Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: THEend8_
PSYC2017 Report – Method and Results
Note: The Method and Results reported below are only a subset of the data that were
collected. That is, not all of the measures and experimental groups are included, and you
should only base your assignment on the measures and analyses that are reported here.
Method
Participants and Design
A sample of 312 PSYC2017 students who identified as Anglo White were included in
this study. The mean age of participants was 20.46 (SD = 3.32) and 72% identified their
gender as female. The remaining 28% identified their gender as male. The study had a 2
(conceptualisation of racism: systemic vs individual) x 2 (quality of intergroup contact: high
vs low) design. The dependent variable was collective action.
Procedure and Materials
Participants completed the study using university computers during an introductory
PSYC2017 tutorial. The study was accessible via an online Qualtrics questionnaire. After
reading the Participant Information Statement and providing their informed consent,
participants answered the demographic questions (e.g., age, gender, racial group
membership).
Next, participants were asked about the quality of their previous intergroup contact
experiences with the outgroup (i.e., racial minority people) using items adapted from Islam
and Hewstone’s (1993) intergroup contact measure. Participants rated their typical intergroup
contact experiences based on six descriptions, via 7-point Likert scales (e.g., 1 = very
unpleasant, 7 = very pleasant).
Participants were then randomly presented with a passage conceptualising racism in
today’s society as either a systemic issue or an individual issue, with text adapted from Miller
et al. (2021) and Rucker et al. (2019). The systemic conceptualisation of racism passage
2
claimed that research had found racism to be mainly a systemic issue. Following a short
explanation, examples of systemic racism were provided (e.g., “government policies that
disproportionately harm certain racial groups”). Likewise, the individual conceptualisation of
racism passage claimed that research had found racism to be mainly an individual issue.
Following a short explanation, examples of individual racism were provided (e.g., “a person
makes racial stereotypes and assumptions about someone from a racial minority group”). A
manipulation check was then administered.
Finally, eight items were presented to measure participants’ willingness to engage in
collective action for racial justice, adapted from Kelly & Breinlinger (1996). Whether
participants were willing to engage in each of these actions (e.g., “contact government
officials regarding racial justice issues”) was measured using 7-point Likert scales (1 =
strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
An attention check item was included in the questionnaire, with participants
subsequently removed from analysis if they failed this check (see Marjanovic et al., 2014).
Participants were debriefed upon questionnaire completion.
Results
Prior to analysis, the mean of participants’ scores on the six quality of intergroup
contact items was calculated to create a single score for each participant (α = .87). This score
was then dichotomised such that those with a score greater than the scale’s midpoint (i.e., 4)
were assigned to the high quality of intergroup contact condition, while participants with a
score lower than the scale’s midpoint were assigned to the low quality of intergroup contact
condition. Two participants who scored precisely at the scale’s midpoint were removed from
analysis. Scores on the eight collective action items were also averaged to produce a single
collective action score for each participant (α = .88). There were no significant differences in
3
the age and gender composition of each experimental condition (ps > .05). The distribution of
participant numbers across conditions is presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Number of Participants (N = 312) in Each Conceptualisation of Racism and Quality of
Intergroup Contact Condition
Systemic Conceptualisation Individual Conceptualisation
High Quality of Contact 91 92
Low Quality of Contact 66 63
Main Analyses
A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with collective action as the dependent
variable was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 28). This ANOVA revealed a
positive main effect for contact quality, F(1, 308) = 15.148, p = .002, η2 = .069. Those with
high quality of contact with the outgroup were more willing to engage in collective action
than those with low quality of contact. Meanwhile, the main effect for conceptualisations of
racism was non-significant, F(1, 308) = 7.944, p = .078, η2 = .011. However, the interaction
effect between conceptualisations of racism and contact quality was significant, F(1, 308) =
14.283, p = .004, η2 = .059. Specifically, among those exposed to a systemic
conceptualisation of racism, high quality of contact with the outgroup was associated with
greater collective action. Among those exposed to an individual conceptualisation of racism,
quality of contact had no effect. This interaction is depicted in Figure 1.