Acculturation-Two Way Street

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Intercultural Relations

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel
Acculturation is a two-way street: Majorityminority

perspectives of outgroup acculturation preferences and the
mediating role of multiculturalism and threat
Laura Celeste a,b, , Rupert Brown a , Linda K. Tip a , Camilla Matera c
a
b
c
University of Sussex, Sussex, UK

University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
University of Florence, Florence, Italy
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 18 November 2013
Received in revised form
15 September 2014
Accepted 7 October 2014
Keywords:
Acculturation
Multiculturalism
Perceived threat
Behavioral investment
Intergroup emotions
Prejudice
a b s t r a c t
A 2 2 experimental design investigated the effects of perceived outgroup acculturation
preferences on intergroup outcomes for both the Hispanic-minority (N = 50) and EuropeanAmerican-majority (N = 163) in California, USA. Participants read fabricated interviews
which manipulated outgroup acculturation preferences for contact (high vs. low) and culture maintenance (high vs. low). For majority participants: Hispanics desire for contact
strongly predicted positive intergroup emotions and low prejudice; desire for culture maintenance only impacted emotions. These acculturation dimensions interacted, revealing
the most favorable intergroup outcomes for the high contact, high culture maintenance
condition (integration). Support for multiculturalism, along with realistic threat, mediated
these effects. Minority responses differed: for Hispanics, perceived European-Americans
acculturation preferences did not impact intergroup emotions or prejudice, but their support for multiculturalism did suppress the interaction of acculturation dimensions on
intergroup emotions. The acculturation attitude that exemplied American support for
multiculturalism differed for majority and minority participants (integration and separation, respectively). Further majorityminority discrepancies were found with a newly
developed measure of behavioral investment in acculturation.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
As a country founded on migration, the United States of America has been a frequent site for the investigation of
immigrant-host relations. Currently, an estimated 16.3% (over 50 million people) of the US population is Hispanic/Latino;
over 14 million reside in California alone (37.6% of the States ofcial population) (US Census Bureau Estimates, 2010).
This border-state setting for intercultural interaction has the potential both for positive outcomes such as reduced prejudice (Brown, 2010; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011) and for increasing threat among European-Americans, with consequently less
favorable intergroup relationships (Baysu, Phalet, & Brown, 2013; Blumer, 1958; Quillian, 1995). It is our contention that
Corresponding author at: University of Leuven Center for Social and Cultural Psychology, Tiensestraat 102 bus 3727, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Tel.: +32 0 16 3 25886.
E-mail address: laura.celeste@ppw.kuleuven.be (L. Celeste).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.10.002
0147-1767/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320
305
important determinants of such intergroup outcomes are the mutual (perceived) acculturation attitudes of the majority and
minority groups concerned (Brown & Zagefka, 2011). The aim of this research is to test this idea experimentally.
Acculturation is often conceptualized by Berrys two-dimensional schema (Berry, 1997, 2001). His framework seeks to
capture the degree to which immigrant and majority groups wish to maintain (or relinquish) their respective cultures, and
how much intercultural contact they wish to have. From these two dimensions Berry identies four strategies of acculturation: integration (maintain culture, high desire for contact), assimilation (relinquish own culture, high desire for contact),
separation (maintain culture, low desire for contact), and marginalization (relinquish culture, low desire for contact). Evidence supports integration as usually the most benecial strategy on an individual level, often being associated with the least
acculturative stress, depression, and uncertainty (Berry, 1997; Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987; Brown & Zagefka, 2011); yet
at an intergroup level, societal context may play an important role. Brown and Zagefka (2011), among others, argue that the
preference for integration may only result in favorable intergroup attitudes, when the majority is supportive of multiculturalism, which can be dened as the encouragement of cultural diversity or a culturally plural society (Arends-Tth & van de
Vijver, 2003).
Further intergroup research reveals that acculturation outcomes are indeed contextually inuenced by both minority and
majority preferences toward acculturation (Bourhis, Barrette, El-Geledi, & Schmidt, 2009; Piontkowski, Rohmann, & Florack,
2002). By measuring both majority and minority preferences, researchers demonstrate that when preferences are discordant,
this results in more negative intergroup attitudes (Zagefka & Brown, 2002) and greater intergroup threat (Rohmann, Florack,
& Piontkowski, 2006) than when both groups agree upon their preferred acculturation strategy for immigrants. By simultaneously investigating majority and minority perspectives, researchers can account for the dynamic intergroup aspect of
acculturation (Arends-Tth & van de Vijver, 2003; Brown & Zagefka, 2011). Moreover, Arends-Tth and van de Vijver (2003)
argue that the success of multiculturalism may be dependent upon the discrepancies between host-immigrant perspectives. Thus, the current research builds upon this and the work of Matera, Stefanile, & Brown (2011) by jointly investigating
majority and minority perspectives and their dissimilarities, in the context of majorityHispanic relations in California.
Matera et al. (2011) investigated the impact of outgroup acculturation preferences on intergroup outcomes in Italy,
from the majority groups perspective. They separately manipulated contact and culture maintenance dimensions through
fabricated interviews with African immigrants apparently expressing their opinions towards intergroup contact (supportive
or unsupportive) and maintenance of their African culture (supportive or unsupportive). Results showed that immigrants
perceived desire for contact signicantly impacted the attitudes of the host-majority: attitudes towards immigrants were
more positive when they were perceived as desiring, rather than refusing intergroup contact. Contact also moderated the
impact of culture maintenance: greater desire for culture maintenance led to more positive intergroup attitudes only when
immigrants also desired contact, which supports the common assertion that integration attitudes lead to the best intergroup
outcomes (Brown & Zagefka, 2011). These effects were mediated by psychological processes, including symbolic threat
(perceived differences in cultural values and worldview), and support for multiculturalism (endorsing multicultural ideals).
Specically, symbolic threat partially mediated the main effect of contact on intergroup attitudes, while endorsement of
multiculturalism fully mediated the relation between the contact culture interaction and intergroup attitudes. Matera
et al. (2011) was one of the rst experimental demonstrations of the effects of perceived outgroup acculturation attitudes
on generalized intergroup attitudes (see also Zagefka, Tip, Gonzlez, Brown, & Cinnirella, 2012). They provided evidence
that the two underlying aspects of acculturation indeed have differing impacts on intergroup outcomes (Brown & Zagefka,
2011; Rudmin, 2009; Tip et al., 2012), with perceived desire for contact having the most powerful effects; moreover, they
showed that threat from the minority and endorsement of multiculturalism are important factors in understanding the
relation between acculturation and intergroup relations. Nevertheless, some issues need to be further investigated. With
the present research, we build on and extend these ndings in ve ways.
First, Matera et al. (2011) found symbolic threat was only a partial mediator to the impact of contact on intergroup
attitudes, suggesting that other intervening variables were unaccounted for. The integrated threat theory (ITT) argues that
different kinds of threats impede contacts ability to reduce prejudice (Stephan & Stephan, 1996, 2000). Immigrants can also
pose realistic threat, such as threat to limited resources (jobs, social services), as well as symbolic threat, to values and beliefs
or world views of the host-society (Stephan & Stephan, 1996). Moreover, realistic threats and threats to American values
have previously been found to predict anti-Hispanic prejudice (Stephan & Stephan, 1996). This suggests that particularly in
the US context, both realistic and symbolic threat should be taken into account.
From the majority perspective, if immigrants are seen as posing a realistic threat to jobs or nite resources and simultaneously distancing themselves from the host culture, this may understandably increase threat, as majority members may
feel their beliefs and values are being rejected too. Nevertheless, while intergroup threat seems to mediate contacts effect
on reducing prejudice for the host-majority, it may not be so inuential for minority members. Although there is little direct
evidence on this issue, intergroup contact research has consistently found differential effects for majority and minority group
members (Binder et al., 2009; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005). In particular, intergroup anxiety, which might be regarded as being
related to threat, seems to be a more powerful mediator of contact-prejudice effects for majority groups than for minority
groups (Binder et al., 2009). Moreover, recent research has also shown that reciprocal longitudinal relationships between
acculturation attitudes and prejudice are stronger for majority members than minority members (Zagefka et al., 2014). By
extension, therefore, we expected different (weaker) experimental effects for minority group members than for majority
members. In sum, therefore, the current research seeks to qualify Matera et al.s (2011) partial mediation by introducing
realistic threat alongside symbolic threat as mediators in the relationship between contact and intergroup attitudes.
306
While the relationship between contact and threat is quite well documented (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011;
Stephan & Stephan, 2000), the relation between desire for culture maintenance and threat has been paid less attention. Matera
et al. (2011) found that immigrants desire for culture maintenance was not independently predictive of symbolic threat
(r = .06, ns). However, perhaps in the US context, the combination of the two dimensions (i.e. acculturation strategy) is quite
relevant to threat. The pure size of the immigrant group (such as Hispanics in California) itself may be threatening, yet also
provide the contact opportunities to reduce threat (Schlueter & Scheepers, 2010). Thus in this context, perhaps immigrants
desire for culture maintenance moderates Contacts impact on threat (i.e. an interaction between the two acculturation
dimensions). As Brown and Zagefka (2011) suggest, an immigrants desire to maintain their culture may be seen as less
threatening when they also desire intergroup contact, particularly in a climate sympathetic towards cultural diversity. We
expected that realistic and symbolic threat will also mediate the relationship between acculturation dimensions (i.e. their
interaction) and intergroup outcomes, especially for majority members.
Second, the relationship between acculturation preferences and multiculturalism should be further investigated, given
that research ndings on this issue appear partially inconsistent. Matera et al. (2011) found that support for multiculturalism
completely mediated the relationship between the contact culture maintenance interaction and intergroup attitudes;
immigrants seen as endorsing both contact and culture maintenance (i.e. favoring integration) elicited strong support for
multiculturalism, and thus led to better intergroup outcomes. Yet, in three studies in the UK, Tip et al. (2012) consistently
found that support for multiculturalism was positively predicted by desire for contact but negatively predicted by the desire
for culture maintenance. As noted earlier, the outcomes of acculturation may greatly depend upon this context in which
the acculturation is taking place (Arends-Tth & van de Vijver, 2003; Bourhis, Mose, Perreault, & Sencal, 1997; Brown
& Zagefka, 2011; Piontkowski et al., 2002). In those countries in which multiculturalism is highly supported, immigrants
seen as desiring culture maintenance, contact, or their combination, are more likely be greeted with positive intergroup
outcomes. We hypothesized that in such a culturally diverse context as the US, these positive impacts of acculturation on
intergroup outcomes will be mediated by how strongly the majority support multiculturalism.
Third, Matera et al. (2011) studied only majority group members, leaving open the question of whether the same results
would be observable amongst minority members. Previous research on discrepancies between minority and majority group
acculturation attitudes yielded broadly comparable results for both kinds of groups (Pfafferott & Brown, 2006; Zagefka &
Brown, 2002). But, as noted above, ndings from a related eld, intergroup contact, suggest that rather different processes
may operate in these groups. Compared to the majority, the minority shows much weaker contact effects (Tropp & Pettigrew,
2005), and sometimes none at all (Binder et al., 2009). Moreover, as Brown (2010) argues, purely in terms of group size, the
minority is more likely to have had more prior contact with the majority than vice-versa. Thus, these previous experiences
may inuence the impact that a contact intervention or manipulation has on the minority. In any case, by its original
denition, acculturation is a two way streetboth minority as well as majority members experience acculturation (Redeld,
Linton, & Herskovits, 1936). Accordingly, an investigation of acculturation processes in both status groups in the same
intergroup context would seem timely.
Fourth, in the acculturation literature, typical measures are attitudinal: people are asked what their preferences are for
culture maintenance or amount of intergroup contact for themselves or the outgroup, or what their own actual acculturation
practices may be (Nguyen & Benet-Martnez, 2013). However, for policy purposes it may be useful to go beyond attitudes
to examine peoples behavioral intentions with respect to the outgroup. Tip (2012) has labeled this behavioral investment
in acculturation and has developed a measure which assesses peoples intended active involvement in acculturation. Her
measures ask participants how they would behave in realistic instances of intergroup contact (e.g., joining the outgroup at
an intercultural event) or culture maintenance (e.g., celebrating a cultural holiday of the outgroup). Using these measures,
researchers found that majority members investment in contact was signicantly greater than their investment in culture
maintenance (Tip et al., in press). However, all of these questions of contact involved joining the outgroup at an event.
With the present research, we extend Tips behavioral investment in contact idea to include not just joining the outgroup
in some event or activity, which may be a relatively small investment, but to include also inviting an outgroup member
to some culturally important ingroup event. Making a conscious effort to include outgroup members in your activities
shows a willingness to accept the others culture, by allowing the other into your group, perhaps a proactive step in
creating intergroup friendships. Thus, we might expect a perception of culture maintenance to be especially important
for the invite measure. However, any investment in acculturation may be inuenced by support for multiculturalism. For
example, if a minority member does not appear to support multicultural ideals (e.g. wants to separate), this may deter the
majority member from making the effort to invest in inviting or joining the outgroup. With this in mind, we will explore
the impact of our manipulations of acculturation dimensions and their interaction on behavioral investment, and support
for multiculturalism as a potential mediator.
Fifth, we take all of these new developments to an intergroup context that differs historically and in minority group size
from that studied in Matera et al. (2011). The California Hispanic population is much greater in percentage (37.6% US Census
Bureau Estimates, 2010) than the African-immigrants in all of Italy (1%; Italian National Institute of Statistics, 2013). Minority
group size may matter, as it can inuence the amount of anti-immigrant prejudice (Quillian, 1995) which might threaten the
majority groups dominant status (Blumer, 1958). Moreover, the historical intergroup context is quite different for Hispanics
in California (compared to Africans in Italy). Seeing that California was previously a Mexican territory, later won over by the
US, the intergroup attitudes may be different to that of a new immigrant group (Africans in Italy). These differences in the
Italian and Californian context will allow us to understand better how the context impacts the acculturation process.
307
With these considerations in mind, we tested the following hypotheses for majority participants.
Perceived outgroup desire for intergroup contact will improve intergroup emotions and attitudes, and result in a greater
behavioral investment in contact (H1).
Perceived outgroup desire for intergroup contact and culture maintenance will interact, revealing the most favorable
response when desire for each acculturation dimension is perceived as high (integration) (H2).
Realistic and symbolic threat posed by immigrants are proposed to mediate the effect that contact, and the contact culture maintenance interaction, have on intergroup emotions, attitudes, and behavioral investment (H3).
Support for multiculturalism will mediate the impact that contact, culture maintenance, and their interaction have on
intergroup emotions, attitudes, and behavioral investment (H4).
With our new behavioral investment measures we will explore the possibilities of mediation, but as they are new scales,
we will not put forth specic hypotheses.
For minority participants though, as discussed above, the effects may not be as clear or as strong. Therefore, we will
explore the effects for perceived outgroup desire for contact and culture maintenance amongst minority group members
without putting forward specic hypotheses.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
2.1.1. Majority
Community college students (N = 163) identifying as non-Hispanic, completed the experimental questionnaire (F = 109;
M = 54; Age M = 20.79, SD = 2.98). Participants born outside the United States were removed from analyses (N = 33); two
participants were further removed due to extreme and inconsistent scores1 .
2.1.2. Minority
Fifty community college students self-identifying as Hispanic, completed the experimental questionnaire. Of these participants most were female, (F = 36, M = 13; 1 unspecied; Age M = 21.73, SD = 5.28).
2.2. Design
The design was a 2 2 between-participants manipulation of perceived outgroup acculturation preferences: perceived
outgroup contact (high vs. low) and desire for culture maintenance (high vs. low). This closely replicates the procedure used
in by Matera et al. (2011); Matera, Stefanile, and Brown (2012) in Italy, and Tip (2012) in the UK.
2.3. Procedure and measures
Students were invited to participate in the study, during scheduled class time. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Upon completion, participants were fully debriefed and thanked for their time.
Initially, participants declared their country of birth and, ethnic identity, as either Hispanic or not. Then, all participants read a fabricated (but seemingly real) newspaper interview from an American website (see Appendix A). Majority
participants (self-identifying as non-Hispanic) read an interview with two Hispanic immigrants in the US, who expressed
their acculturation preferences of contact (high vs. low), and maintenance of their cultural heritage (high vs. low). Minority
participants (self-identifying as Hispanic) read a similar article but involving an interview with two European-Americans
expressing their acculturation preferences of how Hispanics should acculturate in the US. After the manipulation, participants completed questions for ten different variables all measured on a ve point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree,
to 5 = Strongly Agree), unless otherwise specied. These measures were followed by demographic questions of age, gender,
education, and birth country of both parents.
2.3.1. Manipulation checks
Perceived outgroup contact preferences. This scale based on Zagefka & Browns (2002) perception of the outgroups attitude
towards contact constituted the rst manipulation check. It included three items (e.g., Majority: I believe Hispanics in
America think it is important to have American friends. Minority: I believe Americans think it is important for Hispanics
to have American friends). This scale was reliable for both majority ( = 0.84) and minority ( = 0.83) samples.
Perceived outgroup culture maintenance preferences. Four items asked to what degree the outgroup prefer Hispanics to
maintain cultural aspects whilst living in America, acting as a manipulation check (e.g., Majority: I believe that Hispanics
in America want to maintain their traditional culture. Minority: I believe that Americans want Hispanics to maintain our
traditional culture). These items were adapted from Zagefka and Browns (2002) perception of the outgroups attitude toward
1
Outliers scored between 3SD and 2SD below the mean on various measures. Both participants showed erratic and inconsistent questionnaire responses
that suggested insincere participation. Thus, exclusion of these outliers was supported both statistically and practically.
308
Table 1
Behavioral investment in contact items for the majority and minority samples.
Majority
Join
Suppose a Hispanic friend is spending a sunny day in the park together
with some other Hispanic friends. He/she invited you to join them. How
likely is it that youll go?
Suppose your Hispanic friends younger sister is having her Quinceanera

(15th birthday celebration). Say your friend has invited you to come and
join along with the Hispanic friends and families that will be at the
celebration. How likely is it that you will attend?
Suppose some of your Hispanic classmates are going out and asked you
to come along. How likely is it that youll go with them?
Invite
Imagine youre going to watch the [town name] Rodeo Parade with a
few other American classmates and your Hispanic classmate mentions
that he/she has never been before. How likely is it that you will invite
him/her to join you and your American friends?
Suppose you have a Hispanic classmate, who doesnt usually celebrate
The 4th of July. How likely is it that youd invite him/her to go watch the
reworks with you and your American friends?
Imagine there is a Hispanic girl/boy in your class who you get along well
with but youve never seen him/her together with non-Hispanics before.
How likely is it that youd invite him/her to hang out with you and your
American friends?a
a
b
Minority
Imagine your American classmates are going to
watch the [town name] Rodeo Parade and they invite
you to go too. How likely is it that you will join them?
Suppose your American classmate is going to an
American football game with a group of friends and
they invited you to come along. How likely is it that
youd join them?
Imagine some of your American classmates are
going to watch the reworks for the 4th of July and
theyve invited you. How likely is it that youll go?
Imagine there is an American girl/boy in your class
who you get along well with but youve never seen
him/her together with Hispanics before. How likely is
it that youd invite him/her to hang out with you and
your Hispanic friends?
Suppose you and your Hispanic classmates are going
out. How likely is it that youll suggest inviting your
American classmates too?
Suppose your Hispanic friends younger sister is
(15th birthday celebration)

having her Quinceanera
and has said you can bring a friend along. Your
American friend mentions he/she has never been to a
before. How likely is it that you would

Quinceanera
invite your American friend to join?b
This item was removed for the majority scale; it was inconsistent with the other items, not loading on either factor.
For the minority data, this item loaded on join so was removed from the minority scale as it is not conceptually a join item.
culture maintenance; which was reliable for their host-majority ( = 0.72) and immigrants ( = 0.77). Both majority ( = 0.89)
and minority scales were highly reliable. For the minority, one item was removed2 due to the low item-total correlation
(r = 0.27), resulting in a higher alpha ( = 0.90).
2.3.2. Dependent measures
Positive intergroup emotions. Seven adjectives were adapted from Kosic, Mannetti, and Sams (2005) intergroup emotions
scale (i.e., sympathy, happiness, admiration, curiosity, friendliness, dislike [reversed], and trust). Participants rated these
emotions towards the outgroup on a scale from 1 to 7 (1 = not at all, 7 = very much) producing a reliable scale for the majority
( = 0.80). For the minority data dislike was removed due to a low item-total correlation, forming a reliable six-item scale
( = 0.82).
Prejudice (negative intergroup attitudes). Participants attitudes towards the outgroup were assessed by nine semantic differentials measured on a 7-point scale (i.e., I believe Hispanics/Americans are: pleasant-unpleasant, useful-useless,
negative-positive [reversed], helpful-harmful, foolish-wise [reversed]) with high scores indicating high prejudice. All nine
items were reliable for majority ( = 0.91) and minority ( = 0.92) samples, comparable to = 0.95 found by Matera et al.s
(2011) majority intergroup evaluations.
Behavioral investment in contact. This was adapted from Tip (2012). To the original measure concerned with joining the
outgroup for some sort of activity we added three items tapping their willingness to invite outgroup members to an ingroup
social gathering. These six items are given in detail in Table 1. Factor loadings from a principal component analysis with
oblique (oblimin) rotation, supported the distinction of these two subscales for both majority and minority participants
(see Appendix B). The three joining items all loaded together (majority loadings 0.75 to 0.93; minority 0.69 to 0.76), as did
two inviting items (majority loadings 0.53 to 0.97; minority loadings 0.85 to 0.90); cross-loadings were all low (<0.39
majority; <0.16 minority). The resulting scales had marginally acceptable internal reliability. The invite scale included two
questions and was marginally reliable for the majority ( = 0.65), and minority ( = 0.71). The join scale included three
items, being reliable for the majority ( = 0.83), and slightly less so for the minority ( = 0.64).
2.3.3. Potential mediators
Perceived realistic and symbolic threat [investigated only for the majority sample]. Majority perceptions of realistic threat
were measured by three items: People like Jose and Maria (from the interview) take too many jobs away from Americans;
In America too much money is spent to favor integration of people like Jose and Maria (from the interview); Having people
like Jose and Maria (from the interview) in American schools takes resources away from Americans ( = 0.79). Perceptions
Minority item removed addressed Hispanic gender roles.
309
of symbolic threat were measured by three items: People like Jose and Maria (from the interview) do not understand the
American way of life; The values of people like Jose and Maria (from the interview) are too different from the values of
Americans; The family values of people like Jose and Maria do not t with American family values. These items formed a
reliable scale ( = 0.75), comparable to Matera et al.s (2011) measure of symbolic threat ( = 0.77).
Support for multiculturalism. Four items adapted from Matera et al. (2011), asked how the presence of Hispanics in
America affects cultural diversity: People like Jose and Maria (from the interview) decrease the value of American society
by introducing different cultures (reversed); The presence of people like Jose and Maria (from the interview) in America
makes America worse, by lling it with different cultures (reversed); Cultural diversity in America is encouraged by people
like Jose and Maria (from the interview); Thanks to people like Jose and Maria (from the interview) Americans can live in
a culturally diverse society ( = 0.64).
To contrast American and Hispanic views of the same issue, these items measured Hispanic perception of American
support for multiculturalism. Items were: Americans believe that the presence of Hispanics in America makes America
worse, by lling it with different cultures, (reversed); Americans believe that thanks to Hispanics, Americans can live
in a culturally diverse society; Americans believe that Hispanics decrease the value of American society by introducing
different cultures (reversed). One item was removed due to a low item-total correlation (Americans believe that cultural
diversity is encouraged by Hispanics living in America), resulting in a reliable 3-item scale, = 0.70.
2.3.4. Data analyses
First, in order to test H1 and H2 we conducted a series of 2 2 univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) testing the
effects of our manipulations, perceived desire for contact (high vs. low) and perceived desire for culture maintenance (high
vs. low), on each of our dependent variables: positive intergroup emotions, negative attitudes, behavioral investment via
invite and join. Signicant effects of the contact manipulation on our dependent variables would be supportive of H1, while
signicant effects of the contact culture maintenance interaction would be supportive of H2.
Second, to test H3 and H4, we conducted 2 2 ANOVAs testing the effects of our manipulations on our predicted mediators,
as a preliminary analysis to ensure investigation of a full mediation model would be applicable. Then Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM) was used to test if the direct effects of our manipulations on our dependent variables are mediated by our
three predicted mediator variables: realistic and symbolic threat (H3) and support for multiculturalism (H4). Signicant
(total) indirect effects of our mediators on the dependent variables indicate (full) mediation, in support of H3 and H4.
The majority and minority will be treated as separate samples, and not included in the same statistical model due to the
nature of our experimental design. The majority and minority samples necessarily received differing manipulations to each
reect outgroup preferences thus were not exactly the same for both groups. Moreover, the measures differed on various
items to capture the different perspectives of the same concept (e.g. American support for multiculturalism; investment by
joining or inviting the outgroup to a specic event). These differences have left us to conduct majority and minority analyses
separately, recognizing the differences in measurement and experimental manipulation.
3. Results
The majority data are reported rst, followed by the minority, both separated into three subsections of the manipulation
check, effects of our manipulations on our dependent variables (testing H1 and H2), and mediation analyses (testing H3 and
H4).
3.1. Majority group
Here we present a series of 2 2 ANOVAs. We report the impact of our manipulations and their interaction on each of
our dependent variables. See Table 2 for majority correlations. Table 3 contains all ANOVA results including main effects
(means and standard deviations) and interaction effects. Table 4 separately shows descriptive statistics for the (2 2) contact culture maintenance interactions, to more clearly show these means and standard deviations in terms of Berrys (1997,
2001) four acculturation strategies.
A 2 2 ANOVA for the manipulation check of perceived desire for contact revealed main effects for both contact and
culture maintenance. A signicant interaction further revealed that while the contact manipulation had the desired effect
throughout, minority members seen to be desiring low contact but high culture maintenance (separation; M = 2.09, SD = 0.81)
were perceived as desiring signicantly less contact than those low on both dimensions (marginalization; M = 3.22, SD = 0.69).
Nevertheless, a simple effects ANOVA revealed that the contact manipulation was effective in both culture maintenance conditions: Hispanics shown preferring marginalization (low contact, low culture maintenance; M = 3.22, SD = 0.69) signicantly
differed from those preferring assimilation (high contact, low culture maintenance) (M = 4.06, SD = 1.04), F(1, 159) = 18.40,
p < 0.001; separation (low contact, high culture maintenance; M = 2.09, SD = 0.81) signicantly differed from integration (high
contact, high culture maintenance; M = 3.98, SD = 0.87), F(1, 159) = 85.19, p < 0.001.
310
Table 2
Majority correlations (N = 163).
1. Positive emotions
2. Prejudice
3. Multiculturalism
4. Realistic threat
5. Symbolic threat
6. Behavioral Investment in contactinvite
7. Behavioral investment in contactjoin
8. Contact
9. Culture maintenance
10. Contact culture maintenance interaction
*
**
***
0.66***
0.51***
0.48***
0.38***
0.44***
0.56***
0.18*
0.19*
0.16*
0.48***
0.51***
0.41***
0.45***
0.47***
0.21**
0.08
0.15
0.45***
0.42***
0.41***
0.32***
0.26***
0.21**
0.28***
0.54***
0.28***
0.29***
0.18*
0.03
0.21**
0.28***
0.26***
0.20**
0.12
0.29***
0.68***
0.11
0.16*
0.01
0.14
0.07
0.08
0.03
0.01
0.02
p 0.07.
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.
p < 0.001.
Table 3
Results from 2 2 ANOVAs on our manipulation of contact (high & low) culture maintenance (CM) (high & low). Means (with Standard Deviations in
parentheses) are reported for the main effects. Majority sample (N = 163).
Manipulation
Means (SD)
ANOVA
p
p 2
F (1, 158) = 100.35

F (1, 158) = 19.67
F (1, 158) = 14.88
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.39
0.11
0.09
3.02 (1.14)
3.84 (0.75)
F (1, 158) = 0.50

F (1, 158) = 108.51
F (1, 158) = 4.89
0.48
0.001
0.03
0.003
0.41
0.03
4.48 (1.13)
4.47 (0.94)
4.84 (0.90)
4.86 (1.09)
F (1, 157) = 5.92

F (1, 157) = 6.14
F (1, 157) = 4.38
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
Contact
CM
Contact CM
3.34 (1.04)
3.20 (0.93)
2.92 (0.99)
3.04 (1.12)
F (1, 157) = 7.48

F (1,157) = 0.97
F (1, 157) = 3.95
0.01
0.33
0.05
0.05
0.006
0.03
BIC-Invite
Contact
CM
Contact CM
4.09 (0.86)
4.05 (0.85)
4.27 (0.71)
4.31 (0.72)
F (1, 159) = 2.27

F (1, 159) = 4.68
F (1, 159) = 0.02
0.13
0.03
0.90
0.01
0.03
<0.001
BIC-Join
Contact
CM
Contact CM
3.89 (1.00)
3.95 (0.93)
4.15 (0.83)
4.09 (0.91)
F (1, 159) = 3.51

F (1, 159) = 0.94
F (1, 159) = 0.92
0.06
0.33
0.34
0.02
0.006
0.006
Contact
CM
Contact CM
2.48 (0.98)
2.33 (0.96)
2.13 (0.93)
2.28 (0.98)
F (1, 158) = 5.37

F (1, 158) = 0.15
F (1, 158) = 7.34
0.02
0.70
0.01
0.03
0.001
0.04
Symbolic
threat
Contact
CM
Contact CM
2.08 (0.81)
1.82 (0.79)
1.76 (0.80)
2.02 (0.84)
F (1, 158) = 7.11

F (1, 158) = 2.62
F (1, 158) = 16.04
0.01
0.11
<0.001
0.04
0.02
0.09
Support for
multiculturalism
Contact
CM
Contact CM
3.85 (0.73)
3.89 (0.73)
4.23 (0.69)
4.20 (0.71)
F (1, 159) = 14.47

F (1, 159) = 8.95
F (1, 159) = 14.58
<0.001
0.003
<0.001
0.08
0.05
0.08
Low
High
Contact
CM
Contact CM
2.65 (0.94)
3.66 (0.98)
4.02 (0.96)
3.04 (1.27)
Perceived
desire for CM
Contact
CM
Contact CM
3.16 (1.23)
2.35 (1.07)
Positive
intergroup
emotions
Contact
CM
Contact CM
Prejudice
Dependent variables:
Perceived
desire for
contact
Mediating variables:
Realistic threat
The manipulation check of perceived desire for culture maintenance3 revealed a strong main effect for only culture
maintenance in the expected direction; the contact manipulation did not impact perceived culture maintenance. There was
3
For several ANOVAs, Levenes test for the homogeneity of variance was signicant, but for large sample sizes if the variance ratio (largest/smallest
variance) is <2, homogeneity can be assumed (Field, 2005). The signicant Levenes for manipulation checks of perceived culture maintenance F(3, 158) = 4.81,
p = 0.003 and perceived Desire for contact F(3, 158) = 4.43, p = 0.01; emotions F(3, 157) = 2.79, p = 0.04 but variance ratio (1.122 /0.872 ) = 1.66 < 2; this lack of
variance between conditions did not undermine the manipulations impact. Also signicant were Levenes for behavioral investment in invite F(3, 159) = 3.68,
p = 0.013, variance ratio (.8792 /.5682 ) = 2.39 and multiculturalism F(3, 159) = 3.93, p = 0.01, variance ratio (.782 /.462 ) = 2.8; for both cases, high contact, high
culture maintenance condition showed the least variance, which is typically associated with the greatest support for multiculturalism, (Brown & Zagefka,
2011); thus it is not unusual that there was little variance in this condition.
311
Table 4
Means (standard deviations in parentheses) for manipulation of contact (high & low) culture maintenance (CM) high & low and interaction effects (ANOVAs).
Majority sample (N = 163).
Mean (SD)
High Contact
Manipulation check
Perceived desire for contact
Perceived desire for CM
Dependent Variables
Positive intergroup emotions
Prejudice
BIC-Invite
BIC-Join
Mediating variables
Realistic threat
Symbolic threat
Support for multiculturalism
Low Contact
High CM
Low CM
High CM
Low CM
Integration
Assimilation
Separation
Marginalization
3.98 (0.87)
3.63 (0.76)
4.06 (1.04)
2.45 (1.15)
2.09 (0.81)
4.05 (0.68)
3.22 (0.69)
2.24 (0.97)
5.21 (0.87)
2.67 (1.05)
4.40 (0.57)
4.29 (0.83)
4.50 (0.79)
3.14 (0.88)
4.15 (0.81)
4.02 (0.80)
4.51 (1.18)
3.42 (1.08)
4.23 (0.84)
3.89 (0.94)
4.45 (1.10)
3.26 (1.00)
3.95 (0.88)
3.88 (1.06)
1.90 (0.88)
1.61 (0.75)
4.60 (0.46)
2.36 (0.93)
1.90 (0.84)
3.89 (0.69)
2.64 (0.95)
2.41 (0.74)
3.80 (0.69)
2.30 (0.99)
1.74 (0.74)
3.89 (0.78)
Note. These columns of means represent the interaction of our two manipulations (either high vs. low) desire for contact desire for culture maintenance.
The four combinations reect Berrys taxonomy: integration = high contact, high culture maintenance; assimilation = high contact, low culture maintenance;
separation = low contact, high culture maintenance; marginalization = low contact, low culture maintenance.
a signicant interaction between the contact and culture maintenance manipulations on perceived culture maintenance.
Majority participants reported greater discrepancy in perceived desire for culture maintenance between Hispanics depicted
as endorsing separation (low contact, high maintenance; M = 4.05, SD = 0.68) versus marginalization (low contact, low culture
maintenance; M = 2.23, SD = 0.97), than between Hispanics seen endorsing integration (M = 3.63, SD = 0.76) versus assimilation (M = 2.45, SD = 1.15). However, a simple effects ANOVA shows that this interaction effect does not compromise the
effectiveness of the manipulation, since both simple main effects of culture maintenance were highly signicant: in the low
contact condition, the amount of perceived culture maintenance was signicantly greater in the high (separation; M = 4.05,
SD = 0.68) rather than low (marginalization; M = 2.23, SD = 0.97) culture maintenance condition, F(1, 159) = 78.24, p < 0.001;
for the high contact condition, low culture maintenance (assimilation; M = 2.45, SD = 1.15) and high culture maintenance
conditions (integration; M = 3.63, SD = 0.76), signicantly differed in the expected direction, F(1, 159) = 34.83, p < 0.001.
3.1.2. Dependent variables
Effects on positive intergroup emotions. Both the contact and culture maintenance manipulations signicantly affected
majority positive intergroup emotions, supporting H1. Majority participants reported greater positive intergroup emotions
when Hispanics were shown as having a high desire for contact (M = 4.84, SD = 0.90) rather than a low desire for contact
(M = 4.48, SD = 1.13). Similarly for the culture maintenance manipulation, majority participants reported greater positive
emotions when Hispanics were shown as having a greater desire to maintain (M = 4.86, SD = 1.09) rather than relinquish
their culture (M = 4.47, SD = 0.94). A signicant interaction qualied culture maintenances impact on intergroup emotions
(Fig. 1).
Simple effects revealed that mean levels of positive emotions only differed signicantly in the conditions where Hispanics
were seen as highly desirous of contact. As predicted, majority members reported greater positive intergroup emotions when
Hispanics appeared to endorse integration (high contact, high culture maintenance; M = 5.21, SD = 0.87) compared to those
appearing to endorse assimilation (high contact, low culture maintenance; M = 4.50, SD = 0.79), F(1, 158) = 10.07, p = 0.002.
For Hispanics depicted as having a low desire for contact, majority reported similar mean levels of positive emotions whether
Hispanics wanted to maintain their culture (separation; M = 4.51, SD = 1.18) or not (marginalization; M = 4.45, SD = 1.10), F(1,
158) = 0.05, p = 0.83. This interaction supports H2 such that the integration condition yielded the most positive intergroup
emotions, also replicating Matera et al. (2011).
Effects on prejudice. A 2 2 ANOVA revealed a signicant main effect of the desire for contact manipulation on prejudice
(negative intergroup attitudes). Majority participants reported less prejudice when Hispanics were shown as having a high
desire for contact (M = 2.92, SD = 0.99) than those with a low desire for contact (M = 3.34, SD = 1.04), further supporting H1.
The desire for culture maintenance manipulation did not signicantly affect prejudice, but a signicant interaction between
the two manipulations was observed, (Fig. 2).
Similar to positive emotions, simple effects analysis revealed that mean levels of prejudice only differed signicantly when
Hispanics were seen as highly desiring contact. As predicted, majority participants reported signicantly less prejudice when
Hispanics were depicted as endorsing integration (high contact, high culture maintenance; M = 2.67, SD = 1.05), than those
appearing to endorse assimilation (high contact, low culture maintenance; M = 3.14, SD = 0.88), F(1, 158) = 4.10, p = 0.05. For
Hispanics depicted as having a low desire for contact, majority reported similar mean levels of prejudice whether Hispanics
wanted to maintain their culture (separation; 3.42, SD = 1.08) or not (marginalization; 3.26, SD = 1.00). These analyses further
312
Posive Intergroup Emoons
7
6
5
4
Low Culture
Maintenance
High Culture
Maintenance
2
1
Low
High
Contact
Fig. 1. Positive intergroup emotions as a function of contact (high vs. low) and culture maintenance (high vs. low) of the Hispanics depicted in the newspaper
article (majority sample).
An-immigrant Prejudice
6
5
4
Low Culture
Maintenance
High Culture
Maintenance
2
1
Low
High
Contact
Fig. 2. Anti-immigrant prejudice as a function of contact (high vs. low) and culture maintenance (high vs. low) of the Hispanics depicted in the newspaper
article (majority sample).
support H2, such that the integration condition not only elicited the most positive intergroup emotions, but also the least
prejudice.
Effects on behavioral investment in contact. We explored the impacts of the manipulations on our new behavioral
investment in contact for the invite (BIC-invite) and join (BIC-join) measures. A 2 2 ANOVA revealed no main effect of
the contact manipulation, or the interaction between the manipulations, however the culture maintenance manipulation
did signicantly impact BIC-invite. Majority members reported more willingness to invite Hispanics depicted as embracing
their heritage culture (M = 4.31, SD = 0.72), than Hispanics preferring to relinquish their heritage culture (M = 4.05, SD = 0.85),
similar to the effect of culture maintenance on positive emotions.
For BIC-join, a 2 2 ANOVA revealed only a marginal main effect for the contact manipulation. Majority members reported
marginally more willingness to join the outgroup when Hispanics were shown as having a high desire for contact (M = 4.15,
SD = 0.83) than those with a low desire for contact (M = 3.89, SD = 1.00), marginally supporting H1. There was no effect of
the culture maintenance manipulation or the interaction on BIC-join. Whether Hispanics were depicted as desiring to keep
313
or relinquish their culture did not signicantly inuence Americans intentions to join the outgroup (M = 4.09, SD = 0.91,
M = 3.95, SD = 0.93, respectively), unlike inviting, which was only dependent upon Hispanics desire for culture maintenance.
3.1.3. Mediation
As a preliminary analysis for mediation, 2 2 ANOVAs were conducted to determine if the manipulations of acculturation
preferences predicted realistic threat, symbolic threat, and multiculturalism.
Effects on realistic and symbolic threat. Signicant main effects of the desire for contact manipulation were observed
for both realistic and symbolic threat. Majority participants reported signicantly lower levels of realistic and symbolic
threat when Hispanics were seen as having a high desire for contact, (realistic threat M = 2.13, SD = 0.93; symbolic threat
M = 1.76, SD = 0.80, respectively) than when Hispanics were seen as having a low desire for contact (realistic threat M = 2.48,
SD = 0.98; symbolic threat M = 2.08, SD = 0.81). Desire for culture maintenance did not signicantly affect either realistic or
symbolic, but signicant interactions were observed for both types of threat.
Simple effects analysis revealed that culture maintenance did have a signicant effect on realistic threat, but only when
Hispanics were seen as wanting contact. Majority members reported signicantly less realistic threat when Hispanics were
seen as endorsing integration (high contact, high culture maintenance; M = 1.90, SD = 0.88) as compared to assimilation (high
contact, low culture maintenance; M = 2.36, SD = 0.93), F(1, 159) = 4.55, p = 0.03. For Hispanics depicted as having a low desire
for contact, majority members reported similar mean levels of realistic threat whether Hispanics wanted to maintain their
culture (separation; M = 2.64, SD = 0.95) or not (marginalization; M = 2.30, SD = 0.99), F(1, 159) = 2.73, p = 0.10. Thus, realistic
threat was lowest in the integration condition.
For symbolic threat, the interaction showed a slightly different pattern: culture maintenance had an effect but only when
Hispanics were seen as having a low desire for contact. Majority members reported signicantly less symbolic threat when
Hispanics were seen as endorsing marginalization (low contact, low culture maintenance; M = 1.74, SD = 0.74) as compared
to separation (M = 2.42, SD = 0.74), F(1, 159) = 15.40, p < 0.001. For Hispanics depicted as having a high desire for contact,
majority members reported similar mean levels of symbolic threat whether Hispanics wanted to maintain their culture
(integration; M = 1.61, SD = 0.75) or not (assimilation; M = 1.90, SD = 0.84), F(1,159) = 2.63, p = 0.11.
Effects on multiculturalism. For multiculturalism, a 2 2 ANOVA revealed signicant main effects for both contact,
and culture maintenance. Majority participants reported signicantly higher levels of support for multiculturalism when
Hispanics were seen as having a high desire for contact (M = 4.23, SD = 0.69) than when Hispanics were seen as having low
desire for contact (M = 3.85, SD = 0.73). Similarly, majority participants reported signicantly higher levels of support for
multiculturalism when Hispanics were seen as desiring to maintain their culture (M = 4.20, SD = 0.71), rather than relinquish
their culture (M = 3.89, SD = 0.73). A signicant interaction was also observed.
Simple effects analysis revealed that the mean level of support for multiculturalism only signicantly differed in the
conditions where Hispanics were seen as wanting contact. Majority members reported greater support for multiculturalism
when Hispanics appeared to endorse integration (high contact, high culture maintenance; M = 4.60, SD = 0.46) compared
to those appearing to endorse assimilation (high contact, low culture maintenance; M = 3.89, SD = 0.69), F(1, 160) = 20.94,
p = .001. For Hispanics depicted as having a low desire for contact, majority reported similar mean levels of support for multiculturalism whether Hispanics wanted to maintain their culture (separation; M = 3.80, SD = 0.69) or not (marginalization;
M = 3.89, SD = 0.78), F(1, 160) = 0.39, p = 0.54.
Mediation model. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used in Mplus version 6 with bootstrapping (resampling
2000 times from the sample), using maximum likelihood estimations to calculate all mediation relationships. The SEM
model (Fig. 3), investigated H3 and H4 regarding the mediating effect of realistic threat, symbolic threat and support for
multiculturalism. We used the results from the ANOVAs to guide which relationships should be included in our mediation
model. This mediation model was found to be a good-tting model, 2 (7, N = 163) = 11.30, p = 0.12, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.95,
RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.026.
Intergroup emotions. This SEM analysis revealed support for multiculturalism as a signicant mediator (indirect = 0.08,
p = 0.01), and realistic threat as a marginal mediator (indirect = 0.05, p = 0.07) of the relationship between the desire for contact
manipulation and positive emotions; symbolic threat was not signicant on its own (indirect = 0.02, p = 0.27), but together,
all three mediators fully mediated this relationship (total indirect = 0.15, p = 0.001), supporting H3 and H4. Multiculturalism
fully and independently mediated the effect of culture maintenance on positive emotions (indirect = 0.07, p = 0.02), further
supporting H4. Multiculturalism and realistic threat also independently mediated the relationship between the interaction
term and positive emotions (Multic = 0.08, p = 0.01, RealisticTh = 0.06, p = 0.03); symbolic threat was not signicant on its
own (indirect = 0.04, p = 0.26), but together, all three mediators signicantly mediated this relationship (total indirect = 0.18,
p = 0.001), in support of H3 and H4.
Prejudice. Multiculturalism and realistic threat both independently mediated the relationship between contact and prejudice (Multic = 0.07, p = 0.04, RealisticTh = 0.06, p = 0.04); symbolic threat was not signicant on its own (indirect = 0.03,
p = 0.26), but together, all three mediators signicantly mediated this relationship (total indirect = 0.15, p = 0.001), supporting
H3 and H4.
The same pattern emerged for the interaction terms effect on prejudice: multiculturalism and realistic threat independently mediated the relationship (Multic = 0.07, p = 0.02, RealisticTh = 0.07, p = 0.03, respectively). Symbolic threat was not
signicant on its own (indirect = 0.04, p = 0.23), but together, all three mediators signicantly mediated the interactions
effects on prejudice (total indirect = 0.17, p = 0.001).
314
-.18
Contact
***
-.27
Positive Emotions
Realistic Threat
**
-.20
***
R = .35
.32
***
.27
Prejudice
***
Culture
Maintenance
.23
.31
Symbolic Threat
***
**
-.26
**
-.21
Contact X Culture
Maintenance
R = .34
***
***
-.30
.32
***
R =.20
Investment in
ContactJoin
R = .14
.21
Multiculturalism
.27
Investment in
ContactInvite
Fig. 3. SEM majority mediation model. Note. Path coefcients are standardized values, calculated in Mplus. Non-signicant pathways from symbolic
threat to all DVs were removed for visual simplicity (s < 0.12, ps > 0.19). Mediator residuals, not depicted in this gure were all allowed to covary (as
recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008); residuals from the DVs were allowed to covary as well as IVs were allowed to covary. Darkest line indicates
full mediation, semi-dark line indicates partial mediation. Fit indices were: 2 (7, N = 163) = 11.30, p = 0.12, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.99, TuckerLewis
Index (TLI) = 0.95, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = 0.026. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01,
***
p < 0.001
Table 5
Minority correlations (N = 50).
1. Positive emotions
2. Prejudice
3. Multiculturalism
4. Realistic threat
5. Symbolic threat
6. Behavioral investment in contactinvite
7. Behavioral investment in contactjoin
8. Contact
9. Culture maintenance
10. Contact culture maintenance interaction
*
**
***
0.004
0.46***
0.15
0.09
0.10
0.08
0.10
0.25
0.22
0.05
0.03
0.11
0.35*
0.26
0.02
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.25
0.26
0.09
0.08
0.11
0.06
0.37**
0.17
0.05
0.03
0.10
0.04
0.39**
0.23
0.22
0.17
0.03
0.27
0.08
0.02
0.07
0.17
0.31*
0.30*
0.08
0.72***
0.71***
p 0.09.
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.
p < 0.001.
Behavioral investment in acculturation. For our new behavioral investment in contact measures, multiculturalism
played the biggest part in the mediation. Multiculturalism independently mediated the effect of the desire for culture
maintenance manipulation on BIC-invite ( = 0.07, p = 0.01).
As for desire for contacts effect on BIC-join: Multiculturalism marginally mediated the effect of contact on BIC-join
(Multic = 0.06, p = 0.06) while realistic and symbolic threat were non-signicant (RealisticTh = 0.02, p = 0.25, SymbolicTh = 0.017,
p = 0.44), but together all three mediators fully mediated this relationship (total indirect = 0.10, p = 0.006).
3.2. Minority group
Correlations for the minority sample are shown in Table 5. Similar 2 2 ANOVAs were conducted for the minority group;
these results are in Table 6.
The manipulation check for perceived outgroup contact preferences had the desired effect, revealing only a signicant
main effect for contact in the expected direction (MHighContact = 4.22, SD = 0.95, MLowContact = 2.81 SD = 1.04). Outgroup culture
maintenance preferences revealed a main effect for only the manipulation of culture maintenance in the expected direction
(MHighCM = 3.32 SD = 1.13, MLowCM = 2.21, SD = 0.83).
3.2.2. Dependent variables
Effects on positive intergroup emotions and prejudice. ANOVAs testing for main effects or interactions for the emotions
and prejudice dependent variables yielded no signicant main effects or interactions.
315
Table 6
Means and standard deviations for manipulation of contact (high & low) culture maintenance (CM) high & low and main effects (ANOVAs). Minority sample
(N = 50).
Manipulation
Means (SD)
ANOVA
p
p 2
F (1, 46) = 26.06

F (1,46) = 2.33
F (1,46) = 0.002
<0.001
0.13
0.97
0.36
0.05
<0.001
2.65 (1.18)
3.32 (1.13)
F (1, 46) = 1.62

F (1, 46) = 16.17
F (1, 46) = 0.08
0.21
<0.001
0.78
0.03
0.26
0.002
4.70 (1.22)
4.50 (1.23)
4.94 (1.27)
5.11 (1.20)
F (1, 45) = 0.34

F (1, 45) = 2.84
F (1, 45) = 0.05
0.56
0.10
0.82
0.008
0.06
0.001
Contact
CM
Contact CM
3.47 (1.34)
3.39 (1.11)
3.53 (1.15)
3.59 (1.34)
F (1, 44) = 0.06

F (1, 44) = 0.26
F (1, 44) = 2.56
0.81
0.61
0.12
0.001
0.006
0.06
BIC-Invite
Contact
CM
Contact CM
4.21 (0.82)
4.13 (0.76)
4.08 (0.76)
4.15 (0.82)
F (1, 45) = 0.28

F (1, 45) = 0.02
F (1, 45) = 0.34
0.60
0.89
0.57
0.006
<0.001
0.007
BIC-Join
Contact
CM
Contact CM
4.33 (0.67)
4.45 (0.56)
4.07 (0.86)
3.97 (0.88)
F (1, 45) = 1.34

F (1, 45) = 4.65
F (1, 45) = 0.48
0.25
0.04
0.49
0.03
0.09
0.01
Contact
CM
Contact CM
3.36 (0.90)
3.21 (0.69)
3.24 (0.72)
3.39 (0.91)
F (1, 46) = 0.26

F (1, 46) = 0.70
F (1, 46) = 6.67
0.61
0.41
0.01
0.006
0.02
0.13
Low
High
Contact
CM
Contact CM
2.81 (1.04)
3.68 (0.96)
4.22 (0.95)
3.37 (1.41)
Perceived desire for CM
Contact
CM
Contact CM
2.92 (1.09)
2.21 (0.83)
Positive intergroup
emotions
Contact
CM
Contact CM
Prejudice
Dependent variables
Perceived desire for
contact
Mediating variable
American support for
multiculturalism
Effects on behavioral investment measures. A 2 2 ANOVA for BIC-invite did not show any signicant effects, for the
manipulation of contact or culture maintenance. In general, minority participants showed relatively high willingness to
invest in contact via invite, across all conditions (M = 4.14, SD = 0.78).
For BIC-join, a 2 2 ANOVA revealed a signicant main effect for culture maintenance. When Americans were seen as
wanting Hispanics to relinquish their culture, minority members responded with more willingness to invest by joining
the outgroup (M = 4.45, SD = 0.56); when Americans were seen to favor culture maintenance, minority members were less
willing to join (M = 3.97, SD = 0.88). The contact manipulation and interaction did not signicantly affect the join measure.
This might further suggest that invite and join have differing effects.
3.2.3. Mediation
Effects on multiculturalism. As a preliminary analysis for mediation, a 2 2 ANOVA was conducted to test if the manipulations of acculturation preferences predicted Hispanics perceptions of American support for multiculturalism. This revealed
only a signicant interaction effect (Fig. 4); both main effects were non-signicant.
Simple effects analysis revealed that the mean level of American support for multiculturalism only differed signicantly
when Americans were depicted as having low desire for contact. When Americans were depicted as desiring contact, their
perceived preference for culture maintenance (high or low) did not signicantly differ in how supportive of multiculturalism they seemed to the minority, (MHighCM = 3.07, SD = 0.72; MLowCM = 3.46, SD = 0.69) F(1, 47) = 1.66, p = 0.20. However, for
Americans depicted as having a low desiring for contact, Hispanics attributed signicantly greater support for multiculturalism to Americans shown wanting Hispanics to maintain (separation; M = 3.75, SD = 1.01) rather than relinquish their
culture (marginalization; M = 3.00, SD = 0.64), F(1, 47) = 5.91, p = 0.02. Americans depicted as desiring Hispanics to separate
was interpreted by Hispanics as the strongest evidence for American support for multiculturalism (M = 3.75). This signicant
interaction supports the possibility for investigating mediation.
We had expected our manipulations to impact minorities response for intergroup emotions and prejudice, (if somewhat
less than the majority but still signicantly), particularly since the manipulation check was successful. Seeing that there was
in fact, only an effect on one of our DVs, we investigated if perhaps this could be explained by a suppression effect. As Preacher
and Hayes (2008) argue, the effect of the IV on the DV does not need to be signicant for mediation to occur, particularly
if suppression is expected; if the expected total effect (from the IV to the DV) is non-signicant, but a signicant change
occurs in the relation between the IV and DV when a third variable (mediator) is introduced, this may indicate suppression
(MacKinnon, Krull, & Lockwood, 2000). Suppression would occur when the third variable has a differing sign from the total
effect. Thus, although the effects of our manipulations were non-signicant, we investigated if suppression was at play.
Mediation model. Unlike the majority sample, the minority sample (N = 50) did not reach the conventional size recommended for SEM analysis (N > 100; Kline, 2010), thus a series of regression analyses were conducted to test mediation. We
316
American Support for

Mulculturalism
4.5
4
3.5
Low Culture
Maintenance
3
2.5
High Culture
Maintenance
2
1.5
1
Low
High
Contact
Fig. 4. American Support for Multiculturalism as a function of contact (high vs. low) and culture maintenance (high vs. low) of the Americans depicted in
the newspaper article (minority sample).
-.15
Contact x Culture
Maintenance
Intergroup
Emotions
American Support
for
Multiculturalism
-1.6
Contact x Culture
Maintenance
***
**
.46
.64
Intergroup
Emotions
Fig. 5. Simple mediation model for minority sample. Regression analyses testing suppression of the effect of the contact culture maintenance interaction
on intergroup emotions, as suppressed by American support for Multiculturalism. Path coefcients are standardized values ** p 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
tested this for each of our dependent variables, and only for positive intergroup emotions did the direction of the relationship
change, with a signicant change in R2 (for prejudice, BIC-invite, and BIC-join R2 < 0.07, ps > 0.11).
Thus, as shown with the ANOVA, we found that the contact culture maintenance interaction, had a signicant impact on
American support for multiculturalism ( = 1.6, p = 0.01). When regressed on intergroup emotions, multiculturalism was
a signicant predictor ( = 0.46, p < 0.001), R2 = 0.21, p < 0.001. A signicant Sobel test indicated that American support for
multiculturalism mediated the relationship between the interaction of acculturation dimensions and intergroup emotions
(z = 2.08, p = 0.04).
Here we see a suppression effect, demonstrated in Fig. 5. The total relation between outgroup preference for integration
(interaction term) had a negative (but non-signicant) relation with positive intergroup emotions ( = 0.15). However, as
we expected this relationship to be positive, we investigated the possible suppression effect was occurring. Indeed, when
adding American support for multiculturalism into the model, the relation between integration and positive emotions then
317
becomes positive ( = 0.64). This shows that integration can have a positive impact on positive emotions, when taking
into consideration Americans support for multiculturalism. Yet, without support for multiculturalism, integration may
be negatively (although not signicantly) related to emotions. More simply put, for the minority sample, whether or not
Americans supported multiculturalism was important in interpreting the acculturation manipulation, and thus impacting
their emotions towards Americans.
This highlights the importance of American or rather societal support for multiculturalism, as seen by the minority, when
dealing with intergroup relations.
4. Discussion
Our experimental study demonstrates the causal role that perceptions of outgroup acculturation preferences have in
determining intergroup outcomes, supporting and extending the ndings of Matera et al. (2011). We predicted that (H2)
outgroup preference for integration would determine the best intergroup outcomes for Americans, but not necessarily
for Hispanics. Interestingly, we found such a distinction: Hispanics preference for integration led to the best intergroup
attitudes for Americans, yet Americans acculturation preferences did not impact Hispanics attitudes towards Americans.
This, as well as our divergent ndings for behavioral investment, may be highlighting that minority and majority members
do indeed experience intergroup situations differently (Brown, 2010; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005; Zagefka et al., 2014), and we
demonstrate how this asymmetry is reected in intergroup attitudes and behavioral intentions.
The majority ndings support the argument for separately measuring the two underlying dimensions of acculturation
(Brown & Zagefka, 2011; Matera et al., 2011) as culture maintenance and contact had differing effects on intergroup outcomes
and behavioral investment in acculturation (H1 & H2). Quite notably, from the interaction of these two dimensions, we found
majority members reported more positive intergroup emotions and less prejudice when Hispanics were perceived to endorse
integration, as compared to assimilation (Figs. 1 and 2). This suggests, as argued earlier, that in the culturally diverse US
context, the majority may appreciate culture maintenance.
In fact, we can clearly see in Table 4, that from the majority perspective, integration was seen as the socially most
positive strategy overall: most positive emotions, least prejudice, least realistic threat, least symbolic threat (although not
signicantly), and greatest support for multiculturalism, strongly supporting our hypothesis 1.
In line with our predictions, these effects were strongly mediated by endorsement of multiculturalism (H4) suggesting
further that the context matters. Realistic threat was also a mediator (H3); yet, unlike Matera et al. (2011) we found symbolic
threat was not a signicant predictor on its own. This nding supports the contention that realistic and symbolic threats
have the strongest impact when working together (Stephan, Renfro, Esses, Stephan, & Martin, 2005), and should both be
assessed when investigating anti-immigrant sentiment.
For the minority, results showed no impact of desired contact on intergroup prejudice or emotions. American support for
multiculturalism did actually suppress the interaction of contact culture maintenance in predicting intergroup emotions
for the minority (H4) showing the impactful role that American support for multiculturalism, or rather the context, plays
for both the majority and minority. Yet interestingly, minority interpretations of multiculturalism were quite different from
the majority perspective.
When Americans were shown as wanting Hispanics to keep their culture, but keep their distance (Berrys separation),
Hispanics interpreted this as the strongest evidence for American support for multiculturalism. Yet, Americans responded
to high contact and high culture maintenance (Berrys integration) with the greatest support for multiculturalism. This
resonates with similar ndings in California, where out of the four acculturation strategies, European-Americans endorsed
integration signicantly more than the other three. Moreover, Hispanic immigrants endorsed separation signicantly more
than European-Americans (Bourhis et al., 2009). With our ndings, the asymmetry suggests a majorityminority disagreement on the contact dimension in dening instances of American support for multiculturalism. Mismatched views of just one
acculturation dimension may be less problematic for intergroup outcomes than complete disagreement (Piontkowski et al.,
2002), yet this may suggest that majority and minority groups indeed have different interpretations for which acculturation
attitudes are the most supportive in terms of a multicultural society. Our novel investigation of behavioral intentions further
explores this.
For the majority, towards Hispanics desiring contact, Americans were marginally more willing to invest in contact behavior, by joining the outgroup. Americans were also more willing to invite the minority that maintained their Hispanic culture;
yet Americans were willing to join the Hispanics, regardless of culture maintenance preference. For the minority, while contact had no impact, Americans desire for culture maintenance, determined whether or not Hispanics joined the outgroup.
In contrast, Hispanics were more likely to join when the outgroup desired low culture maintenance, suggesting an assimilationist preference in the face of a majority group unwilling to support cultural maintenance. These behavioral intentions
show that of the two dimensions, opinions of culture maintenance were more vital for minority, while both dimensions were
important for the majority. Yet, further investigation of the behavioral intentions is needed to understand the complexity
of culture maintenance for the minority.
These behavioral intention measures take a closer look at the dimension of contact, helping to expose instances and
perhaps reasons why contact may not be having the desired effects for both groups involved. These ndings seem to suggest
(with respect to acculturation preferences), when majority members want to invite minorities, they wont accept; when
minority members want to join the majority, theyre unwelcome. This nding, while somewhat discouraging, does reinforce
318
the assertion that acculturation preferences differentially affect minority and majority members (Binder et al., 2009; Brown,
2010; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005; Zagefka et al., 2014) further advocating the simultaneous assessment of both perspectives
(Brown & Zagefka, 2011; Rudmin, 2009). Further investigation of majorityminority intentions for these two types of behavioral investment may help clarify how acculturation preferences affect actions, in hopes of rectifying the problems associated
with invite-join asymmetries.
Moreover, with this studys objective of replicating and extending Matera et al.s (2011) ndings in ve ways, these differences are particularly notable. Here we demonstrate: (1) the additional importance of including realistic threat as a mediator,
(2) establishing that support for multiculturalism was the strongest mediator; (3) Adding the minority perspective claried
the other side of the acculturation street, indicating future research should pay attention to the these differential impact of
these two acculturation dimensions; (4) Further investigating behavioral intentions added substantial understanding to the
minority perspective, as well as where communications or attempts at ideal contact may go wrong; and (5) we extend this
research to a larger, historically different context, helping to clarify the majority/minority differences, and to substantiate
previous ndings in a new environment.
4.1. Limitations
It is important to note the limitations to the present research. While attempting to replicate aspects of Matera et al.s
(2011) ndings, the current research did not address the mediating effect that metaperceptions have on the contact dimension. Understanding the way both groups think about each other may have helped to clarify the problems arising for both
behavioral investment in contact and multiculturalism.
Another possible limitation to this study is lack of domain specicity (distinction between public and private acculturation
preferences). Previous research suggests that immigrants preferred acculturation styles will vary depending upon their
public or private domain (Arends-Tth & van de Vijver, 2003). While the behavioral items did attempt to measure these
domains, (examples in Appendix B) the factor analysis did not support this distinction. Perhaps further domain-specic
behavioral items would lead to a more reliable or valid scale of behavioral measures.
4.2. Policy implications

Based on our ndings, in the US context differing interventions for the majority and minority may be more adaptive
to suit the differential impact of outgroup acculturation preferences on intergroup relations. For the majority, educational
interventions aiming to improve majorityminority relations should focus on support for multiculturalism and reducing
threat. Thus multiculturalism workshops, perhaps facilitated by minority members, could simultaneously encourage intergroup contact, whilst offering the minority perspective of what the benets of multiculturalism can be. However, for the
minority, interventions could be facilitated by majority members, focusing on examples of institutional support of cultural
maintenance, rather than contact. However, with any interventions, the wider societal context should be considered, as we
show that the impacts of outgroup acculturation preferences may slightly differ given the historical context of immigration
(e.g. the US vs. Italy) and the majority versus minority perspective.
Acknowledgements
A special thank you to Cynthia Ross and her colleagues for allowing us to conduct these experiments during their classes.
And to Rod Bond for statistical advice.
Appendix A. An example manipulation given to majority participants: high desire for intergroup contact, high
desire for culture maintenance (integration)
Title: Hispanic/Latino Youth in America and their Preferences: Balancing two Cultures
A.1. Summary
This is a recent look at Hispanic/Latino immigrants in America and their preferences for adjusting to life in America.
Based on recent studies conducted by the American Research Board of Immigration, current research is showing that
Hispanic youth in America want to live an American lifestyle, as well as maintain their heritage culture. Further ndings
show that Hispanics want to have contact with Americans, and balance their two cultures in American society. According to
Professor Carol D. Miller, a specialist in immigration research, this is the opinion of the majority of Hispanic/Latino youth in
America. The reason why Hispanics choose to live their lives this way is not clear yet. We interviewed two Hispanic youths
living in America to nd out what this means to them.
319
A.1.1. Transcript
Interviewer: Tell us, Jose and Maria, you both are Hispanic immigrants to America, born outside of the United States, and
so are your parents. You live in a new country, away from your own customs. What does living in America mean for you and
your cultural customs?
Jose: As for cultural customs, I still eat Hispanic-style food, but go out to eat with my American friends too. And in my
family we celebrate The Day of the Dead, and keep some other Hispanic traditions too.
Interviewer: So you prefer to balance parts of both Hispanic and American cultures while living in an American society.
How do you feel about having friends from both cultures? What types of people do you spend your time with?
Jose: I have some Hispanic friends but Ive made friends with some Americans too. But yeah, Id say I spend time with
Americans and Hispanics about the same amount of time.
Interviewer: Do you feel the same Maria? What do you think of having friends with different cultural backgrounds?
Maria: Yeah, Im exactly the same. I have both American and Hispanic friends and I also keep my original Hispanic
traditions, like the importance of family togetherness. We always have big family get-togethers to celebrate any holiday or
Hispanic estas and celebrations.
Interviewer: So you both prefer to keep your own cultural habits but also spend time with Americans. What would you
say has helped you balance these two cultures?
Maria: Well my mom has been teaching me how to cook some of our traditional foods, but Ive also joined the volleyball
team and some after-school clubs too, which helps me meet and spend time with both Americans and Hispanics.
Jose: True, I mean I still listen to Spanish music and watch some Spanish TV, but I play football with some of my American
friends too. I think my time is pretty balanced between the two cultures.
Appendix B. Factor loadings for principal component analysis with oblique oblimin rotation with Kaiser
normalization of behavioral investment in contact scales for majority and minority samples
Majority scale
Join
Invite
Suppose a Hispanic friend is spending a sunny day in the park together with some other Hispanic
friends. He/she invited you to join them. How likely is it that youll go?
Suppose your Hispanic friends younger sister is having her Quinceanera

(15th birthday
celebration). Say your friend has invited you to come and join along with the Hispanic friends
and families that will be at the celebration. How likely is it that you will attend?
Suppose some of your Hispanic classmates are going out and asked you to come along. How likely
is it that youll go with them?
Imagine youre going to watch the [town name] Rodeo Parade with a few other American
classmates and your Hispanic classmate mentions that he/she has never been before. How likely
is it that you will invite him/her to join you and your American friends?
Suppose you have a Hispanic classmate, who doesnt usually celebrate The 4th of July. How likely
is it that youd invite him/her to go watch the reworks with you and your American friends?
0.93
0.06
0.85
0.04
0.75
0.19
0.05
0.97
0.39
0.53
Minority Scale
Join
Invite
Imagine your American classmates are going to watch the [town name] Rodeo Parade and they
invite you to go too. How likely is it that you will join them?
Imagine some of your American classmates are going to watch the reworks for the 4th of July and
theyve invited you. How likely is it that youll go?
Suppose your American classmate is going to an American football game with a group of friends
and they invited you to come along. How likely is it that youd join them?
Imagine there is an American girl/boy in your class who you get along well with but youve never
seen him/her together with Hispanics before. How likely is it that youd invite him/her to hang
out with you and your Hispanic friends?
Suppose you and your Hispanic classmates are going out. How likely is it that youll suggest
inviting your American classmates too?
0.76
0.16
0.73
0.11
0.69
0.12
0.06
0.90
0.09
0.85
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations for both samples.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley.
Arends-Tth, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views of Dutch and TurkishDutch. European Journal of Social Psychology,
33(2), 249266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.143
Baysu, G., Phalet, K., & Brown, R. J. (2013). Relative group size and minority school success: The role of intergroup friendship and discrimination experiences.
British Journal of Social Psychology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12035
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, An International Review, 46(1), 534.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x
Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 615631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00231
Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress. International Migration Review, 21, 491511.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2546607
Blumer, H. (1958). Racial prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacic Sociological Review, 1, 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1388607
320
Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R. J., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., et al. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A
longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
96(4), 843856. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013470
Bourhis, R. Y., Barrette, G., El-Geledi, S., & Schmidt, R. (2009). Acculturation orientations and social relations between immigrant and host community
members in California. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(3), 443.
Bourhis, R. Y., Mose, L. C., Perreault, S., & Sencal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International
Journal of Psychology, 32(6), 369386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002075997400629
Brown, R. J. (2010). Prejudice: Its social psychology (2nd ed.). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Brown, R. J., & Zagefka, H. (2011). The dynamics of acculturation: An intergroup perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 129184.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00003-2
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Italian National Institute of Statistics. (2013). I cittadini non comunitari regolarmente soggiornanti. Italian National Institute of Statistics. Retrieved November
15, 2013 from http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/96843.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kosic, A., Mannetti, L., & Sam, D. L. (2005). The role of majority attitudes towards outgroup in the perception of the acculturation strategies of immigrants.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 273288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.06.004
MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1(4), 173181.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026595011371
Matera, C., Stefanile, C., & Brown, R. J. (2011). The role of immigrant acculturation preferences and generational status in determining majority intergroup
attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4), 776785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.007
Matera, C., Stefanile, C., & Brown, R. J. (2012). Host culture adoption or intercultural contact? Comparing different acculturation conceptualizations and their effects on host members attitudes towards immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(4), 459471.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.03.002
Nguyen, A.-M. D., & Benet-Martnez, V. (2013). Biculturalism and adjustment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 122159.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022111435097
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. New York, NY, USA: Psychology Press.
Pfafferott, I., & Brown, R. J. (2006). Acculturation preferences of majority and minority adolescents in Germany in the context of society and family.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(6), 703717. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.03.005
Piontkowski, U., Rohmann, A., & Florack, A. (2002). Concordance of acculturation attitudes and perceived threat. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
5(3), 221232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430202005003003
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models.
Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879891. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American
Sociological Review, 60, 586611. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2096296.
Redeld, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. (1936). Memorandum on the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149152.
Rohmann, A., Florack, A., & Piontkowski, U. (2006). The role of discordant acculturation attitudes in perceived threat: An analysis of host and immigrant
attitudes in Germany. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 683702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.06.006
Rudmin, F. (2009). Constructs, measurements and models of acculturation and acculturative stress. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2),
106123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.001
Schlueter, E., & Scheepers, P. (2010). The relationship between outgroup size and anti-outgroup attitudes: A theoretical synthesis and empirical test of
group threat- and intergroup contact theory. Social Science Research, 39, 285295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.07.006
Stephan, W. G., Renfro, L., Esses, V., Stephan, C. W., & Martin, T. (2005). The effects of feeling threatened on attitudes toward immigrants. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.04.011
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1996). Predicting prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Special Issue: Prejudice, Discrimination and
Conict, 20(34), 409426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(96)00026-0\
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 2345).
Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Tip, L. K. (2012). Causes and consequences of public and private acculturation preferences: Views of minority and majority group members in three countries. UK:
University of Sussex. Retrieved from http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/44726/1/Tip%2C Linda Kirsten.pdf (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation).
Tip L. K., Gonzlez, R., Brown, R. J., de Tezanos-Pinto, P., Saavedra, P., Sagredo, V., et al. (in press). Effects of ingroup norms on domain-specic acculturation
preferences: Experimental evidence from two cultural contexts. International Journal of Intercultural Relations.
Tip, L. K., Zagefka, H., Gonzlez, R., Brown, R. J., Cinnirella, M., & Na, X. (2012). Is the biggest threat to multiculturalism. . . Threat itself? International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 36(1), 2230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.09.011
Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological
Science, 16, 951957. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01643.x
U.S. Census Bureau Estimates, U.S. (2010). American FactFinder fact sheet. Retrieved March 7, 2013 from http://factnder2.census.gov/
faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC 10 DP DPDP1#.
Zagefka, H., Binder, J., Brown, R. J., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., Funke, F., et al. (2014). The relationship between acculturation preferences and prejudice: Longitudinal evidence from majority and minority groups in three European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 578589.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2044
Zagefka, H., & Brown, R. J. (2002). The relationship between acculturation strategies, relative t, and intergroup relations: Immigrant-majority relations in
Germany. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 171188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.73
Zagefka, H., Tip, L. K., Gonzalez, R., Brown, R. J., & Cinnirella, M. (2012). Predictors of majority members acculturation preferences: Experimental evidence.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 654659. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.006

Acculturation-Two Way Street

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Acculturation-Two Way Street

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

Acculturation is a two-way street: Majorityminority

University of Sussex, Sussex, UK

L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320

L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320

L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320

L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320

Suppose your Hispanic friends younger sister is having her Quinceanera

(15th birthday celebration)

before. How likely is it that you would

Minority item removed addressed Hispanic gender roles.

L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320

L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320

F (1, 158) = 100.35

F (1, 158) = 0.50

F (1, 157) = 5.92

F (1, 157) = 7.48

F (1, 159) = 2.27

F (1, 159) = 3.51

F (1, 158) = 5.37

F (1, 158) = 7.11

F (1, 159) = 14.47

L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320

L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320

Posive Intergroup Emoons

L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320

L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320

L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320

F (1, 46) = 26.06

F (1, 46) = 1.62

F (1, 45) = 0.34

F (1, 44) = 0.06

F (1, 45) = 0.28

F (1, 45) = 1.34

F (1, 46) = 0.26

Perceived desire for CM

L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320

American Support for

L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320

L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320

4.2. Policy implications

L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320

Suppose your Hispanic friends younger sister is having her Quinceanera

a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations for both samples.

L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304320

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen