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

In Experiment 1, we investigated whether it is possible to improve the effectiveness of the imagined contact paradigm by adding indicators of cross-group friendship—interaction and intimacy—to the standard imagined contact scenario. [...]

Participants and Procedure We recruited a nonstudent convenience sample (N = 99) aged between 25 and 45 years and who live in Istanbul, Turkey (43 males, 56 females, M_age = 32, SD = 5.99). All participants’ nationality was Turkish. [...] Participants were randomly assigned to three different conditions: standard positive contact condition, interaction condition (standard positive contact with friendship potential indicated by sustained interaction), and intimacy condition (standard positive contact with friendship potential indicated by the generation of close interpersonal processes). [...] Participants were asked to imagine a positive contact with a new Syrian neighbor in their building. [...] The following instruction was given: [Verbal Stimulus A]. In the interaction condition, we added cross-group friendship potential by implying the possibility of sustained interaction with the new Syrian neighbor with the following statement given right after the standard positive contact instruction: [Verbal Stimulus B]. In the intimacy condition, we focused on the possibility of the development of interpersonal processes such as trust and self-disclosure by adding the following statement to the standard condition: [Verbal Stimulus C]. In all conditions, participants were asked to explain briefly what they could have discussed with this person. [...]

Dependent Measures Unless otherwise stated, responses to all dependent measures were based on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 7. Outgroup attitudes were measured using a scale assessing feelings towards Syrian refugees on three bipolar adjectives (negative/positive, cold/warm, hostile/friendly) [...]. Outgroup trust was measured with four items [...].

Experiment 2

In Experiment 1, we tested the addition of intimacy and interaction as two distinct processes that imply the potential of building a future close cross-group friendship. [...]

Participants and Procedure We recruited 145 undergraduate students from a private university in Istanbul, Turkey (42 males, 102 females, 1 unknown, M_age = 21.45, SD = 1.90). All participants’ nationality was Turkish. [...] In the control condition, we used a nonrelevant neutral scene which is similar to previously used control conditions. [...] For the friendship potential and standard imagined contact conditions, we used the university campus as the background contact scenario to ensure a friendly environment. In the standard positive contact condition, we asked participants to imagine meeting a young Syrian student in the campus canteen and have a pleasant conversation for 15–20 minutes. The following instruction was given: [Stimulus A]. The same instruction in the positive contact condition was followed by: [Stimulus B]. In the control condition, participants were asked to write a paragraph where they described the outdoor setting they imagined; in the contact conditions, participants were asked to write what they could have talked about with the person they met. [...]

Dependent Measures Unless otherwise stated, a 7-point Likert scale was used for all items. Outgroup attitudes were assessed using an affective-based bipolar outgroup attitudes scale. Outgroup trust was measured with two items adapted from previous trust scales. [...] Behavioral intentions towards Syrian refugees were assessed using a three-item scale constructed for this study. [...]

Experiment 3

[...] Therefore, Experiment 3 was designed to improve the practicality of the friendship potential manipulation by using a simpler and more direct form of instruction. [...]

Participants and Procedure We recruited 79 undergraduate students from a private university in Istanbul, Turkey (18 males, 61 females, M_age = 20.53, SD = 1.43). All participants’ nationality was Turkish. Participants completed questionnaires in a psychology lab and were randomly allocated to three conditions. [...] In the control and standard imagined contact conditions, we used the same procedure and setting as in Experiment 2. In the control group, participants were given a nonrelevant neutral scene as the baseline condition, whereas in the standard imagined contact group, participants were given the typical instruction of “. . . you think how pleasant and interesting the conversation was. . .”. In the friendship potential condition, we gave the following statement right after the typical scenario: “Your conversation went so well that you think you could be close friends with this person.” Participants in the neutral condition were asked to report a detailed description of the scene they imagined. Participants in the standard contact and friendship potential conditions were asked to briefly describe their conversation with the Syrian student. [...]

Dependent Measures Unless otherwise stated, responses to all dependent measures were based on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 7. We measured outgroup attitudes (see Experiment 1 and 2) by asking participants to report their feelings on three bipolar adjectives [...]. Outgroup trust (see Experiment 2) was assessed with two items adapted from Voci’s (2006) Outgroup Trust Scale [...]. Behavioral intentions were measured by the approach intentions towards Syrian refugees. Perceived threat was measured by a four-item Symbolic Threat Scale asking participants to rate how threatening and enriching they found Syrian refugees on four symbolic threat items [...].