acculturation-two way street

8/18/2019 Acculturation-two Way Street

1/17

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304–320

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/locate / i j int re l

Acculturation is a two-way street: Majority–minorityperspectives of outgroup acculturation preferences and themediating role of multiculturalism and threat

Laura Celeste a,b,∗, Rupert Brown a, Linda K. Tip a, Camilla Matera c

a University of Sussex, Sussex,UK b University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgiumc 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 investmentIntergroup 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 European-

American-majority (N =163) in California, USA. Participants read fabricated interviews

which manipulated outgroup acculturation preferences for contact (high vs. low) and cul-

ture maintenance (high vs. low). For majority participants: Hispanics’ desire for contact

strongly predicted positive intergroup emotions and low prejudice; desire for culturemain-

tenance 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 sup-

port for multiculturalism did suppress the interaction of acculturation dimensions on

intergroup emotions. The acculturation attitude that exemplified American support for

multiculturalism differed for majority and minority participants (integration and sepa-

ration, respectively). Further majority–minority 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 State’s official population) (US Census Bureau Estimates, 2010).

This border-state setting for intercultural interaction has the potential both for positive outcomes such as reduced preju-

dice (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 0 163 25886.

E-mail address: [email protected](L. Celeste).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.10.002

0147-1767/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.10.002http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01471767http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrelmailto:[email protected]://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.10.002http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.10.002mailto:[email protected]://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.10.002&domain=pdfhttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrelhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01471767http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.10.002


2/17

L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304–320 305

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 Berry’s 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 identifies four strategies of accultur-

ation: 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). Evi-

dence supports integration as usually the most beneficial 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 multicultur-

alism, which can be defined as the encouragement of cultural diversity or a culturally plural society (Arends-Tóth & van de

Vijver, 2003).

Further intergroup research reveals that acculturation outcomes are indeed contextually influenced by both minorityand

majority preferences toward acculturation (Bourhis, Barrette, El-Geledi, & Schmidt, 2009; Piontkowski, Rohmann, & Florack,

2002). By measuring both majority and minority preferences,researchersdemonstrate thatwhen preferencesare 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 simul-

taneously investigating majority and minority perspectives, researchers can account for the dynamic intergroup aspect of

acculturation (Arends-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2003; Brown & Zagefka, 2011). Moreover, Arends-Tóth and van de Vijver (2003)

argue that the success of multiculturalism may be dependent upon the discrepancies between host-immigrant perspec-

tives. 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 majority–Hispanic relations in California.

Matera et al. (2011) investigated the impact of outgroup acculturation preferences on intergroup outcomes in Italy,

from the majority group’s 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 significantly 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).

Specifically, 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 first experimental demonstrations of the effects of perceived outgroup acculturation attitudes

on generalized intergroup attitudes (see also Zagefka, Tip, González, 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 findings in five ways.

First , Matera et al. (2011) f ound 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 contact’s ability to reduce prejudice (Stephan & Stephan, 1996, 2000). Immigrants can also

pose realistic threat, such as threat to limited resources (jobs, socialservices), 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 finite resources and simulta-

neously 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 contact’s effect

on reducing prejudice for the host-majority, it may not be so influential for minority members. Although there is little direct

evidence on this issue, intergroup contact research hasconsistently found differentialeffects for majority andminoritygroup

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.


3/17

306 L. Celeste et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 43 (2014) 304–320

While the relationship between contact and threat is quite well documented (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011;

Stephan & Stephan, 2000), the relation between desirefor culture maintenance and threathas beenpaid lessattention. Matera

et al. (2011) f ound 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 Contact’s impact on threat (i.e. an interaction between the two acculturation

dimensions). As Brown and Zagefka (2011) suggest, an immigrant’s 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 findings on this issue appear partiallyinconsistent. Matera et al. (2011) f ound 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 butnegativelypredicted 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-Tóth & van de Vijver, 2003; Bourhis, Moïse, Perreault, & Senécal, 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, findings from a related field, intergroup contact, suggest that rather different processes

mayoperate 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 influence the impact that a contact intervention or manipulation has on the minority. In any case, by its original

definition, acculturation is a two way street—both minority aswell asmajoritymembers experience acculturation (Redfield,

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-Martínez, 2013). However, for policy purposes it may be useful to go beyond attitudes

to examine people’s behavioral intentions with respect to the outgroup. Tip (2012) has labeled this ‘behavioral investment

in acculturation’ and has developed a measure which assesses people’s 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 significantly 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 Tip’s 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 other’s 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 influenced 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 allof Italy (1%; Italian National Institute of Statistics, 2013). Minority

group size may matter, as it can influence the amount of anti-immigrant prejudice (Quillian, 1995) which might threaten the

majority group’s 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.


4/17


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 con-

tact× 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 specific 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 specific 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 par-

ticipants most were female, (F =36, M = 13; 1 unspecified; 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 anony-

mous. 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 partici-

pants 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, partici-

pants completed questions for ten different variables all measured on a five point Likert-type scale (1= Strongly Disagree,

to 5 = Strongly Agree), unless otherwise specified. 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 & Brown’s (2002) perception of the outgroup’s attitude

towards contact constituted the first 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 Brown’s (2002) perceptionof the outgroup’s attitudetoward

1

Outliers scored between 3SD and 2SD below the meanon various measures.Both participants showed erratic and inconsistent questionnaire responsesthat suggested insincere participation. Thus, exclusion of these outliers was supported both statistically and practically.


5/17


Table 1

Behavioral investment in contact items for the majority and minority samples.

Majority Minority

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 you’ll go?”

• “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 Hispanic friend’s younger sister is having her Quinceañera

(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 your American classmate is going to an

American football game with a group of friends andthey invited you to come along. How likely is it that

you’d join them?”

• “Suppose some of your Hispanic classmates are going out and asked you

to come along. How likely is it that you’ll go with them?”

• “Imagine some of your American classmates are

going to watch the fireworks for the 4th of July and

they’ve invited you. How likely is it that you’ll go?”

Invite

• “Imagine you’re 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?”

• “Imagine there is an American girl/boy in your class

who you get along well with but you’ve never seen

him/her together with Hispanics before. How likely is

it that you’d invite him/her to hang out with you and

your Hispanic friends?”

• “Suppose you have a Hispanic classmate, who doesn’t usually celebrate

The 4th of July. How likely is it that you’d invite him/her to go watch the

fireworks with you and your American friends?”

• “Suppose you and your Hispanic classmates are going

out. How likely is it that you’ll suggest inviting your

American classmates too?”

• “Imagine there is a Hispanic girl/boy in your class who you get along well

with but you’ve never seen him/her together with non-Hispanics before.How likely is it that you’d invite him/her to hang out with you and your

American friends?”a

• “Suppose your Hispanic friend’s younger sister is

having her Quinceañera (15th birthday celebration)and has said you can bring a friend along. Your

American friend mentions he/she has never been to a

Quinceañera before. How likely is it that you would

invite your American friend to join?”b

a This item was removed for the majority scale; it was inconsistent with the other items, not loading on either factor.b For the minority data, this item loaded on ‘join’ so was removed from the minority scale as it is not conceptually a join item.

culturemaintenance; 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 Sam’s (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 seman-

tic 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 (


6/17


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 fit 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 filling 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 filling 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 viainvite and join. Significant effects of the contact manipulation on our dependent variables would be supportive of H1, while

significant effects of the contact× culture maintenance interaction would be supportive of H2.

Second,totestH3andH4, weconducted2×2 ANOVAstestingthe effects of ourmanipulations onour predictedmediators,

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). Significant

(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

reflect ‘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 specific 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 first, followed by the minority, both separated into three subsections of the manipulation

check, effects of our manipulations on our dependent variables (testingH1 andH2), and mediation analyses (testingH3 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 f or 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) con-tact× culture maintenance interactions, to more clearly show these means andstandard deviationsin terms of Berry’s (1997,

2001) f our acculturation strategies.

3.1.1. Manipulation checks

A 2×2 ANOVA for the manipulation check of perceived desire for contact revealed main effects for both contact and

culture maintenance. A significant interaction further revealed that while the contact manipulation had the desired effect

throughout, minority members seen to be desiring lowcontact but high culture maintenance (separation;M =2.09, SD= 0.81)

were perceived as desiring significantly less contact than those low on both dimensions (marginalization;M = 3.22,SD= 0.69).

Nevertheless, a simple effects ANOVA revealed that the contact manipulationwas effective in both culture maintenance con-

ditions: Hispanics shown preferring marginalization (low contact, low culture maintenance;M = 3.22,SD= 0.69) significantly

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) significantly differed from integration (high

contact, high culture maintenance; M = 3.98, SD= 0.87), F (1, 159)= 85.19, p< 0.001.


7/17


Table 2

Majority correlations (N = 163).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Positive emotions

2. Prejudice −0.66***

3. Multiculturalism 0.51*** −0.48***

4. Realistic threat −0.48*** 0.51*** −0.45***

5. Symbolic threat −0.38*** 0.41*** −0.42*** 0.54***

6. Behavioral Investment in contact—invite 0.44*** −0.45*** 0.41*** −0.28*** −0.28***7. B ehavioral i nvestment in c ontact—join 0.56*** −0.47*** 0.32*** −0.29*** −0.26*** 0.68***

8. Contact 0.18* −0.21** 0.26*** −0.18* −0.20** 0.11 0.14ˆ

9. Culture maintenance 0.19* −0.08 0.21** −0.03 0.12 0.16* 0.07 −0.03

10. Contact×culture maintenance interaction 0.16* −0.15ˆ 0.28*** −0.21** −0.29*** −0.01 0.08 −0.01 0.02

ˆ 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

Low High p p2

Dependent variables:

Perceived

desire for

contact

Contact 2.65 (0.94) 4.02 (0.96) F (1, 158) = 100.35


8/17


Table 4

Means (standard deviations in parentheses)for manipulationof contact(high& low)culture maintenance (CM)high & lowand interactioneffects(ANOVAs).

Majority sample (N = 163).

Mean (SD)

High Contact Low Contact

High CM Low CM High CM Low CM

Integration Assimilation Separation Marginalization

Manipulation check

Perceived desire for contact 3.98 (0.87) 4.06 (1.04) 2.09 (0.81) 3.22 (0.69)

Perceived desire for CM 3.63 (0.76) 2.45 (1.15) 4.05 (0.68) 2.24 (0.97)

Dependent Variables

Positive intergroup emotions 5.21 (0.87) 4.50 (0.79) 4.51 (1.18) 4.45 (1.10)

Prejudice 2.67 (1.05) 3.14 (0.88) 3.42 (1.08) 3.26 (1.00)

BIC-Invite 4.40 (0.57) 4.15 (0.81) 4.23 (0.84) 3.95 (0.88)

BIC-Join 4.29 (0.83) 4.02 (0.80) 3.89 (0.94) 3.88 (1.06)

Mediating variables

Realistic threat 1.90 (0.88) 2.36 (0.93) 2.64 (0.95) 2.30 (0.99)

Symbolic threat 1.61 (0.75) 1.90 (0.84) 2.41 (0.74) 1.74 (0.74)

Support for multiculturalism 4.60 (0.46) 3.89 (0.69) 3.80 (0.69) 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 fourcombinationsreflect Berry’staxonomy: integration= highcontact,high culture maintenance;assimilation= highcontact, lowculturemaintenance;

separation = low contact, high culture maintenance; marginalization= low contact, low culture maintenance.

a significant 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) versusmarginalization(low contact, lowculture

maintenance; M = 2.23, SD= 0.97), than between Hispanics seen endorsing integration (M = 3.63, SD= 0.76) versus assimi-

lation (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 significant: in the low

contact condition, the amount of perceived culture maintenance was significantly 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), significantly differed in the expected direction, F (1, 159)= 34.83, p< 0.001.

3.1.2. Dependent variables

Effectsonpositiveintergroup emotions.Both the contact and culture maintenance manipulations significantly affected

majority positive intergroup emotions, supportingH1. 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 significant interaction qualified culture maintenance’s impact on intergroup emotions

(Fig. 1).

Simple effects revealed that mean levels of positive emotions only differed significantlyin the conditions where Hispanics

were seen as highlydesirous of contact. As predicted, majority members reported greater positive intergroupemotionswhen

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 Hispanicsdepicted as havinga lowdesire forcontact, majority reported similar mean levelsof 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).

Effectsonprejudice.A 2×2 ANOVA revealed a significant 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 significantly affect prejudice, but a significant interaction between

the two manipulations was observed, (Fig. 2).

Similar to positive emotions,simple effects analysisrevealed thatmean levelsof prejudice onlydiffered significantly when

Hispanicswere seen as highlydesiring contact. As predicted, majority participantsreported significantlyless 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


9/17


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low High

P o s i v e I n t e r g r o u p

E m o o n s

Contact

Low Culture

Maintenance

High Culture

Maintenance

Fig. 1. Positiveintergroupemotions as a functionof contact(highvs. low) andculturemaintenance(highvs. low)of theHispanics depictedin thenewspaper

article (majority sample).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low High

A n - i m m i g r a n

t P r e j u d i c e

Contact

Low Culture

Maintenance

High Culture

Maintenance

Fig. 2. Anti-immigrant prejudice as a functionof contact (highvs. low) and culture maintenance(highvs. low) of theHispanics depicted in thenewspaper

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 significantly 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.

ForBIC-join,a 2×2 ANOVA revealed only a marginal main effectfor thecontact 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


10/17


or relinquish their culture did not significantly influence 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 Hispanic’s 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. Significant main effects of the desire for contact manipulation were observed

for both realistic and symbolic threat. Majority participants reported significantly 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 threatM = 2.48,

SD= 0.98; symbolic threat M = 2.08, SD= 0.81). Desire for culture maintenance did not significantly affect either realistic or

symbolic, but significant interactions were observed for both types of threat.

Simple effects analysis revealed that culture maintenance did have a significant effect on realistic threat, but only when

Hispanics were seen as wanting contact. Majority members reported significantly 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 significantly 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 significant main effects for both contact,

and culture maintenance. Majority participants reported significantly 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 significantly 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 significant interaction was also observed.

Simple effects analysis revealed that the mean level of support for multiculturalism only significantly 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 mul-

ticulturalism 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 M plus 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-fitting 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 significant mediator (ˇindirect = 0.08,

p= 0.01),and realisticthreat as a marginal mediator (ˇindirect = 0.05, p= 0.07) of therelationship between thedesire forcontact

manipulation and positive emotions; symbolic threat was not significant on its own (ˇindirect

= 0.02, p= 0.27), but together,

all three mediators fully mediated this relationship (ˇtotal indirect = 0.15, p= 0.001), supporting H3 and H4. Multiculturalism

fully and independently mediated the effect of culture maintenance on positive emotions (ˇindirect = 0.07, p= 0.02), further

supporting H4. Multiculturalism and realistic threat also independently mediated the relationship between the interaction

term and positive emotions (ˇMultic = 0.08, p= 0.01, ˇRealisticTh =0.06, p= 0.03); symbolic threat was not significant on its

own (ˇindirect = 0.04, p= 0.26), but together, all three mediators significantly mediated this relationship (ˇtotal 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 prej-

udice (ˇMultic =−0.07, p= 0.04, ˇRealisticTh =−0.06, p= 0.04); symbolic threat was not significant on its own (ˇindirect =−0.03,

p= 0.26),but together, allthree mediatorssignificantly mediated this relationship(ˇtotal indirect =−0.15, p = 0.001), supporting

H3 and H4.

The same pattern emerged for the interaction term’s effect on prejudice: multiculturalism and realistic threat indepen-

dently mediated the relationship (ˇMultic =−0.07, p= 0.02, ˇRealisticTh =−0.07, p= 0.03, respectively). Symbolic threat was not

significant on its own (ˇindirect

=−0.04, p= 0.23), but together, all three mediators significantly mediated the interaction’s

effects on prejudice (ˇtotal indirect =−0.17, p= 0.001).


11/17


Realistic Threat

Symbolic Threat

Multiculturalism

Culture

Maintenance

Contact X Culture

Maintenance

Contact

Investment in

Contact- Invite

Positive Emotions

Prejudice

Investment in

Contact-

Join

-.18*

-.20**

.27***

***

-.21** -.30

***

.27***

-.27***

.32***

.31***

-.26**

.21*

R2

= .35

R2

= .34

R2

=.20

R2

= .14

.23

.32***

Fig. 3. SEM majority mediation model. Note. Path coefficients are standardized values, calculated in M plus. Non-significant pathways from symbolic

threat to all DVs were removed for visual simplicity (ˇs0.19). Mediator residuals, not depicted in this figure 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-darkline indicates partial mediation. Fit indices were:2(7, N =163)=11.30, p= 0.12, Comparative Fit Index(CFI) = 0.99, Tucker–Lewis

Index (TLI)= 0.95, Root Mean SquareErrorof Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06, Standardized Root Mean SquareResidual(SRMR) = 0.026. * p< 0.05, ** p< 0.01,

*** p


12/17


Table 6

Means and standarddeviations for manipulation of contact (high & low) culture maintenance (CM)high & low and maineffects (ANOVAs). Minoritysample

(N =50).

Manipulation Means (SD) ANOVA

Low High p p2

Dependent variables

Perceived desire for

contact

Contact 2.81 (1.04) 4.22 (0.95) F (1, 46) = 26.06


13/17


1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Low High

A m e r i c a n S u p

p o r t f o r

M u l c u l t u r a l i s m

Contact

Low Culture

Maintenance

High Culture

Maintenance

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).

Intergroup

Emotions

Contact x Culture

Maintenance

American Support

forMulticulturalism

Intergroup

Emotions

Contact x Culture

Maintenance

-.15

-1.6**

.46***

.64

Fig. 5. Simple mediation model for minority sample. Regression analyses testing suppression of the effectof the contact×culture maintenance interaction

on intergroup emotions, as suppressed by American support for Multiculturalism. Path coefficients are standardized values ** p≤0.01, *** p< 0.001.

tested this for each of our dependent variables, andonly for positive intergroup emotions did thedirectionof the relationship

change, with a significant 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 significant impact on

American support for multiculturalism (ˇ =−1.6, p= 0.01). When regressed on intergroup emotions, multiculturalism wasa significant predictor (ˇ =0.46, p< 0.001), R2 = 0.21, p< 0.001. A significant 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-significant) relation with positive intergroup emotions (ˇ=−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


14/17


becomes positive (ˇ =0.64). This shows that integration can have a positive impact on positive emotions, when takinginto consideration Americans’ support for multiculturalism. Yet, without support for multiculturalism, integration may

be negatively (although not significantly) 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 findings 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 findings 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 reflected in intergroup attitudes and behavioral intentions.

The majority findings support the argument for separately measuring the two underlying dimensions of acculturation

(Brown & Zagefka, 2011; Materaet al., 2011) as culture maintenance and contact had differing effects on intergroup outcomes

and behavioral investment in acculturation (H1&H2). Quite notably, from theinteractionof 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

significantly), 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 significant predictor on its own. This finding 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 (Berry’s separation),

Hispanics interpreted this as the strongest evidence for American support for multiculturalism. Yet, Americans responded

to high contact and high culture maintenance (Berry’s integration) with the greatest support for multiculturalism. This

resonates with similar findings in California, where out of the four acculturation strategies, European-Americans endorsed

integration significantly more than the other three. Moreover, Hispanic immigrants endorsed separation significantly more

than European-Americans (Bourhis et al., 2009). With our findings, the asymmetry suggests a majority–minority disagree-

ment on thecontact dimension in defining 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 behav-

ior, 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 con-

tact 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 ‘assimi-

lationist’ preference in the face of a majority group unwilling to support cultural maintenance. These behavioral intentions

show that of the two dimensions, opinions of culturemaintenance were more vital for minority, while bothdimensions 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 findings seem to suggest

(with respect to acculturation preferences), when majority members want to invite minorities, they won’t accept; when

minority members want to join the majority, they’re unwelcome. This finding, while somewhat discouraging, does reinforce


15/17


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 majority–minority intentions for these two types of behav-

ioral investment may help clarify how acculturation preferences affectactions,in hopes of rectifying theproblems associated

with invite-join asymmetries.

Moreover, with this study’s objective of replicating andextending Matera et al.’s (2011) findings in five ways, these differ-

ences are particularlynotable.Here we demonstrate: (1) theadditional importance of including realisticthreat as a mediator,

(2) establishing that support for multiculturalism was the strongest mediator; (3) Adding the minority perspective clarified

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 findings 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) findings, the current research did not address the mediating effect that metaperceptions have on the contact dimen-

sion. 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 limitationto this studyis lack of domain specificity(distinction between public and private acculturationpreferences). Previous research suggests that immigrants’ preferred acculturation styles will vary depending upon their

public or private domain (Arends-Tóth & 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-specific

behavioral items would lead to a more reliable or valid scale of behavioral measures.

4.2. Policy implications

Based on our findings, 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 majority–minority relations should focus on support for multiculturalism and reducing

threat. Thus multiculturalism workshops, perhaps facilitated by minority members, could simultaneously encourage inter-

group contact, whilst offering the minority perspective of what the benefits of multiculturalism can be. However, for theminority, 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 examplemanipulation given to majority participants: high desire for intergroup contact, highdesire for culturemaintenance (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 findings

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 find out what this means to them.


16/17


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 I’ve made friends with some Americans too. But yeah, I’d 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, I’m 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 fiestas 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 I’ve 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 analysiswith oblique oblimin rotationwith Kaiser

normalization of behavioral investment in contact scales formajority andminority 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 you’ll go?

0.93 −0.06

Suppose your Hispanic friend’s younger sister is having her Quinceañera (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?

0.85 −0.04

Suppose some of your Hispanic classmates are going out and asked you to come along. How likely

is it that you’ll go with them?

0.75 0.19

Imagine you’re 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?

−0.05 0.97

Suppose you have a Hispanic classmate, who doesn’t usually celebrate The 4th of July. How likely

is it that you’d invite him/her to go watch the fireworks with you and your American friends?

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?

0.76 0.16

Imagine some of your Americanclassmates are going to watchthe fireworks forthe 4th of July and

they’ve invited you. How likely is it that you’ll go?

0.73 −0.11

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 you’d join them?

0.69 −0.12

Imagine there is an American girl/boy in your class who you get along well with but you’ve never

seen him/her together with Hispanics before. How likely is it that you’d invite him/her to hang

out with you and your Hispanic friends?

−0.06 −0.90

Suppose you and your Hispanic classmates are going out. How likely is it that you’ll suggest

inviting your American classmates too?

0.09 −0.85

a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations for both samples.

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). Thenature of prejudice. Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley.Arends-Tóth, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views of Dutch and Turkish–Dutch. European Journal of SocialPsychology,

33(2), 249–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.143Baysu, G., Phalet, K., & Brown, R. J. (2013). Relative group sizeand minorityschoolsuccess:The roleof intergroup friendship and discrimination experiences.

British Journal of Social Psychology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12035Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, An International Review, 46(1), 5–34.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.xBerry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57 (3), 615–631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00231Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). C omparative studies of acculturative stress. International Migration Review, 21, 491–511.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2546607Blumer, H. (1958). Racial prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1, 3–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1388607

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0005http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.143http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12035http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.xhttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00231http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.2307/2546607http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.2307/1388607http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.2307/1388607http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.2307/2546607http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00231http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.xhttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12035http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.143http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0005


17/17


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? Alongitudinaltest of the contacthypothesis among majorityand minoritygroups in threeEuropeancountries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,96(4), 843–856. 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 communitymembers in California. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(3), 443.

Bourhis, R. Y., Moïse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32(6), 369–386. 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, 129–184.

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 NationalInstitute of Statistics. (2013). I cittadini non comunitari regolarmentesoggiornanti. Italian NationalInstitute 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, 273–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.06.004MacKinnon, D. P.,Krull, J. L.,& Lockwood,C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1(4),173–181.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026595011371Matera, 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), 776–785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.007Matera, C., Stefanile, C., & Brown, R. J. (2012). Host culture adoption or intercultural contact? Comparing different acculturation conceptual-

izations and their effects on host members’ attitudes towards immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(4), 459–471.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.03.002

Nguyen, A.-M. D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2013). Biculturalism and adjustment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 122–159.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022111435097

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2011). Whengroupsmeet: Thedynamics 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), 703–717. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.03.005Piontkowski, U., Rohmann, A., & Florack, A. (2002). Concordance of acculturation attitudes and perceived threat. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,

5(3), 221–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430202005003003Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models.

Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American

Sociological Review, 60, 586–611. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2096296.Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. (1936). Memorandum on the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist , 38, 149–152.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 InterculturalRelations, 30, 683–702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.06.006Rudmin, F. (2009). Constructs, measurements and models of acculturation and acculturative stress. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2),

106–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.001Schlueter, 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, 285–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.07.006Stephan, 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, 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.04.011Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1996). Predicting prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Special Issue: Prejudice, Discrimination and

Conflict , 20(3–4), 409–426. 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. 23–45).

Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Tip, L. K. (2012). Causes and consequences of public andprivate acculturation preferences: Views ofminority andmajority 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).TipL. K., González,R., Brown, R. J., de Tezanos-Pinto, P., Saavedra, P., Sagredo, V.,et al.(in press). Effectsof ingroup normson domain-specificacculturation

preferences: Experimental evidence from two cultural contexts. International Journal of Intercultural Relations.Tip, L. K., Zagefka, H., González, R., Brown, R. J., Cinnirella, M., & Na,X. (2012). Is the biggest threat to multiculturalism. . . Threat itself? International Journal

of Intercultural Relations, 36(1), 22–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.09.011Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological

Science, 16, 951–957. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01643.xU.S. Census Bureau Estimates, U.S. (2010). American FactFinder fact sheet . Retrieved March 7, 2013 from http://factfinder2.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 prej-

udice: Longitudinal evidence from majority and minority groups in three European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 578–589.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2044

Zagefka, H., & Brown, R. J. (2002). The relationship between acculturation strategies, relative fit, and intergroup relations: Immigrant-majority relations in

Germany. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 171–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.73Zagefka, 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, 654–659. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.006
http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013470http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0045http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1080/002075997400629http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0055http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00003-2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0075http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.06.004http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026595011371http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.007http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.03.002http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022111435097http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0105http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.03.005http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430202005003003http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0147-1767(14)00115-1/sbref0125http://

acculturation-two way street

Documents