Page 187 - Ana Kozina and Nora Wiium, eds. ▪︎ Positive Youth Development in Contexts. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2021. Digital Library, Dissertationes (Scientific Monographs), 42.
P. 187
contact-based interventions to reduce ethnic prejudice ...
that accompanies cognitive appraisal) and behavioural (i.e. negative behav-
iour towards members of the outgroup) (Brown in Brenick, et al., 2019).
Cognitive outcomes included stereotypes and attitudes towards the out-
group, perceived similarity with the outgroup, and perceived importance
of future contact with the outgroup. Affective outcomes included negative
emotions, intergroup anxiety, and fear of rejection by members of the out-
group, while behavioural outcomes included intentions of making inter-
group contact, intentions to help an outgroup member, readiness for social
intergroup contact, propensity to discriminate, and intention to self-dis-
close to outgroup members. Some studies are included in multiple catego-
ries since they include more than one age group, type of intervention, or
outcome of intervention. A description of the studies is given in Table 2.
Computation and testing of effect sizes
For each measured outcome, Cohen’s d was provided either from the article
or was calculated from the sample size, mean and standard deviation of the
control and experimental group with Psychometrica (Lenhard & Lenhard,
2016). We calculated the mean effect size and 95% confidence interval for
every category recorded. Every reported effect size that fit a certain cate-
gory was included in the calculation of the mean effect size and 95% con-
fidence interval. The number of effect sizes (n), mean effect size (d+) and
95% confidence interval were reported for each researched category. Results
were interpreted according to Cohen (in Lenhard & Lenhard, 2016), with
values less than 0 denoting an adverse effect, 0 to 0.1 a negligible effect, 0.2
to 0.4 a small effect, 0.5 to 0.7 a moderate effect and 0.8 to 1.0 a large effect.
Positive effects (d > 0) were regarded as successful intervention implemen-
tation and an attitude improvement towards ethnic outgroups, while nega-
tive effects of interventions (d < 0) were regarded as an ineffective or detri-
mental effect on prejudice or related outcomes.
Assessment of article quality
A quality assessment was performed using an adapted version of Joanna
Briggs checklist for Randomized Control Trials (Tufanaru et al., 2017). We
excluded criteria which required the blindness of intervention administra-
tors (5th criterion), intention to treat analysis (9th criterion) and appropri-
ateness of the RCT design depending on the patients’ condition (13th crite-
rion), because they only applied to RCT interventions in medical research.
Other criteria were adapted to assess the quality of psychological research.
187
that accompanies cognitive appraisal) and behavioural (i.e. negative behav-
iour towards members of the outgroup) (Brown in Brenick, et al., 2019).
Cognitive outcomes included stereotypes and attitudes towards the out-
group, perceived similarity with the outgroup, and perceived importance
of future contact with the outgroup. Affective outcomes included negative
emotions, intergroup anxiety, and fear of rejection by members of the out-
group, while behavioural outcomes included intentions of making inter-
group contact, intentions to help an outgroup member, readiness for social
intergroup contact, propensity to discriminate, and intention to self-dis-
close to outgroup members. Some studies are included in multiple catego-
ries since they include more than one age group, type of intervention, or
outcome of intervention. A description of the studies is given in Table 2.
Computation and testing of effect sizes
For each measured outcome, Cohen’s d was provided either from the article
or was calculated from the sample size, mean and standard deviation of the
control and experimental group with Psychometrica (Lenhard & Lenhard,
2016). We calculated the mean effect size and 95% confidence interval for
every category recorded. Every reported effect size that fit a certain cate-
gory was included in the calculation of the mean effect size and 95% con-
fidence interval. The number of effect sizes (n), mean effect size (d+) and
95% confidence interval were reported for each researched category. Results
were interpreted according to Cohen (in Lenhard & Lenhard, 2016), with
values less than 0 denoting an adverse effect, 0 to 0.1 a negligible effect, 0.2
to 0.4 a small effect, 0.5 to 0.7 a moderate effect and 0.8 to 1.0 a large effect.
Positive effects (d > 0) were regarded as successful intervention implemen-
tation and an attitude improvement towards ethnic outgroups, while nega-
tive effects of interventions (d < 0) were regarded as an ineffective or detri-
mental effect on prejudice or related outcomes.
Assessment of article quality
A quality assessment was performed using an adapted version of Joanna
Briggs checklist for Randomized Control Trials (Tufanaru et al., 2017). We
excluded criteria which required the blindness of intervention administra-
tors (5th criterion), intention to treat analysis (9th criterion) and appropri-
ateness of the RCT design depending on the patients’ condition (13th crite-
rion), because they only applied to RCT interventions in medical research.
Other criteria were adapted to assess the quality of psychological research.
187
