Description
A major development since Allport’s (1954) pioneering work is that researchers have moved from simply dem-
onstrating that contact works, to asking the more demanding question of how it works. Although the effects of
contact may partly be due to mere exposure (i.e., the principle that familiarity fosters liking; Bornstein, 1989 ), the
published research demonstrates that more sophisticated mechanisms are at work (see narrative review by
Brown & Hewstone, 2005 ; and a meta-analysis specifically of mediators of contact by Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008 ).
Because intergroup anxiety has consistently emerged as one of the strongest mediators of the effects of intergroup
contact (Pettigrew & Tropp), we focus on it here.
Intergroup anxiety is defined as the affective response experienced when anticipating future, or expecting actual,
contact with an outgroup member ( Stephan & Stephan, 1985 ). It is a negative affective process that is integral to the
contact situation (see Greenland & Brown, 1999 ), and is distinct from chronic levels (or trait measures) of anxiety
(Britt, Boniecki, Vescio, Biernat, & Brown, 1996 ). Anxious responses include physiological responses of the autonomic
system (such as an increased heart rate), behavioral responses (reduced performance and contact avoidance), and
subjective feelings of anxiety ( Mendes, Blascovich, Lickel, & Hunter, 2002 ); it is the latter feelings that social psycholo-
gists typically try to measure with scales tapping intergroup anxiety. Intergroup anxiety has numerous consequences
for intergroup relations, notably biasing information processing ( Stephan & Stephan, 1985 ). For example, intergroup
anxiety has been shown to be related to greater stereotyping (see Bodenhausen, 1993 ), more homogeneous percep-
tions of the outgroup and more negative outgroup attitudes ( Islam & Hewstone, 1993 ).
Intergroup anxiety has proven to be one of the strongest and most consistent predictors of negative attitudes
in correlational studies (e.g., Bizman & Yinnon, 2001 ;Islam & Hewstone, 1993 ;Stephan et al., 2000 ). In their
meta-analysis of mediators of contact, Pettigrew and Tropp (2008) identified intergroup anxiety as the most sig-
nificant mediator between contact and attitudes (see also Paolini, Hewstone, Voci, Harwood, & Cairns, 2006 ).
Furthermore, intergroup anxiety can also lead to avoidance of contact altogether (see Plant & Devine, 2003 ). We
will now review Stephan and Stephan’s (1985) intergroup anxiety scale.
Samples
Stephan and Stephan (1985) used a sample of 83 Hispanic college students to validate their full 11-item mea-
sure of intergroup anxiety.5Unfortunately, no participant details (e.g., mean age or mean score on the anxiety
measure) were provided. Other studies have, however, used the scale. For example, Islam and Hewstone (1993)
administered the full intergroup anxiety measure /C0using a seven-point rating scale /C0to Hindu and Muslim stu-
dents at a university in Bangladesh.6The Muslim students (the majority group in Bangladesh) reported lower
anxiety scores ( MMuslim53.07, SD51.05) than did the (minority) Hindu respondents ( MHindu54.77, SD51.16).
Paolini et al. (2004, Study 1) administered the shorter six-item version to N5341 Catholic ( Mage522.22 years,
SD54.49) and Protestant ( Mage524.14 years, SD56.84) Northern Irish undergraduates. Turner et al. (2008, Study
1)administered the same six-item version to a group of British undergraduate students ( N5142, Mage519.9 years).
Paolini and colleagues’ sample, when asked about their feelings of anxiety towards the other religious group
(Catholics for Protestants, and vice versa ), reported low intergroup anxiety scores (Catholic M51.91, SD51.00;
Protestant M51.63, SD51.03). Similarly, Turner et al.’s (2008) undergraduate sample, when asked about their feel-
ings of anxiety towards Asians, reported low mean levels of intergroup anxiety ( M51.58, SD5.80).
Swart and colleagues (2010, 2011) administered their six-item version to multiple high school samples in South
Africa. In Studies 1 and 2, Swart et al. (2010) asked White (Study 1: N5186, Mage516.83 years, SD50.71; Study
2:N5171, Mage516.80 years, SD50.71) and mixed-race (Study 1: N5196, Mage516.98 years, SD50.96; Study
2:N5191, Mage516.92 years, SD50.91) South African respondents about their experienced intergroup anxiety
when interacting with someone from the other race (Whites for mixed-race respondents and vice versa ). Both
White (Study 1: M53.38, SD51.08; Study 2: M53.24, SD50.96) and mixed-race (Study 1: M52.57, SD51.05;
Study 2: M52.25, SD50.79) respondents scored either around or below the scale mid-point. In a three-wave
5In their article, Stephan and Stephan (1985) state that they used 10 adjectives when validating their intergroup anxiety scale, but, in fact, offer
11 items. We understand this to be a typographic error, and will thus refer to it as an 11-item scale.
6Islam and Hewstone (1993) actually administered 10 of the 11 original items, reporting that the word ‘certainty’ could not be accurately
translated for the respondents in Bangladesh. This study is, however, the only other study to our knowledge that has used close to the full
11-item version offered by Stephan and Stephan’s (1985) . Bearing this in mind, we will report the results obtained by Islam and Hewstone
(1993) in order to provide additional information, some of which was not provided by Stephan and Stephan’s (1985) original analysis (e.g.,
means and standard deviations).667 MEDIATORS OF THE EFFECTS OF INTERGROUP CONTACT ON OUTGROUP ATTITUDES
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT