The following is an excerpt of the intervention methodology. For more information, please see the full text of the article on the publisher's website or through your institution's library.

Participants Two hundred and fifty-three White British children (116 boys, 137 girls) from 10 primary (elementary) schools were tested. The age of the children ranged from 5 years 0 months to 11 years 11 months. There were two age groups: 5 – 8 years (n = 135) and 9 – 11 years (n = 133). The mean age in the younger age group was 7 years 2 months (SD = 5.96 months) and the mean age of the older age group was 10 years 6 months (SD = 7.12 months). The children attended schools in mixed social class suburban or rural areas outside a large metropolitan city in the south-east region of England. [...] Approximately equal numbers of children in each age group were randomly assigned to each intervention condition: control (n = 54), decategorization (n = 70), common ingroup identity (n = 68), and dual identity (n = 69). In order to create a truly random sample, rather than assigning conditions to whole school classes, children in each class were individually and randomly assigned to any of the four conditions.

Design The study used a between-participants design: a 4 (intervention condition: control, dual identity, decategorization, common ingroup identity, and dual identity) x 2 (age group: 5 – 8 and 9 – 11 years) x 2 (English identity: high vs. low).

Procedure Initially, in all conditions the term ‘‘refugee’’ was explained using educational materials. [...] There were three types of extended contact intervention, based on common ingroup identity, dual identity, and decategorization theories of intergroup contact. In the control condition the children did not experience any form of extended contact with the refugee group. The extended contact interventions each entailed reading stories to the children, which involved ingroup members who had close friendships with outgroup members (i.e., refugees). [...] The refugee and English characters were all presented in a positive light. [...] After each reading session, and still in their small groups, children took part in a group discussion of the story, which was led by the fourth author. In each condition, the poststory discussion was varied according to the theories of intergroup contact. These intervention sessions (approximately 15 – 20 min) occurred once a week for 6 consecutive weeks. [...]

Decategorization intervention. In these stories emphasis was placed on the individual preferences and qualities of the refugee characters (e.g., they are good at football, like animals, enjoy playing computer games). The children were asked to remember individual characteristics of the children within the stories. These were discussed further in the poststory discussions. Children were asked to examine the similarities and differences between the characters. [...]

Common ingroup identity intervention. In this condition a common ingroup identity was made salient to which the ingroup and outgroup members in the story and the participant themselves could be members. This superordinate identity was the school attended by the participant, and the in- and outgroup characters were said to attend the participant’s school. [...]

Dual identity intervention. This technique was identical to that used in the common ingroup identity intervention. However, as well as emphasizing the common ingroup identity (i.e., school), the characters’ subgroup memberships (i.e., refugee and English) were also emphasized. The typicality of the refugee characters with regard to their own subgroup was also stressed throughout the stories and in the group discussions. [...] Children in all conditions were administered the dependent measures in an individual interview. The majority of these interviews were conducted by the first author, with a minority administered by other researchers, who were all blind to the condition of each child. [...]

Dependent Measures The interview took place in two sessions counterbalanced for order, each lasting approximately 15 – 20 min.

Intergroup attitude. This measure was used to derive separate indices of ingroup attitude and outgroup attitude. The children rated positive and negative traits to indicate how many ingroup, English people, and outgroup, refugees in England, were that way. Children were presented with seven positive and seven negative words. [...] First, the children were shown a collage made of people representing the ‘‘refugee’’ group. These people were all non-Caucasian and from a number of different ethnic minority groups. Children were told these people were refugees. Children were also shown a collage of faces, the majority of which were White, and told that these were English people. [...] The children had to choose from pictures representing different numbers of stick people. [...] Positive and negative ingroup and outgroup attitude scores were then calculated by summing the corresponding traits. [...] Ingroup attitude was then calculated by subtracting the negative score for the ingroup from the positive score for ingroup. [...] The same calculation was used to derive an outgroup attitude score. Intended behavior measure. [...] Children were presented with two hypothetical scenarios, in randomized order, in which they were asked to imagine they were at the park and met a child they knew from school. The two scenarios were identical, but in one scenario the child in the story was English and in the other scenario the child was a refugee. For each scenario children were asked to indicate how much they would like to play with the target, how much they would like the target, how much they would like to have them over to their house for a meal and to stay overnight. Participants responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale using smiley faces to indicate the extent to which they would like to engage in that behavior with the target [...].

Subgroup (national) identity measure. The children’s English identity was measured using four questions: ‘‘Do you consider yourself to be really English?’’ ‘‘Do you like being English?’’ ‘‘Are you proud to be English?’’ ‘‘How important is it to you that you are English?’’ Children responded by pointing to a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much so). [...]

Inclusion of IOS. This measure was included as a potential mediator of extended contact. It included two questions that evaluated how closely the children perceived their ‘‘self’’ and ‘‘collective self’’ to refugees. First, children were asked to imagine they met a refugee child. Then the children were presented with pairs of circles with a stick figure in each to represent themselves (i.e., their self) and the refugee child. There were three versions of pairs with different degrees of overlap between the circles: no overlap (0), which indicated low IOS; partial overlap (1), which indicated intermediate IOS; complete overlap (2), which indicated high IOS. Children were asked to point to the pair of circles that best represented their closeness to the refugee child. Second, children were asked to imagine another English child. The stick figure was then changed within one circle in the pairs to represent an English child instead of the child themselves. Next the children were presented with a similar set of circles in pairs, and asked to point to the pair of circles that best represented the English child’s closeness to the refugee child. [...]