Substantial empirical research supports Allport’s (1954) hypothesis that intergroup contact can, and typically
does, reduce prejudice towards outgroup members (e.g., Brown & Hewstone, 2005 ;Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006 ).
Central to the study of the effects of intergroup contact on outgroup prejudice is the operationalization or concep-
tualization of intergroup contact. An important distinction must be made between the opportunity for contact /C0
the potential for intergroup contact to occur as a function of the degree of diversity within a given context
(Wagner, Hewstone, & Machliet, 1989 )/C0and actual direct intergroup encounters (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006 ). While
opportunities for contact are sometimes considered as an approximation of face-to-face intergroup contact (e.g.,
Prestwich, Kenworthy, Wilson, & Kwan-Tat, 2008 ), it cannot be assumed that because ingroup and outgroup
members are in close proximity to one another that they are interacting with each other (e.g., Khmelkov &
Hallinan, 1999 ). Any investigation into the relationship between intergroup contact and outgroup prejudice needs
to include a measure of direct interactions between ingroup and outgroup members. Here we discuss three mea-
sures of direct contact that are central to the study of intergroup contact and its effects on outgroup prejudice,
namely contact quantity, contact quality, and cross-group friendships.
General Intergroup Contact Quantity and Contact Quality (CQCQ)
(Islam & Hewstone, 1993 ).
Variable
Contact quantity relates to the frequency with which someone has direct intergroup encounters whereas con-
tact quality reflects the extent to which face-to-face intergroup encounters are experienced positively or
negatively.
Description
Islam and Hewstone (1993) undertook one of the earliest studies to explore the differential impact of self-
reported CQCQ on outgroup prejudice (see sample details below). Islam and Hewstone measured contact quan-
tity and contact quality using five items each. While the five contact quantity items ask respondents how much
contact they have had with the chosen outgroup in a variety of settings, the five contact quality items assess the
overall valence of the contact experience. A number of studies have used adapted three-item and four-item ver-
sions of Islam and Hewstone’s (1993) contact quantity measure, including student and adult samples in Italy
(e.g., Voci & Hewstone, 2003 ) and student samples in Northern Ireland (e.g., Tausch, Tam., Hewstone,
Kenworthy, and Cairns, 2007 ). Similarly, Islam and Hewstone’s (1993) contact quality measure has been adapted
and successfully applied as a two-item (e.g., Tausch, Hewstone, Kenworthy, Cairns, & Christ, 2007 ), three-item
(Voci & Hewstone, 2003 , Study 1), and four-item (e.g., Voci & Hewstone, 2003 , Study 2) measure. Sometimes,
adapted versions of both the contact quantity and quality measures have been used (e.g., Blascovich et al., 2001 ).
Islam and Hewstone originally chose seven-point anchors for their items. Other researchers have, however,
successfully used five-point rating scales (e.g., Voci & Hewstone, 2003 ). The contact quality items have also been
rated using a five or seven-point bipolar adjective scale (e.g., Tam, Hewstone, Kenworthy, & Cairns, 2009 ).
Higher scores on the contact quantity measure indicate having had more contact experiences with the chosen out-
group. Higher scores on the contact quality scale indicate having had more pleasant contact experiences with the
chosen outgroup.
Sample
The Islam and Hewstone (1993) study utilized a sample of 65 Hindu ( Mage523.06 years) and 66 Muslim
(Mage522.14 years) students attending a Bangladeshi university. Hindu respondents were asked about their
intergroup encounters with Muslims ( MContact quantity 54.99, MContact quality 54.54), and Muslim respondents were
asked about their intergroup encounters with Hindus ( MContact quantity 54.14, MContact quality 55.36).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Contact quantity formed an internally consistent measure for both of Islam and Hewstone’s (1993) sample
groups ( α5.90 and .82 for Hindus and Muslims, respectively; Islam, 1992 ). Neither Islam and Hewstone (1993)
norIslam (1992) reported Cronbach alpha coefficients for the contact quality measure.
Cronbach alpha coefficients for four-item measures of contact quantity range from .72 ( Voci & Hewstone,
2003 , Study 1) to .84 ( Tausch, Tam et al., 2007 , Study 2), while for three-item measures, alpha coefficients range654 23. MEASURES OF INTERGROUP CONTACT
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT