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.

Experiment 1

Participants and design. A total of 60 Greek Cypriot students at the University of Cyprus were randomly allocated to each of three conditions in a one-factor between-subjects design (20 participants / condition): “high similarity” condition (13 females, 7 males), “low similarity” condition (14 females, 6 males), “balanced similarity” condition (14 females, 6 males). [...]

Procedure. The participants were asked to imagine the scenario they were given for 1 minute. [...] the participants were asked to describe in as much detail as they wished the scene they had imagined immediately after the period of engaging in mental imagery. [...] The participants were then asked to imagine that through the conversation they discovered that the Turkish Cypriot stranger was in fact: a) Very similar to them and their ingroup in the “high similarity” condition [...] b) Different from them and their ingroup (“low similarity”) [...] c) Similar to as well as different from them and their ingroup (“balanced similarity”) [...]

Measures

Dependent variable. Attitudes towards Turkish Cypriots were measured by an 11-point thermometer-like scale on which participants had to indicate how they felt towards Turkish Cypriots. [...]

Mediating variables. Distinctiveness threat was measured via two items (r = .56, p < .001) that were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). [...] The participants were asked to rate on a Likert scale [...] to what extent they thought that Turkish Cypriots are similar to Greek Cypriots [...]

Control variable. Prior outgroup friendships were measured with one item asking the participants how many Turkish Cypriot friends they have (1 = none; 5 = a lot).

Experiment 2

Participants and design. Fifty Greek Cypriot undergraduate students (all female) studying at the University of Cyprus were randomly allocated to one of three conditions in a one-factor between-subjects design: (a) “balanced similarity” imagined contact condition (N = 17); (b) “standard” imagined contact condition (N = 17), and (c) control condition (N = 16). [...]

Procedure. The procedure was the same as in Experiment 1 with the only difference being the content of the scenarios the participants had to imagine. In the control condition the participants had to imagine a pleasant scene [...] The instructions were: [Verbal Stimulus 1...] The instructions for the scenario in the “standard” imagined contact condition were as follows: [Verbal Stimulus 2...] Lastly, the instructions for the scenario of the “balanced similarity” imagined contact condition were as follows: [Verbal Stimulus 3...]

Measures

Dependent variables. Attitudes towards Turkish Cypriots were measured in the same way as in Experiment 1, that is, via a feeling thermometer [...] Intergroup anxiety was measured using a fouritem measure [...] Contact self-efficacy was measured with three items [...] All items were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Action tendencies were measured via a three-item scale [...]

Control variable. Prior intergroup contact was measured via one item asking participants how much contact they had had with Turkish Cypriots (1 = no contact at all; 5 = a lot of contact).