Short version (four items):
Swart, H., Hewstone, M., Christ, O., & Voci, A. (2011). Affective mediators of intergroup contact: A three-wave
longitudinal study in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,101, 1221/C01238.
Results and Comments
The GES represents a psychometrically sound multi-item measure of outgroup attitudes that has yielded reli-
able results across multiple samples spanning different ages, population groups, and contexts. The GES is easy to
understand and simple to use. As far as which GES should be used (the long or short form), a number of options
have to be taken into consideration. For example, how much space is available in the questionnaire will guide
whether the six-item or four-item GES should be used. Hayduk and Pazderka-Robinson (2007) argued that the
fewest best items from a scale should be used (cf. Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002 , on item-parcel-
ling). For younger participants, we would suggest using Turner and colleagues’ (2007a) version of the GES. If
using the full six items for younger samples is likely to lead to participant fatigue, we would suggest randomly
selecting an appropriate subset of the full GES. From a latent variable perspective, however, we would advise
using no fewer than three items (see Little et al., 2002 ). The question, then, remains: Which attitudinal measure to
use? Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) found that single-item outgroup attitude measures and (reliable) multi-item
measures performed similarly in their associative power with contact. This, to a large extent, is consistent with
Hayduk and Pazderka-Robinson’s (2007) contention that researchers should use the fewest ‘best’ items of a con-
struct, even if this entails using a single item. To this end, the feeling thermometer is, we believe, a good candi-
date. In the same breath, the GES is also attractive as its multi-item nature allows the researcher to form latent
variables that are able to control for measurement error. Remember that Krosnick, Judd, and Wittenbrink (2005)
contended that multi-item measures are more instructive, especially with regards to construct validity. The
answer to the question, ‘Which measure to use?’, then boils down to the researchers’ intention(s). For example, if
one is aiming to assess attitudes towards multiple outgroups, as research on the secondary transfer effect of con-
tact requires (see Lolliot et al., 2013 ;Tausch et al., 2010 ), or if space is limited in the survey instrument, then feel-
ing thermometers may prove optimal. On the other hand, if space allows, the GES /C0with its ability to form
latent attitude variables that are internally consistent and show good construct validity /C0should be used.
GENERAL EVALUATION SCALE
Please describe how you feel about [outgroup] in
general:
1.warm-cold (reverse coded)
2.negative /C0positive
3.friendly /C0hostile (reverse coded)
4.suspicious /C0trusting
5.respect /C0contempt (reverse coded)
6.admiration /C0disgust (reverse coded)
Short form
1.negative-positive
2.hostile /C0friendly
3.suspicious /C0trusting
4.contempt /C0respect
Note: Reproduced with permission.
Future Research Directions
We have endeavored to provide a well-functioning
‘toolkit’ consisting of measures of the most important
theoretical constructs to researchers interested in
contact theory. We call for future researchers toinvestigate the psychometr ic properties of the mea-
sures covered in this chapter as well as other inter-
group contact measures. Where possible, we have
contrasted two or more measures of a construct in an
attempt to provide multiple options when considering
hypotheses and questionna ire design and highlighted
what should be kept in mind when choosing a specific
measure.
Given the burgeoning diversity of many societies,
research on intergroup contact and its ameliorative
effects is needed now more than ever, so we emphasize
that the ‘tools’ we use in our investigations need to be
finely tuned. We hope that this chapter will help future
researchers to choose the best measures to test theoreti-
cal advances and practical applications of intergroup
contact theory.
We believe that we have provided compelling evi-
dence for the psychometric properties for the constructs
that appear in this chapter. It should be nonetheless kept
in mind that we strongly advocate that future research
seeks to formally establish the results presented in this
chapter.679 MODERATORS OF THE INTERGROUP CONTACT TO OUTGROUP ATTITUDES RELATIONSHIP
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT