Reliability
Internal Consistency
Turner and Feddes (2011) used multiple feeling thermometers (14 in total) to tap into a generalized prejudice
score. They asked their undergraduate sample about their attitudes towards a series of social groups at two mea-
surement occasions spaced six weeks apart. They found that the feeling thermometers formed a reliable measure of
generalized outgroup attitudes at both measurement occasions (Cronbach alpha coefficients for Time 1: α$.91,
and Time 2: α$.96). De Tezanos-Pinto et al. (2010) , using a sample of Norwegian school students, found that the
correlations between the feeling thermometer ratings of attitudes towards Turkish / Pakistani / Indian boys and
girls were strong (.82 #r#.87). In a three-wave longitudinal study (measurement occasions were spaced six
months apart; Lolliot, 2013 ), the feeling thermometer formed a reliable measure of White South African second-
ary school students’ attitudes towards mixed-race South Africans (the Cronbach alpha coefficient for Time 1, 2,
and 3 combined 5.80), Black South Africans (alpha coefficient for Time 1, 2, and 3 combined 5.85), African
immigrants (alpha coefficient for Time 1, 2, and 3 combined 5.80), and Indian South Africans (alpha coefficient
for Time 1, 2, and 3 combined 5.75).
Test/C0Retest
Feeling thermometers display good test /C0retest reliability across different time lags. Dasgupta and Greenwald
(2001) reported test /C0retest correlations of .87 and .88 with measurement occasions spaced 24 hours apart
(Experiment 1). Tausch et al. (2010) also reported one-year feeling thermometer autocorrelations ranging from .25
(ingroup feeling thermometer) to .30 and .51 (outgroup feeling thermometers), and Lolliot (2013) reported six-
month autocorrelations for four outgroups that ranged from .49 to .76, and one-year autocorrelations ranging
from .44 to .56.
The latter three-wave longitudinal study ( Lolliot, 2013 ) also provided the chance to test for autoregressive sta-
tionarity of the feeling thermometer.8Results showed that the feeling thermometer ratings of attitudes towards
the four outgroups exhibited autoregressive stationarity.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Dasgupta and Greenwald (2001) reported significant correlations between their feeling thermometer and
semantic differential scales (similar but not identical to the one discussed in the next section) for attitudes
towards White ( r5.51) and Black ( r5.43) Americans (Experiment 1), and for attitudes towards the young
(r5.70) and old ( r5.71; Experiment 2). Turner and Feddes (2011) found that their respondents’ outgroup feeling
thermometer ratings correlated strongly with their ratings of the same outgroups using a different attitudinal
measure (.73 #.91). These same-trait multimethod correlations indicate that the feeling thermometer shows
good convergent validity.
Divergent/Discriminant
Tausch et al. (2010, Study 3) reported weak correlations with the Biased Inventory of Desirable Responding for
their feeling thermometer measures of outgroup attitudes ( r#.17). Sharp, Voci, and Hewstone (2011) reported
weak correlations between their feeling thermometers and their measures of public self-consciousness (| r|#
.14) and social comparison ( r#/C0.04). Tausch, Tam et al. (2007, Study 1) reported significant negative correla-
tions between the feeling thermometer and intergroup anxiety ( r5/C0.41), symbolic ( r5/C0.37) and realistic
(r5/C0.31) threat.
Location
For the original feeling thermometer, consult the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social
Research’s website at: www.icpsr.umich.edu (Retrieved May 25, 2014).
Results and Comments
The results reported here attest to the feeling thermometer being a psychometrically sound measure of out-
group attitudes. Given its analogous ties to a temperature thermometer, the feeling thermometer is easy and
8Testing for autoregressive stationarity tests the hypothesis that the degree to which a variable produces a change in later iterations of itself is
consistent across consecutive time points.675 MODERATORS OF THE INTERGROUP CONTACT TO OUTGROUP ATTITUDES RELATIONSHIP
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT