(i)Negative Experiences Inventory ( Stephan, Stephan, Demitrakis, Yamada, & Clason, 2000 )
(ii)Valenced Contact ( Barlow, Paolini, & Pedersen, 2012; Pettigrew, 2008 )
Mediators of the Effects of Intergroup Contact on Outgroup Attitudes
5.Intergroup Anxiety ( Stephan & Stephan, 1985 )
Moderators of the Relationship Between Intergroup Contact and Outgroup Attitudes
6.Salience of Group Memberships
(i)Measure 1 ( Voci & Hewstone, 2003 )
(ii)Measure 2 ( Harwood, Hewstone, Paolini, & Voci, 2005 )
Measuring Attitudes Towards Outgroups
7.Outgroup Attitudes
(i)Feeling Thermometers ( Converse, Dotson, Hoag, & McGee, 1980 )
(ii)The General Evaluation Scale ( Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997 )
OVER VIEW OF THE MEASURES
We aim to provide the researcher with a ‘toolkit’: a set of psychometrically sound measures that can be used
by both the novice and experienced intergroup contact researcher. We also hope that this chapter will help shape
the future of intergroup contact research. For example, while we are aware of the beneficial effects of positive
contact and the mechanisms through which it improves outgroup attitudes, we echo the call for more research
into the effects of negative contact experiences (e.g., Pettigrew, 2008 ). Understanding both the positive and nega-
tive influences of intergroup contact, and, especially, how they interact, can only help researchers, policy makers,
and governments better understand and tackle the opportunities, and sometimes the challenges, faced by indivi-
duals living in diverse societies. However, in order to not overstate our claims, it is important to first highlight
some of the methodological considerations that need to be kept in mind while reading this chapter.
With the exception of one article ( Stephan & Stephan, 1985 ), no research has been published with the sole pur-
pose of testing the psychometric properties of the measures presented below, either by using Campbell and Fiske’s
(1959) multitrait /C0multimethod matrix (MTMM), or confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) techniques (e.g., Marsh &
Hocevar, 1988 ). We have had to rely on a rather ‘post-hoc’ analysis of the available correlation tables, exploratory
factor analyses (EFA), and CFAs (often used as part of structural equation modeling protocols, see Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988 ). We have tried to identify correlation tables that make use of some form of MTMM. With regard to
factorial validity, we have sought evidence from reported EFAs and CFAs. Such evidence also helps demonstrate
convergent validity (if the individual items are loaded significantly by their expected factor; Anderson & Gerbing,
1988 ), and divergent validity (if the items are loaded only by their hypothesized factor). Lastly, we have tried to find
this evidence (replicating where possible) from samples drawn from different age groups and different countries
to provide confidence in the psychometric soundness of the scale under investigation. Where possible, we have
also included standardized regression weights when discussing predictive validity to give an idea of the strength
of the relationship between two variables (controlling for the other variables present in the respective models). If
no regression weights are reported, it is either because unstandardized regression weights were originally
reported, or it was unclear whether standardized or unstandardized weights were being reported.
Our measures assess constructs that we expect to change over time. For example, given an intervention to pro-
mote positive intergroup contact, we would expect contact to increase and become more positive, anxiety to
decrease, and attitudes to become more positive (or at least less negative). While social psychologists do think of
(outgroup) attitudes, especially, as fairly stable dispositions, it is strong attitudes that are more temporally
stable over time ( Visser & Krosnick, 1998 ). We also expect attitudes to change depending on situational circum-
stances. In fact, Wilson, Lindsey, and Schooler (2000) proposed that explicit attitudes change relatively easily, while
Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, and Howard (1997) noted that attitudes vary as a function of whether they
are expressed privately or in public. These considerations notwithstanding, it is useful to have information about
the psychometric properties of the measures that we use, which we have endeavored to provide.653 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT