Barlow et al. (2012, Study 2) also employed VC questions, although their scale only used single items. The
wording of their questions was also more generalized than the experience-based items discussed thus far. The
items were rated on a 7-point rating scale. Higher scores on the single negative contact item represent more nega-
tive contact experiences. Similarly, higher scores on the positive contact item represent more positive contact.
Sample
Pettigrew’s (2008) eight items for positive and negative contact were conducted as part of a larger telephone
survey taken from a 2004 sample of German citizens ( N51383). Participants were 16 years and older.
TheBarlow et al. (2012) items were designed specifically to assess the relative predictive power of positive ver-
sus negative contact on a range of dependent variables in an online sample of White Americans ( N5416,
Mage524.6, SD57.45). Barlow et al. reported the mean value for positive contact as M54.97 ( SD51.36), and for
negative contact as M53.01 ( SD51.40).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Pettigrew’s (2008) composite negative contact variable yielded a moderate Cronbach alpha coefficient
(α50.78), as did the positive contact scale ( α50.78).
Test/C0Retest
No information is currently available indicating test /C0retest reliability.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Pettigrew’s (2008) measure of negative contact correlated positively with anti-Muslim prejudice ( r5.30). The
Barlow et al. (2012) negative contact item correlated positively with modern racism ( r#.31), old-fashioned rac-
ism ( r#.27), active outgroup avoidance ( r#.25), and issue avoidance ( r5.29).4
Divergent/Discriminant
Pettigrew’s (2008) measures of negative and positive contact correlated negatively and significantly with each
other ( r#/C0.18) as did the Barlow et al. (2012) negative and positive contact items ( r#/C0.26). Furthermore,
Pettigrew’s (2008) positive contact scale correlated significantly and negatively with anti-Muslim prejudice
(r5/C0.41) and the Barlow et al. positive contact item correlated negatively and significantly with modern racism
(r#/C0.22), old-fashioned racism ( r#/C0.20), active outgroup avoidance ( r#/C0.21), and issue avoidance
(r5/C0.23).
Construct/Factor Analytic
No factor analytic information has been provided to-date.
Criterion/Predictive
Individual threat ( β5.31) and collective threat ( β5.18) were both significantly positively associated with
Pettigrew’s (2008) measure of negative contact. The equivalent coefficients for the positive contact measure were
also significant, but negative (individual threat β5/C0.15; collective threat β5/C0.12). The Barlow et al. (2012) nega-
tive contact item was positively associated with modern racism ( β5.27), old-fashioned racism ( β5.24), active
outgroup avoidance ( β5.20), and issue avoidance ( β5.25). Their positive contact item, on the other hand, was
negatively and significantly associated with modern racism ( β5/C0.15), old-fashioned racism ( β5/C0.13), active
outgroup avoidance ( β5/C0.16), and issue avoidance ( β5/C0.16).
4Active outgroup avoidance, in this study, was conceptualized as the extent to which participants overtly avoided intergroup encounters
whereas issue avoidance was conceptualized as the extent to which participants avoided intergroup topics that could be considered
‘sensitive’.664 23. MEASURES OF INTERGROUP CONTACT
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT