Extended Contact via Work Colleagues, Neighbors, Friends, and Family Members
(Tausch et al., 2011 ).
Variable
While the benefits of direct intergroup contact are well established ( Davies et al., 2011; Pettigrew & Tropp,
2006 ), research also shows that people can benefit from intergroup contact without having it themselves. To this
end, Wright and colleagues (1997) introduced the extended contact hypothesis: prejudice can be reduced by know-
ing that an ingroup member has an outgroup friend. In four studies /C0two correlational and two experimental /C0
Wright and colleagues showed that individuals who reported knowing an ingroup member with an outgroup
friend also reported lower prejudice scores. Since the publication of the Wright et al. paradigmatic article, much
research has supported this basic tenet (even after controlling for direct contact; for a review, see Turner et al.,
2007b ). Recent research has begun to test Wright’s original ideas in full ( Turner, Hewstone, Voci, & Vonofakou,
2008 ) and expand the theory of extended contact. For example, extended contact is especially effective in segre-
gated areas, where opportunities for direct intergroup contact with the outgroup are low, and among respon-
dents with lower levels of direct contact (Christ et al., 2010).
Although measures of extended and direct cross-group friendships are typically highly correlated, extended
contact and direct contact achieve reduced prejudice through different mediating mechanisms. For example,
extended contact is thought to reduce prejudice by changing one’s perception of the social norms surrounding
the outgroup ( Turner et al., 2008; Wright et al., 1997 ) whereas direct contact works especially by reducing inter-
group anxiety (see below; Islam & Hewstone, 1993 ) and by promoting self-disclosure (e.g., Turner & Feddes,
2011 ) and empathy ( Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008 ). Given the increasingly important role
that is being afforded to extended contact in intergroup research, we include the construct as part of our toolkit
for intergroup contact research.
Measures used to tap a respondent’s level of extended contact typically ask respondents to rate the number of
ingroup members they know to have friends from a given outgroup ( Wright et al., 1997 ). There are, however, dif-
ferent types of ‘ingroup members’ to which the question could refer. Traditionally, extended contact effects have
been studied by asking if the participant has a close ingroup friend (e.g., Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns, & Voci,
2004 ) or family member (e.g., Turner et al., 2007a , Studies 2 and 3) who has an outgroup friend. Research often
aggregates across the different ingroup exemplars (i.e., friends and family members) to yield an index of
extended contact. For example, Turner et al. (2008) formed composite measures of overall extended contact using
extended contact via general ingroup members, friends, best friends, and family members. It should be noted,
however, that extended contact via different ingroup exemplars has differential effects on outgroup attitudes.
Tausch et al. (2011) found that the closer the relationship between the respondents and the ingroup exemplar
was (e.g., ingroup neighbor versus family member), the stronger the positive association between extended con-
tact and outgroup trust. Given these results, we will focus on the items used to measure extended contact in the
Tausch et al. (2011) study as it represents the most systematic investigation into the differential effects of different
types of extended contact and provides the most complete set of items to do so.
Description
The Tausch et al. extended contact measures use four items each to tap extended contact experiences with an
outgroup through ingroup friends and family. Extended contact via neighbors and work colleagues was assessed
using three items. All items were rated on a six-point rating scale. Higher extended contact scores indicate more
extended contact with the outgroup.
Sample
Tausch and colleagues (2011) used an adult sample ( N5424, Mage545.81 years, SD515.76) of Northern Irish
respondents to investigate the effects of the different types of extended contact on outgroup trust. The composite
means were as follows: extended contact via neighbors ( M52.61, SD51.04), work colleagues ( M52.48,
SD50.90), ingroup friends ( M52.70, SD51.00), and family members ( M52.73, SD51.08).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients were reported for extended contact via neighbors (.73), colleagues (.75), ingroup
friends (.84), and family members (.81; Tausch et al., 2011 ).659 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT