perhaps, unsurprising given that the genesis of contact theory lies in Allport’s (1954) conditions for optimal con-
tact. However, by their very nature, these conditions imply the possibility of suboptimal contact, which one
might infer as resulting in either a lack of change in intergroup relations, or, more troublingly, a change for the
worse. Studies of naturalistic contact (i.e., contact not specifically intended to improve intergroup relations) sug-
gest that without deliberate implementation of Allport’s optimal conditions, the consequences of contact can be
positive or negative (e.g., Dijker, 1987 ;Paolini, Harwood, & Rubin, 2010 ), while scenarios that explicitly violate
the optimal conditions have produced unequivocally negative results (e.g., Pettigrew, 1998 ).
Increasing group diversity promotes opportunities for both positive andnegative contact. Although some stud-
ies show a net reduction in prejudice in ethnically diverse areas (e.g., Wagner, Christ, Pettigrew, Stellmacher, &
Wolf, 2006 ), there is evidence that group diversity can engender higher levels of intergroup enmity (e.g., Cernat,
2010 ;Quillian, 1995 ). The potential prevalence and toxic influence of negative contact has led several authors
(e.g., Barlow et al., 2012 ;Pettigrew, 2008 ) to call for greater emphasis on this relatively understudied construct.
Given the important implications that negative outgroup experiences can have on intergroup relations (e.g.,
Barlow et al., 2012 ), we believe that this type of contact and its consequences needs to be moved up the future
contact research agenda. To this end, we now evaluate the measures of negative contact that exist and make
recommendations as to which items should form part of the toolkit.
Negative Experiences Inventory (NEI)
(Stephan et al., 2000 ).
Description
To our knowledge, the first attempt to investigate the effects of negative contact was a 17-item measure by
Stephan et al. (2000) who posited it to be an antecedent to intergroup threat. Negative contact was measured by
asking respondents to report how often they had experienced various examples of negative contact with out-
group members. A 9-point Likert-type rating scale, ranging from never tovery frequently , was used with higher
scores representing more negative contact. The approach of Stephan et al. to measuring negative contact based
on specific experiences has been adopted in a number of subsequent studies. For example, Stephan et al. (2002)
and Aberson and Gaffney (2008) utilized a shorter, 14-item version to assess negative intergroup contact, the psy-
chometric properties of which we discuss below.
Sample
For their full 17-item negative contact scale, Stephan et al. (2000) asked female undergraduates from New
Mexico (Study 1: N5125; Study 3: N5194) and Hawaii (Study 2: N5161) about their negative contact experi-
ences with men. The authors reported the means for each study as follows: Study 1, M544.13; Study 2,
M536.00; Study 3, M538.60 (no standard deviations were reported).
The shorter 14-item NEI version ( Stephan et al., 2002 ) was first used to assess negative contact experiences
between Black and White students from across the US ( N51011, Mage518.9 years). The same 14-item scale was
used by Aberson and Gaffney (2008) with a sample of White undergraduates ( N5386, Mage520.9 years,
SD55.1).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
The 17-item NEI measure ( Stephan et al., 2000 ) showed high Cronbach alpha coefficients across all three sam-
ples: Study 1: α5.91; Study 2: α5.93; Study 3: α5.90. The reduced 14-item version of the measure also exhib-
ited high alpha coefficients ( Stephan et al., 2002 , White sample: α50.94; Black sample α50.95; Aberson &
Gaffney, 2008 ,α50.94).
Test/C0Retest
No information is available indicating test /C0retest reliability to-date.661 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT