that intergroup contact is an actual behavior whereas the social distance scale measures an intention towards con-
tact), their results indicated that these two constructs are, in fact, distinct.
Lastly, in a CFA, Swart et al. (2011) found that the two CGF items loaded strongly and significantly onto their
designated latent variable at each time point (all factor loadings were equal to or larger than .72). Swart et al.
(2010, Studies 1 and 2) found that the two-item CGF measure demonstrated metric invariance between two popu-
lation groups (mixed-race and White South African high school samples).
Criterion/Predictive
Turner et al. (2007a, Study 3) reported that respondents who had greater opportunities for engaging in contact
with outgroup members also reported having more cross-group friendships (e.g., β5.30). Cross-group friend-
ships have been shown to predict reduced intergroup anxiety ( Swart et al., 2010; Swart et al., 2011 ), greater affec-
tive empathy (e.g., Swart et al., 2010 ;Swart et al., 2011 ), greater self-disclosure (e.g., . β5.34 and .63, Turner et al.,
2007a , Studies 3 and 4, respectively), more favorable outgroup attitudes ( Swart et al., 2010; Swart et al., 2011 ), less
social distance ( β5/C0.05,Binder et al., 2009 ) and fewer negative emotions ( β5/C0.10,Binder et al., 2009 ).
Location
Turner, R.N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007a). Reducing explicit and implicit outgroup prejudice via direct
and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 93 , 369/C0388.
Results and Comments
Cross-group friendships are considered to be the strongest dimension of direct contact, impacting on a wide
range of outcomes ( Davies et al., 2011; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006 ). They embody both contact quantity and quality
(Pettigrew, 1998 ), and, as such, form a useful measure as an alternative to assessing contact quantity and quality
separately. Cross-group friendships have been successfully used as a two-item measure, measuring the number
of outgroup friends and how much time is spent interacting with these outgroup friends, or as a more compre-
hensive four-item measure, among younger children, adolescents, and adults, making it an indispensable part of
a contact researcher’s toolkit.
An obvious limitation of all measures of contact to date is their reliance on self-reports. However, Hewstone,
Judd, and Sharp (2011) demonstrated that respondents’ ratings of their own intergroup contact were highly corre-
lated with observer ratings. Their research included two items measuring cross-group friendships that were
almost identical to those used in Turner et al. (2007a, Study 3) , as well as contact quantity and quality items
based on those found in Islam and Hewstone (1993) . Therefore, the Hewstone et al. (2011) study lends crucial
support to the convergent validity of such self-report measures of intergroup contact using the items we have
highlighted here (see also Dhont, Van Hiel, De Bolle, & Roets, 2012 , for additional evidence).
CROSS-GROUP FRIENDSHIPS SCALE
1.How many close friends do you have at school who
are [outgroup]?
2.How many close friends do you have outside school
who are [outgroup]?
3.How often do you spend time with [outgroup]
friends when you are at school?
4.How often do you spend time with [outgroup]
friends outside school?
Notes:
Scale for items 1 and 2: 15none,25one,
35between two and five ,45between five and ten ,
55more than ten .
Scale for items 3 and 4: 15never ,25occasionally ,
35sometimes ,45quite a lot ,55all the time .The two item measure used in Study 3 included the
items:
1.How many [outgroup] friends do you have at
University?
2.How often do you spend time with [outgroup]
friends when you are at University?
Notes:
Scale for item 1: 15none,25one,35between two
and five ,45between five and ten ,55more than ten .
Scale for item 2: 15never ,25occasionally ,
35sometimes ,45quite a lot ,55all the time .658 23. MEASURES OF INTERGROUP CONTACT
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT