Results and Comments
CQCQ are important predictors of reduced outgroup prejudice, yet their effects on outcome measures are dis-
tinct; contact quality is often considered a stronger negative predictor of intergroup anxiety and prejudice than is
contact quantity (e.g., Islam & Hewstone, 1993 ;Tausch, Hewstone et al., 2007 ). Given these differential effects,
exploring the outcomes of distinct dimensions of direct contact offers a nuanced view of the relationship between
contact and prejudice and greater insights into how prejudice may be reduced via intergroup contact.
GENERAL INTERGROUP CONTACT QUANTITY AND
CONTACT QUALITY SCALE
Contact quantity
How much contact do you have with [outgroup] ...
1. ...at college
2. ...as neighbors
3. ...as close friends
Scaled from 1 5none at all to 75a great deal
How often have you ...
1. ...engaged in informal conversations with outgroup
members
2. ...visited the homes of outgroup members
Scaled from 1 5not at all to 75very oftenContact quality
To what extent did you experience the contact with
[outgroup] as ...
1. ...equal (1 5definitely not to75definitely yes )
2. ...involuntary or voluntary (1 5definitely involuntary
to75definitely voluntary )
3. ...superficial or intimate (1 5very superficial to
75very intimate )
4. ...pleasant (1 5not at all to75very)
5. ...competitive or cooperative (1 5very competitive to
75very cooperative )
Cross-Group Friendships (CGF)
(Turner et al., 2007a ).
Variable
Cross-group friendships are considered to be a particularly beneficial form of intergroup contact because they
are characterized by frequent interactions (contact quantity) that are more likely to be characterized by Allport’s
(1954) ‘optimal’ conditions (contact quality; Pettigrew, 1998 ). A number of cross-sectional studies, spanning a
variety of contexts, participants, and outgroups have reported a reliable negative relationship between cross-
group friendships and a range of prejudice measures (for reviews see Turner, Hewstone, Voci, Paolini, & Christ,
2007b ;Vonofakou et al., 2008 ). The meta-analytic findings of Pettigrew and Tropp (2006; see also Davies et al.,
2011) provide clear support for the effects of cross-group friendships on prejudice reduction. They reported that
the 154 tests that included cross-group friendship as a measure of contact showed a significantly stronger nega-
tive relationship with prejudice (mean r5/C0.25) than did the remaining 1211 tests that did not use cross-group
friendships as a measure of contact (mean r5/C0.21; the difference between the two correlation coefficients was
significant, p,.05).
Self-reported cross-group friendships are generally measured on an aggregate level in terms of the number
of friendships a respondent has from one or more outgroups, the frequency of the interactions with these
cross-group friends, and the quality of these interactions. As such, these measures are similar to those of contact
quantity and quality developed by Islam and Hewstone (1993) ; however, they refer to the quantity and quality of
contact with outgroup friends in particular as opposed to with members of the outgroup in general (e.g., Binder
et al., 2009 ). In this section, we will review one of the more popular scales used to measure cross-group friend-
ships, Turner et al.’s (2007a) cross-group friendship scale.
Description
Turner et al. (2007a) offered a four-item cross-group friendships inventory (Study 3) as well as closely related
abbreviated two-item (Studies 1 and 4) and three-item (Study 2) version of the scale. Here, we will focus on the
two-item (Study 4) and four-item (Study 3) measures. Turner et al. (2007a) used a five-point rating scale for both656 23. MEASURES OF INTERGROUP CONTACT
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT