (2008) , having performed a CFA on their short ver-
sion of the intergroup anxiety scale, provided some assurance concerning the underlying factor structure of their
short scale. It is the Swart et al. (2010, 2011) short version for younger participants, however, that provides the
most certainty regarding underlying factor structure and behavior. Having performed both EFAs (demonstrating
unidimensionality) and CFAs, they also demonstrated metric invariance across samples and time intervals.
As discussed earlier, self-report measu res, on which contact researchers rely h eavily, are often difficult to validate.
How certain can we be that they measure what we intend them to measure? To this end, Greenland, Xenias, and Maio
(2012) developed a measure of intergroup anxiety and used an abridged version of Stephan and Stephan’s (1985) scale
to help demonstrate convergent validity (Study 2). Greenland et al. (2012, Study 3) then demonstrated that their inter-
group anxiety scale correlated with phy siological responses that are associated with the experience of anxiety. This
study thus helps ease concerns as to the validity of self-re port measures, especially those of intergroup anxiety.
We believe that all three versions are vital to our toolkit. If the researcher is interested in tapping the broadest
definition of intergroup anxiety, then the full item version should be used. If space is limited, however, then
Paolini and colleagues’ (2004) shorter version represents an appealing choice. Lastly, if the researcher is interested
in assessing younger participant’s feelings of intergroup anxiety, then the Swart et al. (2010) short version remains
a good candidate. Either way, the multi-item nature of each of the scales allows for the construction of latent vari-
ables and thus, the estimation of measurement error associated with the construct. From this ‘modeling’ point of
view, some may argue for the use of the shorter versions of the intergroup anxiety scale that use the set of items
best suited to tapping the latent variable of intergroup anxiety (e.g., see Hayduk & Pazderka-Robinson, 2007 ).
INTERGROUP ANXIETY SCALE
All versions of the IAS use some form of introductory
passage based on the one provided by Stephan and
Stephan (1985) :
‘If you were the only member of your ethnic group
and you were interacting with people from a different
racial or ethnic group (e.g., talking with them, working
on a project with them), how would you feel compared
to occasions when you are interacting with people from
your own ethnic group?’
1.certain (reverse coded)
2.awkward
3.self-conscious
4.happy (reverse coded)
5.accepted (reverse coded)
6.confident (reverse coded)
7.irritated
8.impatient
9.defensive
10.suspicious
11.careful when interacting with outgroup members
Scored from: 1 5not at all to 105extremely .Short form ( Paolini et al., 2004 )
1.happy (reverse coded)
2.awkward
3.self-conscious
4.confident (reverse coded)
5.relaxed (reverse coded)
6.defensive
Scored from: 1 5not at all to 45extremely .
Short form for younger participants ( Swart et al.,
2010 )
1.nervous/relaxed (reverse coded)
2.worried/pleased (reverse coded)
3.scared/not scared (reverse coded)
4.awkward/at ease (reverse coded)
5.defensive/open (reverse coded)
6.unconfident/confident (reverse coded)
Scored from: 1 5not at all to 55very much .
Note. Reproduced with permission.
MODERATORS OF THE INTERGROUP CONTACT TO OUTGROUP
ATTITUDES RELATIONSHIP
Two Measures of Group Membership Salience during Contact
Intergroup contact research has made significant advances towards understanding the conditions under which
intergroup contact is most effective. Here we focus on one of the key moderators of intergroup contact, group670 23. MEASURES OF INTERGROUP CONTACT
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT