a cross cultural analysis of implicit and explicit xenophobia · a cross cultural analysis of...

ACrossCulturalAnalysisofImplicitandExplicitXenophobia 1

ACrossCulturalAnalysisofImplicitandExplicitXenophobia

LydiaKeating

YaleUniversityApril,2017

AdvisedbyJohnDovidio,CarlIHovlandProfessorofPsychology

SubmittedtothefacultyofCognitiveScienceinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeofBachelorofArts


Abstract

Thepresentresearchwascomposedoftwodistinctstudiesthatexaminedtheeffects

ofculturalbeliefs,implicitxenophobia,explicitxenophobia,andthesuppressionand

reboundeffectsofimplicitxenophobiainIndianandAmericanpopulations.InStudy

1, Indian participants revealed greater explicit xenophobia than American

participants. In contrast, American and Indian participants both demonstrated

comparable levels of xenophobia through the implicit association test. In Study2,

implicitxenophobiawasnot tested.The focusofStudy2wasto identity trendsof

individualist versus collectivist ideologies within cultures, the trends of differing

explicit attitudes towards immigrants, and the relation of those attitudes to

participants’ reactions to refinedscenarios.Participantswereasked to respond to

morecomplexscenariosthanwereusedinStudy1.Themainfindingsofbothstudies

suggestthatAmericanstendtounderreporttheirxenophobiawhenexplicitlyasked

abouttheirfeelingstowardsimmigrantscomparedtoIndianparticipants.However,

Americans show their bias through in-group favoritism rather than negative out-

groupbias.Thequestionofwhethertherearereboundeffectsofthisunderreporting

remainsunansweredbasedontheresultsofthepresentresearchandisanavenue

forfutureresearch.


Contents1 Introduction

1.1 Cultureandcognition,individualismvs.collectivism………………………………41.2 CultureandXenophobia……………………………………………………………………….61.3 System1andSystem2……………………………………………..…..……………………….71.4 ImplicitCognitionandtheIAT…………………………………….…………………………81.5 SuppressionandReboundEffectsofXenophobia……………………………………91.6 PresentStudy………………………………………………………………………..……………10

2 Study12.1 Predictions…………………………………………………………..…………………………….132.2 Methods...………………………………………………………………………………………….132.3 MaterialsandProcedure……………………….…………………………………………….14

2.3.1 Scenario-responseTask…………….…………………………………..……142.3.2 ImplicitAssociationTask………………………….…………………………192.3.3 ExplicitXenophobiaSurveyTask……………………….………………..202.3.4 Collectivistvs.IndividualistSurvey…………..…………………………202.3.5 DemographicsandDebriefing……..………………………………………20

2.4 Results...………………………………………………………………...………………………….212.5 Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………….23

3 Study23.1 RevisionsfromStudy1……………………………………………………………………….253.2 Predictions…………………………………………………..…………………………………….273.3 Methods...………………………………………………………………………………………….283.4 MaterialsandProcedure……………………………………….…………………………….29

3.4.1 Collectivistvs.IndividualistSurvey………………………………...……303.4.2 Scenario-responseTasks………………………….…………………………303.4.3 ExplicitXenophobia……………………………………………………………363.4.4 Demographicsanddebriefing…………………………………………..…37

3.5 Results………………………………………………………………………………..……………..373.6 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….……………40

4 GeneralDiscussion…………………………………………………………………………………….….415 References………………………………………………………………………………………………...….47


1.Introduction

1.1CultureandCognition

Acentralquestionofpsychologyrevolvesaroundthenotionofculture.Does

cultureshapecognition,oristheoppositetrue—doescognitionshapeculture

(Valsiner,2009)?Today,thequestionremainsunanswered.However,whatisclear

isthatthetwoaresodeeplyconnectedthat,asJaanValsineraptlyputsit,“to

consideronewithouttheotherwouldbesuperficial,bothtowardsthedepthof

socialinfluences,aswellastheexpanseofindividualpsyche”(Valsiner,2009,p.

238).Thesocialdifferencesthatresultfromcultureareexpansive.Suchdifferences

rangefromsuperficialandvisiblebehaviorlikeeatingwithone’shandsversus

eatingwithcutlery,todeeplyfundamentalsocialbeliefs,suchastheimportanceof

individualityovercommunity.Thecommonalitybetweenthetwodifferencesisthat

botharethoughttobeshapedbyculture.Culture’sinfluencesareinescapableand

thereforethequestionremains—do“culture-freeaspectsofcognition,emotion,or

motivation”(MarkusandKitayama,1991)exist?Thegoalofthepresentresearchis

toinvestigateandbetterunderstandhowcultureshapesourbeliefsandattitudes

towardsothersontheimplicitandexplicitlevelandthesubsequentconsequences

ofthesebeliefs.

Centralcomponentstothepresentresearcharetwodifferentcultural

ideologies—collectivismandindividualism.Acollectivistcultureisonethatvalues

“harmoniousinterdependence”(Markus&Kitayama,1991).Constituentsof

collectivistculturestendtovaluecollaborationanddevalueself-sufficiency.


Conversely,anindividualistcultureisonecomprisedof“individuals[who]seekto

maintaintheirindependencefromothersbyattendingtotheselfandbydiscovering

andexpressingtheiruniqueinnerattributes”(Markus&Kitayama,1991,p.224)

Constituentsofindividualistculturestendtovalueindividualityanddevalue

interdependence.Vastanthropologicalandpsychologicalresearchhasshownthat

Easterncultures,suchasIndia,canbecharacterizedascollectivistcultures,while

Westerncultures,suchasAmerica,canbecharacterizedasindividualistcultures.

Unsurprisingly,collectivistandindividualistideologiesproducediverging

conceptionsof“theself”—thewaypeopleunderstandandplacethemselveswithin

therestofsociety.

Thetwocompetingconceptionsoftheselfthatcollectivistandindividualist

ideologiesproducearethe“interdependentconstrual”and“independentconstrual”,

respectively(Markus&Kitayama,1991).AsMarkusandKitayamadescribe,the

Westernindependentconstrualoftheselfisfosteredbyadesiretoseparateoneself

fromothersandtoconsideroneselfunique.Conversely,theinterdependent

construalisfosteredbyabeliefin“fundamentalconnectednessofhumanbeingsto

eachother”(Markus&Kitayama,1991,p.224).Differentculturalvalues—the

collectivismoftheEastandindividualismoftheWest—shapehumancognition.The

goalofthepresentresearchistoexaminethedifferencesbetweenIndianand

Americanculture,representingcollectivistandindividualistculturesrespectively,

andtheireffectsonimplicitandexplicitcognition.

1.2CultureandXenophobia


Socialcomparisonisintrinsictohumancognition(Garcia,Stephen,Tor,Avishalom,

Schiff,&Tyrone,2013).Throughsocialcomparison,peopleevaluatethemselves,

evaluateothers,fostergroupidentitiesandsubsequentlydifferentiatebetween

theirin-groupandout-groupmembers(Garciaetal.2013).Researchershave

workedtobetterunderstandsocialcomparisonandthetypesoffactors—individual

andsituational—thatengenderit(Suls,Martin,&Wheeler,2002).

Theaimofthisstudyistobetterunderstandhowaperson’snegative

attitudesandbeliefstowardspeopleofdifferentcultures—commonlyknownas

xenophobia—relatetothatperson’sculture.Xenophobia“referstoafearofthe

stranger”(Sanchez-Mazas,2015)andinaculturalcontextisunderstoodasafearof

foreigners(MariamWebsterOnlineDictionary).Itisthoughttobeabyproductof

humans’motivationtoprotectoursocialidentity(Sanchez-Mazas,2015).

Xenophobia,likeracismandallotherprejudicesthatareintergroupbiases,serves

as“mechanismsthroughwhichpositivedistinctnessandpositivesocialidentities

areachieved”(Sanchez-Mazas,2015).Consciously,peopleworktoindividualizeand

alignthemselveswithothers,thuscreatinganin-groupandout-group.However,

thisprocessalsohappensonthesubconsciouslevel,aspeoplearealways,even

whennotdeliberatelyintendingto,workingtofosterandprotectapositive

conceptionoftheself(Sanchez-Mazas,2015).Therefore,aperson’sattitudes

towardsandbeliefsaboutothersisaproductofhisorhercognition—system1and

system2.Differentculturalvaluesputdifferentlevelsofinfluenceontheexistence

ofanin-groupandout-group.Forexample,Americancultureputslessemphasison


thedistinctionbetweenin-groupandout-groupmembersthandoesIndianculture

(Vargas,Jose,&Kemmelmeier,2013;Shah&Rajadhyaksha,2016)

1.3System1andSystem2

Certainly,cultureshapesourovertbeliefs,otherwiseknownasour“system

2”beliefs.However,basedonthedual-processtheory,humancognitionoperatesat

twolevels—therealsoexistsasystem1thatissusceptibletoculturalinfluence.

System1iscognitionthatis“unconscious,implicit,automatic,loweffort,andisour

defaultprocessing”(Evans,2008).Conversely,system2processing,mentioned

above,ischaracterizedas“controlled,rational,systematic,explicit,slow,and

analytic”(Evans,2008).Therefore,acompleteunderstandingofhowthesetwo

competingculturalprinciples—individualismandcollectivism—shapecognition

requiresananalysisofitseffectsonbothsystem1andsystem2.

Thoughtherehasbeensomepastresearchoncross-culturalcomparisonsof

xenophobiaacrossEasternandWesterncultures,itissparse.Furthermore,such

researchhasonlyfocusedonexplicitbeliefs.Inotherwords,thereislittleresearch

ontherelationshipbetweentheeffectsthatWesternindividualismandEastern

collectivismhasontheprominenceandstrengthofxenophobiawithinthose

populations.

RecentstudieshaveshownthatpeopleofEasterncultures—those

characterizedbycollectivistvalues—tendtoexpresshigherlevelsofexplicit

xenophobiacomparedtopeopleofindividualistic,Westerncultures(Shin&

Dovidio,2013).Forexample,inastudyconductedbyShinandDovidio,participants

wereaskedwhethertheywouldliketohaveapersonofadifferentethnic


background—race,ethnicity,nationality—asaneighbor.MorepeopleofEastAsian

culturesreportedthattheywouldprefertohaveaneighborofthesameethnic

backgroundthanthosepeopleofNorthAmericanculture.However,thesefindings

donotfullyexplaintheeffectsofcultureonxenophobicbeliefsbecausethestudy

onlyaddressesovert,system2beliefs.Oneoftheprimaryaimsofthepresentstudy

istofillthegapinthecurrentunderstandingoftheinfluencesofEasternand

Westernculturalvaluesonxenophobiabyanalyzingandcomparingbothexplicit

andimplicitbeliefs.

ThoughfewerindividualsfromNorthernEuropeandNorthAmerica

reportedthattheywouldnotpreferaneighborofthesamenationalityoveroneofa

differentnationalitycomparedtothoseofEastAsiancountries,thatdoesnot

provideanyinsightintohowtheimplicitxenophobiaofWesternandEastAsian

populationsdiffer.Inthepastfifteenyears,muchexperimentalresearchhas

revealedthattosomedegree,weallholdimplicitbiasesagainstotherpeopleasa

resultoftheirrace,nationality,and/orethnicity(Greenwald&Krieger,2006).

Peopleinternalizebiasesasearlyastheageoffour(Sinclair,Stacey,Dunn,and

Lowery,2005).

1.4ImplicitCognitionandtheIAT

ImplicitbeliefsaremeasuredthroughatestcalledtheImplicitAssociation

Test.ThedevelopmentoftheImplicitAssociationTest(IAT)hasenabledcognitive

psychologiststomeasureandidentifythedisparitybetweenself-reportsofbeliefs

towardsothersandunconsciousimplicitbeliefs.TheIATworksby“measure[ing]

howcloselyassociatedanygivenattitudeobject(e.g.,afloweroraninsect)iswith


anevaluativeattribute(e.g.,pleasantorunpleasantwords)andassumesthatthe

morecloselyrelatedtheobjectsandattributesare,thestrongertheimplicitattitude

is”(Karpinski&Hilton,2001).TheIAThasidentifiedanarrayofimplicit

prejudices—racism,ageism,andsexism,tonameafew.Theprejudicethatthis

currentstudyaimstobetterunderstandisxenophobia.

Ifitistruethateverybodyisunconsciouslyxenophobicatsomelevel,should

weexpectagreaterdisparitybetweentheself-reportandIATresultsofxenophobic

beliefsinWesternpopulationscomparedtoEastAsianpopulations?Toreframethe

question—areEastAsianpopulationssimplymorehonestandawareoftheir

xenophobicattitudes?

1.5SuppressionandReboundEffectsofXenophobia

Acomparisonofimplicitandexplicitxenophobiawithinthetwoculturally

differentpopulations,AmericansandIndians,willleadtoabetterunderstanding

regardingwhichpopulationtendstosuppressxenophobiabeliefs(perhapsasa

resultofsocietalstandards).Ifasubjectdemonstratessignificantlylowerlevelsof

explicitxenophobia,measuredbyself-report,comparedtomuchhigherlevelsof

implicitxenophobia,measuredbytheIAT,thatwouldindicatethatthesubject

potentiallyisengaginginsuppressionofhisorherinternalizedxenophobia(Ford,

Teeter,Richardson,&Woodzicka,2016).

WehypothesizethatWesternsubjectswilltendtosuppresstheir

internalizedxenophobiabecauseofsocialfactors.InmanypartsofAmerica,

particularlyurbanizedmetropolitanareas,socialprejudicesareprofoundly

condemned.Inthepastfifteenyears,socialjusticemovementslikethe“BlackLives


Matter”movementorannualgayprideparadesthatshutdownmainstreetsin

majorcitieshaverippledthroughoutAmerica.Thoughovertprejudiceundeniably

remainsaubiquitousproblem,manyoftheAmericanpeoplehaveengagedinan

activeefforttomakeAmericaafairerandmorejustplace.Therefore,xenophobic,

racist,homophobic,orsexistrhetoricorbehaviorishighlycondemned(Robbins,

2016).

WehypothesizethatAmericanparticipants’responseswillreflectadesireto

appearasfairandjustpeople.AnyprejudiceorxenophobiathatAmerican

participantsharborisnotexpectedtobereflectedinexplicitquestionsregarding

participants’beliefsandattitudestowardsothers.Inotherwords,wehypothesize

thatAmericanparticipantswilltendtosuppresstheirxenophobia.

Thereare,however,someinsidioussideeffectsofsuppression.Suppression,

ortheavoidanceofunwantedthoughts,hasthepotentialtoproducedetrimental

“reboundeffects”(Wenzlaff&Wegner,2000).“Thehypothesissuggestedbyseveral

theoristsisthatattemptstosuppressthoughts(oremotions)canresultina

subsequentreboundofabsorptionwiththosetopics”(Wenzlaff&Wegner,2000).

DoelementsofWesterncultureleadtothesuppressionofxenophobicbeliefsbut

subsequentlyresultindetrimentalreboundeffects?

1.6PresentStudy

Thepresentresearchtookplaceoverthecourseof8months.Theresearch

includedtwodistinctstudies—Study1andStudy2.Bothstudiesaimedto

investigatetherelationshipbetweenculturalvalues,implicitandexplicit

xenophobia,andsuppressionandreboundeffects(seeintroduction).Basedonthe


resultsfromStudy1,Study2wasrevisedandcondensedtobetteranswerour

originalquestions.Study2wasalsodesignedtoreduceanynoisethatmaderesults

fromStudy1difficulttointerpret.Theresearchwasadministeredonlinethrough

MechanicalTurkandrestrictedtoIndianandAmericanparticipants.

Study1wasasurveythatincludedfivedifferentsections.Thefirstsectionof

thesurveywasascenario-responsetaskthatmeasuredhowparticipants’

xenophobiamanifestsintheirreactionstopositiveandnegativescenariosin

everyday-life(one-paragraphfictionalstories)underacognitiveload.Thecognitive

loadwasamemoryload—participantswereaskedtomemorizeanumberbefore

theycompletedtheresponsestothescenarios(Paasetal.,2003).Inthescenario-

responsesection,theindependentvariableswerethecharactersintheanecdotes,

threeofwhomhadtraditionalIndianorAmericannames(dependingonwhich

nationalitytheparticipantspecifiedatthebeginningofthesurvey)andonewho

hadatraditionalMuslimname(Ahmed,1999).Thedependentvariablesof

scenario-responsesectionareparticipants’responses.Thesecondsectionofthe

surveywasanIATthatmeasuredimplicitxenophobia.Thethirdsectionwasa

surveythatassessedcollectivistversusindividualistvalues.Thepurposeofthis

sectionwastoconfirmthatIndianparticipantstendedtodemonstrateapreference

tocollectivistvalues,whileAmericanparticipantstendedtodemonstratea

preferencetowardsindividualistvalues.Thefourthsection,theexplicitxenophobia

survey,includedovertquestionsthatwereusedtoassesslevelsofexplicit

xenophobia.Finally,thefifthsectionwasademographicsurveyinwhich


participantswereaskedquestionsregardingtheirannualincome,gender,political

ideology,andeducationlevel.

Study2wasalsoadministeredonlineviaMechanicalTurkandwasasurvey

thatincludefourdistinctsections.Study2wasashortersurvey.Study2included

subsectionsofacollectivistvs.individualistsurvey,ascenario-responsetask,an

explicitxenophobiasurvey,andfinally,ademographicssurvey.UnlikeStudy1,

Study2variedtheorderingofthecollectivistvs.individualistsurveyandthe

scenario-responsetask.Halfoftheparticipantsforeachnationality—Indianand

American—completedthecollectivistvs.individualistsurveyfirst,followedbythe

scenario-responsetask.Theotherhalfofparticipantscompletedthesurveyinthe

oppositeorder—thescenario-responsetaskfollowedbythecollectivistvs.

individualistsurvey.Thepurposeofthevariedsurveyflowwastoensurethatthe

scenario-responsetaskwasnotprimingparticipantstorespondtothecollectivist

vs.individualistsurveydifferentlythantheywouldhadtheycompletedthesurvey

withoutthescenario-responsetask,asthiswassomethingwespeculatedmayhave

occurredinStudy1.

Additionally,thescenariosinthescenario-responsetaskofStudy2were

differentthanthoseinStudy1.Moredetailsontheirdifferenceswillbeprovidedin

theStudy2sectionofthisreport.Finally,fewerquestionswereaskedinthe

demographicsanddebriefingsectionofStudy2,furtherreducingthedurationofthe

study.


2.Study1

2.1PredictionsofStudy1

ThefollowingarethepredictionsofStudy1:

1.) WepredictthatAmericanparticipantswilltendtocensorthemselvesand

thusdemonstratelowerlevelsofexplicitxenophobiacomparedtoIndian

participantsinanexplicitxenophobiatask.Wepredictthisbecausewe

hypothesizethat,asaresultofAmericansocietalpoliticalcorrectness

standards,AmericanswilltendtosuppresstheirbeliefscomparedtoIndian

participants(Robbins,2016).

2.) However,wepredictthatAmericansandIndianswilldemonstrateequal

levelsofimplicitprejudicetowardsimmigrantsbecauseofpastresearchthat

demonstratesthatallpeopleharborbiases,includingunwantedbiases

(Greenwald&Krieger,2006).

3.) Conversely,inthescenario-responsesectionofthestudy,wepredictthat

AmericanparticipantswillshowagreatertendencycomparedtoIndian

participantstoprofiletheimmigrantcharacterasthecharacterwhoacted

unethicallyasaresultofthereboundeffectoftheirgreaterlevelsof

suppressedimplicitxenophobia(Wenzlaff&Wegner,2000).

2.2MethodsofStudy1

150ParticipantswererecruitedviaAmazon’sMechanicalTurk.Using

MechanicalTurk’ssettings,thesubjectpoolwasrestrictedtoIndianandAmerican

participantsonly.Americarepresentsanindividualisticcultureandoppositely,

Indiarepresentsacollectivistculture.Toparticipateinthesurvey,participants


wererequiredtobeabovetheageof18.Thesurveywasconductedonline.Before

completingthesurveytasks,participantswererequiredtoprovidetheirinformed

consent.Participantswereaskedtocompleteaseriesoftasksontheonlinesurvey.

Attheendofthestudy,participantsweredebriefedandpaid$0.25fortheir

participationinthestudy.Thestudytookapproximately15minutes.

2.3MaterialsandProcedureofStudy1

2.3.1Scenario-responseTask

Thefirstsectionofthesurveywasthescenario-responsetask.Itrequired

participantstoreadandrespondtothreedifferentone-paragraphfictional

scenariosunderamemorycognitiveload.Thememorycognitiveloadwas

implementedbyaskingparticipantstoreadaseven-digitnumberthattheyaretold

torememberastheywillbequizzedonthenumberattheendofthesection.The

purposeofthescenario-responsetasktowastoassesswhetherparticipants’

xenophobia—implicitorexplicit—informedtheirresponses.

Theone-paragraphscenariosthatparticipantsreadfallunderthreedistinct

categories:1.)anegativescenarioinwhichoneofthecharactersinthescenarioacts

immorally,2.)apositivescenario,inwhichoneofthecharactersactsnotably

morally,3.)acontrolscenario,inwhichoneofthecharactersactsinaneutral

way—neithermoralorimmoral.


Inallthreescenarios,therearefourcharactersanditisambiguouswhich

characterscommittedtheimmoral,moral,orneutralacts.Threeofthecharacters

havetraditionallymalenamesandoneofthecharactershasatraditionallyfemale

name.IndianandAmericanparticipantsreadslightlydifferentscenarios—theonly

differencebeingthatthenamesoftheothercharactersdifferedslightly.Otherthan

thedifferencesinthecharacters’names,thescenariosthatIndianandAmerican

participantsreadareidentical.TheMuslimnamedcharactersrepresent

prototypicalimmigrantsineachofthescenarios.

Thenegativescenariowasascenethatparticipantsreadthatinvolvesoneof

thefourcharacterscommittinganeveryday-lifetransgression,butitisunclear

whichcharacterdoesit.Theparticipantisthenaskedwhotheybelievecommitted

thetransgression.Thepositivescenariofollowedasimilarstructuretothenegative

scenario.Italsorepresentedaneverydaylifeexperiencethatinvolvesfourdifferent

people—oneofwhomhasaprototypicalMuslimnamethusimplyingheisan

immigrant.

AmericanScenarios

ThescenariosthattheAmericanparticipantsreadincludedfourcharacters—

threeofwhomhavetraditionalAmericannames(John,Jim,Kristen,etc.)andone

whohasatraditionalMuslimname(Waqas,Faizan,orAsif).

PositiveAmericanScenario

ThepositivescenariothatAmericanparticipantsreadisthefollowing:

Fourfriends,Kristen,Charles,Faizan,andJamesarestandinginlineto

orderatalocalcafé.Thepersonstandinginfrontofthemcompleteshis


lunchorderbutsoonafterrealizesthathedoesnothavehiswallet.One

ofthefourfriends—Kristen,Charles,Faizan,or James—offerstopay

forthemanwhodoesnothavehiswallet.Themanisverygratefulthat

hecanstillhavehislunch.

Participantswereaskedtoanswercomprehensionquestionsafterreading

thescenario.Anexampleofacomprehensionquestionis,“wherearethefour

friends?”Participantswerealsoaskedquestionslike,“ratetheprobabilitythateach

ofthefriendspaidfortheman’slunch,”inwhichtheyaregivena100-pointscaleto

ratetheprobability.

NegativeAmericanScenario

ThenegativescenariothatAmericanparticipantsreadisthefollowing:

ChrisinvitesSamantha,John,andWaqasovertohishouseforlunch.

Samantha,JohnandWaqasallarriveatthesametime.Atsomepoint

duringtheirtimeatChris’shouse,eachofthemleavesthegrouptouse

thebathroomupstairs.Chrislefta$50billinhisbathroomdrawerthat

heforgottoputbackintohiswallet.WhenSam,John,andWaqasleave

Chris’shouse,Chrisgoestohisbathroomtogetthe$50andputitback

inhiswallet.However,whenheopensthedrawer, the$50bill isno

longerthere.Chrisbelievesthatoneofhisgueststookthe$50.

Followingthesurveyparticipantswereaskedtoanswercomprehension

questions.Anexampleofacomprehensionquestionis,“whodidChrisinvitetohis

house?”Followingthecomprehensionquestions,participantswereaskedquestions


abouttheirbeliefsregardingwhotheythoughttheculpritwas.Anexampleofa

beliefquestionis:“ratetheprobabilitythateachofthegueststookthe$50,”in

whichtheywillbegivena100-pointscaletoratetheprobability.

ControlAmericanScenario

ThecontrolscenariothatAmericanparticipantsreadwasthefollowing:

Kelly,Jim,Paul,andAsifaresittinginalocalcafétogetherdiscussinga

bookthattheyallread.Oneofthembecomesthirstyandwouldlikea

glassofwater.

Followingthesurvey,participantswereaskedtoanswercomprehension

questions.Anexampleofacomprehensionquestionis,“whatwerethefriends

discussing?”Followingthecomprehensionquestions,participantswereasked

questionsabouttheirbeliefsregardingwhotheythoughtwantedaglassofwater.

Anexampleofabeliefquestionis:“ratetheprobabilitythateachoftheguests

wantedaglassofwater,”inwhichtheyaregivena100-pointscaletoratethe

probability.

IndianScenarios

ThecharactersintheIndianscenariosallinvolvedcharacterswith

traditionalMuslimnames(Anika,Sai,Aarav,etc.)exceptforthecharacterwiththe

traditionalMuslimname(Waqas,Faizan,orAsif).

PositiveIndianScenario

ThepositivescenariothattheIndianparticipantsreadisthefollowing:

Fourfriends,Anaya,Akshay,Faizan,andReyansharestandinginline

toorderatalocalcafé.Thepersonstandinginfrontofthemcompletes


hislunchorderbutsoonafterrealizesthathedoesnothavehiswallet.

Oneofthefourfriends—Anaya,Akshay,Faizan,orReyansh—offersto

payforthemanwhodoesnothavehiswallet.Themanisverygrateful

thathecanstillhavehislunch.

Participantswereaskedtoanswercomprehensionquestionsafterreading

thescenario.Anexampleofacomprehensionquestionis,“wherearethefour

friends?”Participantswerealsoaskedquestionslike,“ratetheprobabilitythateach

ofthefriendspaidfortheman’slunch,”inwhichtheyaregivena100-pointscaleto

ratetheprobability.

NegativeIndianScenario

ThenegativescenariothatIndianparticipantsreadisthefollowing:Aarav invites Anika, Sai, and Waqas over to his house for

lunch.Anika,Sai,andWaqasallarriveatthesametime.Atsomepoint

duringtheirtimeatAarav'shouse,eachofthemleavesthegrouptouse

thebathroomupstairs.Aaravlefta$50billinhisbathroomdrawerthat

heforgottoputbackintohiswallet.WhenAnika,Sai,andWaqasleave

Aarav'shouse,Aaravgoestohisbathroomtogetthe$50andputitback

inhiswallet.However,whenheopensthedrawer, the$50bill isno

longerthere.Aaravbelievesthatoneofhisgueststookthe$50.


questions.Anexampleofacomprehensionquestionis,“whodidAaravinvitetohis

house?”Followingthecomprehensionquestions,participantswereaskedquestions


abouttheirbeliefsregardingwhotheythoughttheculpritwas.Anexampleofa

beliefquestionis:“ratetheprobabilitythateachofthegueststookthe$50,”in

whichtheyaregivena100-pointscaletoratetheprobability.

ControlIndianScenario

ThecontrolscenariothatIndianparticipantsreadwasthefollowing:

Aaradhya,Advik,Rithvik,andAsifaresittinginalocalcafétogether

discussingabookthattheyallread.Oneofthembecomesthirstyand

decidesandwouldlikeaglassofwater.


questions.Anexampleofacomprehensionquestionis,“whatwerethefriends

discussing?”Followingthecomprehensionquestions,participantswereasked

questionsabouttheirbeliefsregardingwhotheythoughtwantedaglassofwater.

Anexampleofabeliefquestionis:“ratetheprobabilitythateachoftheguests

wantedaglassofwater,”inwhichtheyaregivena100-pointscaletoratethe

probability.

2.3.2ImplicitAssociationTask

ThesecondtaskofStudy1isanIATthatmeasuresimplicitxenophobia.This

IATissimilartothestandardformatofmostotherImplicitAssociationTests

(Greenawald&Banaji,1995)andasksparticipantstosortwordsintocategories.

Therearefourdifferentgroupsofwords:positivewords,negativewords,

immigrantwords,andnon-immigrantwords.Thepositivewordsare:lovely,

pleasure,glorious,beautiful,marvelous,wonderful,andjoyful.Thenegativewords


are:humiliate,terrible,superb,painful,nasty,horrible,agony,andtragic.The

immigrantwordsare:foreigner,outsider,immigrant,non-native,migrant,and

newcomer.Thenon-immigrantwordsare:native,non-immigrant,homegrown,

citizen,original,andlocal.TheIATmeasureshowcloselyparticipantsassociate

immigrantwordswith“good”and“bad”wordsbythespeedatwhichtheygroupthe

wordstogether.

2.3.3ExplicitXenophobiaSurveyTask

Thenexttaskasksexplicitquestionsregardingtheattitudesandbeliefs

participantsholdaboutimmigrants.Thissectionincludesquestionslike,“Please

ratehowwarmorcoldyoufeeltowardthefollowinggroups(0=coldestfeelings,

50=neutral,100=warmestfeelings).”

2.3.4Collectivistvs.IndividualistSurvey

Thenexttaskwasasurveythataskedquestionsthatmeasurewhether

participantsalignedwithcollectivistversusindividualistvalues.Thissection

includedquestionslike,“Howmuchdoyouagreewiththisstatement:‘mypersonal

identity,independentfromothers,isveryimportanttome’?”

2.3.5DemographicsandDebriefing

Thefinalsectionofthestudywasabackgroundsurveyinwhichparticipants

wereaskedtoprovidesomedemographicinformationsuchasrace,age,gender,

income,andpoliticalideology.Participantsweredebriefedattheendofthestudy.

Thesurveytookapproximately15minutesandparticipantswerepaid$0.25for

theirparticipation.


2.4ResultsofStudy1

Atotalof149subjectsparticipatedinStudy1.Fifty-ninewereIndianand90

wereAmerican.However,only67ofthoseparticipantscompletedthestudyfully

becausemanyoptedoutoftakingtheIAT.Ofthose67participants,28wereIndian

and39wereAmerican.

TotesttheassumptionthatIndianparticipantswouldbemorecollectivist

thanAmericanparticipants,Iconductedaone-wayanalysisofvariancetotestthe

effectofnationality(IndianversusAmerican)onthevarianceofcollectivistsversus

individualistattitudes:howmuchparticipantsvalue“harmoniousinterdependence”

(Markus&Kitayama,1991)versusindependenceandself-sufficiency,respectively.

Thefirsttwomeasuresofcollectivistsversusindividualistattitudes—participants’

responsesto“Howmuchdoyouagreewiththisstatement:‘mypersonalidentity,

independentfromothers,isveryimportanttome’?”and“Howmuchdoyouagree

withthisstatement:‘I'dratherdependonmyselfthanothers’?”—revealedno

significantdifference.However,theanalysisshowedthat,asexpected,therewasa

significantdifferencebetweenAmericanandIndianresponsestothequestion,“How

muchdoyouagreewiththisstatement:‘Iprefertocollaboratewithothersthan

workalone’?”F(1,147)=17.851,p<.001.Asexpected,Indiansvaluedcollaboration

overAmericans,basedontheresponsescalewhere1=agreatdealand5=noneat

all,Ms=2.522vs.3.356.

Wealsoconductedaone-wayanalysisofattitudestowardsimmigrants(a

feelingthermometer)totesttheeffectofnationality(IndianversusAmerican)on


thismeasure.Weaskedparticipantstorespondtothefollowingquestion,“Please

ratehowwarmorcoldyoufeeltowardsimmigrants(0=coldestfeelings,50=

neutral,100=warmestfeelings).”Amaineffectwasobtainedforfeelingstowards

immigrants,F(1,147)=4.336,p<.039.Americanparticipantshadwarmerfeelings

towardsimmigrantsthandidIndianparticipants,Ms=65.5593vs.56.40.

Weconductedanotherone-wayanalysisofthetendencytoprofileaMuslim

characterasthethiefinthefictionalnegativescenariototesttheeffectof

nationality(IndianversusAmerican)onthismeasure.Amaineffectfornationality

wasobtained,F(1,147)=5.199,p<.029.IndianparticipantsidentifiedtheMuslim

characterasthethiefmorethanAmericanparticipants.

However,importanttonotearetheresultsoftheone-wayanalysisof

tendencytoprofileaMuslimcharacterasthealtruisticandcharitablecharacterin

thepositivescenario(inwhichoneofthecharacteraidsanothercharacterby

providinghimlunchmoney)asaneffectofnationality.Inthismeasure,thesame

maineffectfornationalityasthenegativescenariowasobtained,F(1,147)=13.145,

p<.024.IndianparticipantsidentifiedtheMuslimcharacterastheaidingcharacter

morethanAmericanparticipants,Ms=54.3444vs.39.2034.

Finally,weconductedaone-wayanalysisofImplicitAssociationTestscores

todeterminetheeffectnationalityhasonthescores.Therewasnosignificant

differencebetweentheimplicitassociationtestscoresofIndianandAmerican

participants.Asexpected,bothgroupsshowednegativebiastowardsimmigrants,

Ms=-.2907forAmericanparticipants,Ms=-.2649forIndianparticipants.Negative


IATscoresindicateabiastowardsimmigrants,anIATscoreof0indicatesnobias,

andapositiveIATscoreindicatesabiastowardsnon-immigrants.

2.5DiscussionofStudy1

Beforeconductingthisstudy,itwashypothesizedthatculture,cultural

beliefs,explicit,andimplicitbiasweredeeplyconnectedandinteractedinunique

ways.Namely,basedonpreviousresearchandunderstandingofcollectivistand

individualistcultures,itwashypothesizedthatthatIndianparticipantswouldshow

atendencytoalignwithacollectivistbeliefsystemandAmericanparticipants

wouldalignwithanindividualistbeliefsystem.Wetargetedthisassociation

betweennationalityandcollectivistversusindividualistbeliefsbyaskingthreekey

questions,(a)Howmuchdoyouagreewiththisstatement:‘I'dratherdependon

myselfthanothers’?”(b)Howmuchdoyouagreewiththisstatement:‘mypersonal

identity,independentfromothers,isveryimportanttome’?’(c)“Howmuchdoyou

agreewiththisstatement:‘Iprefertocollaboratewithothersthanworkalone’?”.

Surprisingly,wefoundthattherewasnosignificanteffectofnationalityonthefirst

twoquestions,buttherewasasignificanteffectforthethirdquestionregarding

collaboration.Thefactthatonlyoneofthequestions(insteadofallthree)revealed

theexpectedcollectivistbeliefsoftheIndianparticipantsandindividualistbeliefsof

theAmericanparticipantsisinconflictwiththesubstantialresearchthatindicates

Indiaisdecisivelyacollectivistculture.ThiscouldbeaproductofIndiaevolving

intoamoreindividualistcultureashasbeendemonstratedinmorerecentresearch

onIndia(Sinha,Sinha,Verma,&Sinha,2001).


Anotherfacetofourhypothesisrevolvedaroundtherelationshipbetween

implicitbias,suppression,andreboundeffects.WehypothesizedthatAmericanand

Indianparticipantswouldhavecomparablelevelsofimplicitbiasasmeasuredby

theImplicitAssociationTest.Thiswassupported—therewasnosignificant

differencebetweenAmericanandIndianresponsesontheIATandbothgroupsof

participantshowedabiastowardsimmigrants.However,wethenhypothesizedthat

thedisparitybetweentheimplicitbiasofAmericanparticipantsandtheirself-

reportedfeelingsofwarmthtowardsimmigrants(asassessedbythefeeling

thermometerquestion)isaresultofsuppression.Wehypothesizedthatunlike

Indians,Americansweresuppressingtheirbiasasaresultofculturalpressureand

thattherefore,inreallifescenarios,theirprejudicedreactionswouldbemore

severethanforIndians.Thislastleveloftheoriginalhypothesiswasnotaccurate.

Thescenario-responsesectionofthestudywasmeanttorepresentareal-life

scenarioandsolicitreal-liferesponses.Indiansstilltendedtorevealmorebiasin

theirreactionsthanAmericans.Inthenegativescenario,inwhichoneofthefour

characterssteals$50,IndianstendedtoprofileMuslimasthethiefsignificantly

morethantheAmericans.Oneexplanationforthisisthattheone-paragraph

scenariosthatwerewrittenwerenottrulyemblematicofreallifeintheintended

way.Thequestionofhowtoengageparticipantssuchthattheyrespondintheway

thattheywouldinreallifeisanongoingdiscussioninpsychology(Levitt&List,

2007).However,thoughtheemotionsandreactionstoreal-lifesituationscannever

trulybecapturedinparticipants’responsestotext,thescenario-responsetaskfrom


Study1hadroomtobeimproved.BasedonresultsfromStudy1,modifyingthe

scenario-responsetaskwasoneoftheprincipalgoalsforStudy2.

3.Study2

3.1RevisionsfromStudy1

Basedonourfindingsfromstudy1,thegoalsofstudy2werethree-fold:1.)

Tomodifythescenario-responsetasksuchthatthescenariosmoreclosely

resembledreal-lifesituations.2.)Tore-test(usingthesamesurveyquestions)

collectivistversusindividualistattitudesamongparticipants.3.)Tovarytheorder

oftheentirestudytoensurethatcertainsectionswerenotinfluencingresponsesto

latersections.

Oneofthemainissuesfromthescenariosinthescenario-responsetaskfrom

Study1wasthatthepurposewaspotentiallytooobvioustoparticipants.Thegoalof

thescenario-responsetaskwastotriggerresponsestothescenariosthatwouldbe

thesameasthosethattheparticipantwouldexperienceinreallife.Recallthatthe

negativescenariofromStudy1includedfourcharacters—Chris,Samantha,Johnand

Waqas(or,fortheIndianparticipants:Aarav,Anika,Sai,andWaqas).Waqasisvery

clearlyanout-groupnamecomparedtotheverycommonAmericanandIndian

nameslikeChrisandAarav,respectively.Becausenootherinformationwasgiven

abouteachcharacter,itislikelythatthegoalofthestudywassalientforthe

subjects.Thatis,theyknewthatidentifyingtheMuslimcharacter,Waqas,asthe

thiefwouldmakethemappearprejudicebecausethecharacters’namesweretheir

onlydefiningfeaturesinStudy1.


Becauseofthis,oneofthemaingoalsofStudy2wastocreatemorecomplex

scenariosthatmorecloselyresembledreallife.First,thescenarioswerecompletely

differentsituationssoastoallowmoredetailssurroundingtheevent.Furthermore,

eachscenarioinvolvedonlytwopotentialagents(ratherthanthreeinthescenarios

fromStudy1).Finally,ineachscenarioadditionalinformationwasprovidedas

backgroundforeachcharacter.Forexample,inthenegativescenariofromStudy2,

participantslearnthat“Chrisisa16-year-oldboywhoenjoysvideogamesandmath

class”andthat“Waqasisa17-year-oldboywhoenjoyssportsandhistoryclass”.

Thepurposeofprovidingmoreinformationabouteachofthecharacterswasto

makedistinctionoftheMuslimversusin-groupnamelesssalient.Iftheparticipant

wasxenophobic,heorshecouldengagein“selectiveexposure”—thepsychological

phenomenoninwhichpeopletendtoconstrueevidencethatsupportstheirpre-

existingbeliefsandignoreevidencethatchallengesit(Knobloch-Westerwick,

2014).Byprovidingparticipantswithmoreinformationaboutthecharacters,they

wereprovidedwithinformationthattheycouldusetoreasonthatMuslimcharacter

wastheperpetrator,whensubconsciouslytheirdecisionwasguidedbyxenophobia.

AnotherimportantmodificationinStudy2wasthatnoneofthecharacters

hadnamethatdenotedtheywerewomen.Allscenariosonlyinvolvedtraditionally

malenames.Thepurposeofthiswastoeradicateanynoiseinthedatacausedby

genderstereotyping.

AnadditionalmodificationmadetothescenarioresponsetasksinStudy2

wasrandomizationofthesurveyflow.Thatis,theorderingofthecollectivistsvs.

individualistsurveyandthescenario-responsetaskwasvaried.Halfofthe


participantsforeachnationality—IndianorAmerican—completedthecollectivist

vs.individualisttaskfirst,followedbythescenario-responsetask.Theotherhalfof

participantscompletedthesurveyintheoppositeorder—thescenario-response

taskfollowedbythecollectivistvs.individualistsurvey.Thepurposeofthevaried

surveyflowwastoensurethatthescenario-responsetaskwasnotpriming

participants’responsescollectivistvs.individualistsurveytobedifferentthanthey

wouldhavehadtheparticipantscompletedthesurveywithoutthescenario-

responsetaskasthiswassomethingwespeculatedmayhaveoccurredinStudy1.

3.2Predictions

WepredictthefollowingforStudy2

1. WepredictthatIndianswilldemonstrateagreattrendtowardscollectivist

ideologyversusindividualist.EventhoughresultsfromStudy1wouldindicate

theoppositeofthispredication,wethinkthatresultsfromStudy1were

possiblynotindicativeofamoregeneralsocialideologyinIndia.

2. WepredictthatIndianswilldemonstrategreaterexplicitxenophobiathan

Americans.

3. Finally,weexpectthatAmericanswilltendtoprofiletheMuslimcharacterin

thenegativescenariomoreoftenthanIndianparticipants.Wepredictthis

becauseofpotentialsuppressionofimplicitbiastowardsimmigrants(Muslims

inthescenario)andthetendencytoprofiletheMuslimcharacterasthethief

wouldbethereboundeffectofthissuppression.


3.3Methods

300ParticipantswererecruitedviaAmazon’sMechanicalTurk.Using

MechanicalTurk’ssettings,thesubjectpoolwasrestrictedtoIndianandAmerican

participantsonly.Americarepresentsanindividualisticcultureandoppositely,

Indiarepresentsacollectivistculture.Toparticipateinthesurvey,participants

wererequiredtobeabovetheageof18.Thesurveywasconductedonline.Before

completingthesurveytasks,participantswererequiredtoprovidetheirinformed

consent.Participantswereaskedtocompleteaseriesoftasksontheonlinesurvey.

Attheendofthestudy,participantsweredebriefedandpaid$0.25fortheir

participation.Thestudytookapproximately10minutestocomplete.

AsinStudy1,weexaminedtheeffectofnationalityonindividualistand

collectivistscore—howmuchparticipantsvalue“harmoniousinterdependence”

(Markus&Kitayama,1991)versusindependenceandself-sufficiency,respectively.

AsinStudy1,wetestedthiswiththreeprincipalquestions:1.)“Howmuchdoyou

agreewiththisstatement:"Iamimpressedwhensomeoneisself-sufficient"?”2.)

Howmuchdoyouagreewiththisstatement:"mypersonalidentity,independent

fromothers,isveryimportanttome"?and3.)Howmuchdoyouagreewiththis

statement:"I'dratherdependonmyselfthanothers"?(Triandis & Gelfland,

1998).Thevariable,“indcol123”servedastheaverageofthesethreeitems.Average

ofthethreeitemsservedastheindividualism/collectivismscore.

Participantsrespondedtothreescenariosreflectinganegativeact,positiveact,

andaneutralact.Participantswereaskedthreemainquestionsfollowingthe

scenarios.ThefirstaskedthemtoratetheprobabilitythattheMuslimcharacter


committedtheact(ScenarioMeasure1).Thesecondquestionaskedthemtoratethe

probabilitythatthein-groupcharactercommittedtheact(ScenarioMeasure2).The

thirdquestionaskedwhotheybelievedcommittedtheactiftheyhadtochoose

(ScenarioMeasure3).

Totestexplicitxenophobia,weusedafeelingthermometer.Weasked

participantstorespondtothefollowingquestion,“Pleaseratehowwarmorcold

youfeeltowardsimmigrants(0=coldestfeelings,50=neutral,100=warmest

feelings)”.Participantsusedaslidingscaletorespond.

3.4MaterialsandProcedure

Thesurveyflowwasvariedforhalfofparticipants.HalfoftheAmerican

subjectstookthesurveythatbeganwiththescenario-responsetask,thatwas

followedbythecollectivistversusindividualistsurvey.TheotherhalfofAmerican

participantstooktheoppositelyorderedsurveythatbeganwiththecultural

collectivistversusindividualistsurveythatwasfollowedbythescenario-response

task.Similarly,halfofIndianparticipantstookthesurveythatbeganwiththe

scenario-responsetaskthatwasfollowedbythecollectivistversusindividualist

survey,whiletheotherhalfofIndianparticipantstooktheoppositelyordered

surveythatbeganwiththeculturalideologysurveythatwasfollowedbythe

scenario-responsetask.Thepurposeofthevariedsurveyflowwastoensurethat

participants’responseswerenotbeinginfluencedbyearliersectionsofthesurvey


3.4.1Collectivistsvs.IndividualistSurvey

Thecollectivistversusindividualsurveyincludedfivequestions,allofwhichwere

alsoincludedinStudy1:1.)“Howmuchdoyouagreewiththisstatement:‘I'drather

dependonmyselfthanothers’?”,2.)“Howmuchdoyouagreewiththisstatement:

‘mypersonalidentity,independentfromothers,isveryimportanttome’?”,3.)“How

muchdoyouagreewiththisstatement:‘Iprefertocollaboratewithothersthan

workalone’?”4.)“Howmuchdoyouagreewiththisstatement:‘Iamimpressed

whensomeoneisself-sufficient’?”.Thepurposeofreusingthesamequestionsfrom

Study1wastobetterunderstandwhetherourresultsfromStudy1,thatindicated

nosignificantdifferencebetweenthecollectivistversusindividualistideologies

were,replicable(Markus&Kitayama,1991).Asdiscussedinthediscussionsection

ofStudy1,itispossiblethateconomicgrowthandmodernizationinIndiahas

resultedinaquicklyevolvingculturalideologymovingawayfromcollectivism.

3.4.2ScenarioResponseTask

LikeStudy1,participantsreadthreeshortscenarios.Followingthe

scenarios,theparticipantswereaskedcomprehensionquestionfollowedbyopinion

questions.Thepurposeofthecomprehensionquestionsweretosimplyensurethat


theparticipantreadandunderstoodthescenarios.Thosewhoresponded

incorrectlytothecomprehensionquestionswereexcludedfromthedataanalysis.

Toensurethatthearbitrarytraitsthatwereassignedtoeachcharacterdid

notcreatenoiseinourdata,werandomizedthenamesofthecharacters.For

example,inthepositivescenario,halfoftheAmericanparticipantsreadthat“Faizan

isinEnglishclasswithJohnandwantstobeadoctor.JamesisinartclasswithJohn

andwantstobeanengineer,”whiletheotherhalfofparticipantsread,“Jamesisin

EnglishclasswithJohnandwantstobeadoctor.FaizanisinartclasswithJohnand

wantstobeanengineer.”Thesamelogicfornameswappingwasusedforall

scenarios.Again,thepurposewastomakesurethattoeradicateanyinfluencethat

thesuperfluousdescriptorshadonparticipantresponses,likeforexample

stereotypessurroundingpeoplewholikevideogames.

Followingthescenarios,participantswereaskedquestionsaboutwhothey

thoughtthe“actor”inquestionwas.Afterreadingeachscenario,participantswere

askedtoratetheprobabilitiesthateachcharacterinquestionbrokeintothelocker,

leftthenicenote,orwhobecamethirsty.

AmericanScenarios

SimilartoStudy1,thesurveysthatIndianandAmericanparticipants

completedwerenearlyidenticalbutforthenamesofthecharactersineach

scenario.TheAmericanscenariosusedprototypicalnames(suchasJohn,James,

Paul,Tim,andChris)forthemajorityofcharacters.SimilarltoStudy1,thecharacter

meanttoberepresenttheimmigrantinthescenariohadaMuslimname(Faizan,

Waqas,orAsif).


PositiveAmericanScenario

ThefollowingwasthepositivescenariothatAmericanparticipantsread:

Johnwassickfortwodaysandmissedschool.Whenhecomesbackto

school,hefindsanicenoteinhislockerthatsays,“Hopeyou’refeeling

better,John!Missedyouinclass!”Johnistryingtofigureoutwhichof

hisclassmatesleftthisnicenote.HethinksitiseitherFaizanorJames.

FaizanisinEnglishclasswithJohnandwantstobeadoctor.Jamesis

inartclasswithJohnandwantstobeanengineer.OneofJohn’sfriends

told him that he saw Faizan put the note in his locker. However, a

different friend told John thathe saw Jameswriting thenoteduring

lunch.

LikeinStudy1,followingthescenario,participantswereaskedbothbelief

andcomprehensionquestions.Anexampleofacomprehensionquestionis,“Why

didJohnmisstwodaysofschool?”andanexampleofabeliefquestionis,“Ifyouhad

todecideononepersonwhoputthenoteinthelocker,whoitwoulditbe—Faizan

orJames?”Again,itisimportanttonotethathalfoftheparticipantreadthescenario

asdisplayedabove,whiletheotherhalfreaditas“JamesisinEnglishclasswith

Johnandwantstobeadoctor.FaizanisinartclasswithJohnandwantstobean

engineer.”Again,thepurposeoftherandomizationofthenameswastoreduceany

potentialnoiseinthedatacausedbythearbitrarytraits.

NegativeAmericanScenario

ThefollowingwasthenegativescenariothatAmericanparticipantsread:


Tim,a17-year-oldstudentinhighschool,discoversthathislockerhas

beenrobbed.Hiscomputerandwalletarenolongerinhislockerandit

appears that the lock on his locker has been cut. To figure outwho

robbed Tim’s locker, the school principle conducts a series of

interviews with students. After the interviews, the principle has

narrowedhisinvestigationdowntotwosuspects—ChrisandWaqas.

Chris is a 16-year-old boywho enjoys video games andmath class.

Waqasisa17-year-oldboywhoenjoyssportsandhistoryclass.Inone

oftheinterviews,astudentreportedthathesawChrisholdingTim’s

wallet in thecafeteriaon theday thatTim’s lockerwasbroken into.

However, another student claims that he saw Waqas using Tim’s

computerinthelibraryonthedaythatTim’slockerwasbrokeninto.

Followingthescenario,participantswereaskedbothbeliefand

comprehensionquestions.Anexampleofacomprehensionquestionis,“What’s

missingfromTim’slocker?”andanexampleofabeliefquestionis,“Ifyouhadto

decideononepersonwhobrokeintothelocker,whoitwoulditbe—Chrisor

Waqas?”Again,itisimportanttonotethathalfoftheparticipantsreadthescenario

asdisplayedabove,whiletheotherhalfreaditas“Waqasisa16-year-oldboywho

enjoysvideogamesandmathclass.Chrisisa17-year-oldboywhoenjoyssportsand

historyclass.”

ControlAmericanScenario

ThefollowingwasthecontrolscenariothatAmericanparticipantsread:


PaulandAsifaresittinginalocalcafétogetherdiscussingabookthat

theybothread.Oneofthembecomesthirstyandwouldlikeaglassof

water.


comprehensionquestions.Anexampleofacomprehensionquestionis,“Whatare

PaulandAsifdiscussing?”andanexampleofabeliefquestionis,“Ifyouhadto

choose,whodoyouthinkbecamethirsty—PaulorAsif?”Thesamelogicforname

swappingwasused(explainedinsectionScenarioResponseTask).

IndianScenarios

PositiveIndianScenario

ThefollowingwasthepositivescenariothatIndianparticipantsread:

Akshaywassickfortwodaysandmissedschool.Whenhecomesback

to school, he finds a nice note in his locker that says, “Hope you’re

feelingbetter,Akshay!Missedyouinclass!”Akshayistryingtofigure

outwhich of his classmates left this nice note.He thinks it is either

FaizanorReyansh.FaizanisinEnglishclasswithAkshayandwantsto

beadoctor.Reyansh is inart classwithAkshayandwants tobean

engineer.OneofAkshay'sfriendstoldhimthathesawFaizanputthe

noteinhislocker.However,adifferentfriendtoldAkshaythathesaw

Reyanshwritingthenoteduringlunch.

LikeinStudy1,followingthescenario,participantswereaskedbothbelief

andcomprehensionquestions.Anexampleofacomprehensionquestionis,“Why

didAkshaymisstwodaysofschool?”andanexampleofabeliefquestionis,“Ifyou


hadtodecideononepersonwhoputthenoteinthelocker,whoitwoulditbe—

FaizanorReyansh?”Thesamelogicfornameswappingwasused(explainedin

ScenarioResponseTask).

NegativeIndianScenario

ThefollowingisthenegativescenariothatIndianparticipantsread:

Aarav,a17-year-oldstudent inhighschool,discoversthathis locker

hasbeenrobbed.Hiscomputerandwalletarenolongerinhislocker

anditappearsthatthelockonhis lockerhasbeencut.Tofigureout

whorobbedAarav's locker, theschoolprincipleconductsa seriesof

interviews with students. After the interviews, the principle has

narrowedhisinvestigationdowntotwosuspects—SaiandWaqas.Sai

isa16-year-oldboywhoenjoysvideogamesandmathclass.Waqasis

a17-year-oldboywhoenjoyssportsandhistoryclass. Inoneof the

interviews,astudentreportedthathesawSaiholdingAarav'swalletin

thecafeteriaonthedaythatAarav'slockerwasbrokeninto.However,

anotherstudentclaimsthathesawWaqasusingAarav'scomputerin

thelibraryonthedaythatAarav'slockerwasbrokeninto.


comprehensionquestions.“What’smissingfromAarav’slocker?”andanexampleof

abeliefquestionis,“Ifyouhadtodecideononepersonwhobrokeintothelocker,

whoitwoulditbe—SaiorWaqas?”Thesamelogicfornameswappingwasused

(explainedinScenarioResponseTask).

ControlIndianScenario


ThefollowingwasthecontrolscenariothatIndianparticipantsread:

RithvikandAsifaresitting ina localcafétogetherdiscussingabook

thattheybothread.Oneofthembecomesthirstyandwouldlikeaglass

ofwater.


comprehensionquestions.Anexampleofacomprehensionquestionis,“Whatare

RithvikandAsifdiscussing?”andanexampleofabeliefquestionis,“Ifyouhadto

choose,whodoyouthinkbecamethirsty—RithvikorAsif?”Thesamelogicforname

swappingwasused(explainedinsectionScenarioResponseTask).

3.4.3ExplicitXenophobia

TheExplicitXenophobiaSurveysectionincludedtwelvequestionsmeantto

targetexplicitbeliefsregardingimmigrantsandforeigners.Thesequestionswere

thesameasthosethatappearedinStudy1.Someexamplesofthesequestionsare:

“Pleaseratehowwarmorcoldyoufeeltowardthefollowinggroups(0=coldest

feelings,50=neutral,100=warmestfeelings)”,“Howmuchdoyouagreewiththis

statement:"AlthoughIdon'tnecessarilyagreewiththem,Isometimeshave

prejudicedfeelings(likegutreactionsorspontaneousthoughts)thatIdon'tfeelI

canprevent”?”,and“Howmuchdoyouagreewiththisstatement:"Itshouldbe

againstairportpolicytoallowairportsecuritytosearchpassengersbasedontheir

ethnicgroup”.

3.4.4 DemographicsandDebriefing

TheDemographicsandDebriefingsectionofthesurveyincludedfour

questionssurroundingage,gender,politicalideology,andlevelofeducation.


3.5Results

Atotalof297subjectscompletedStudy2.Ofthesesubjects,203wereIndian

and94wereAmerican.

Collectivistvs.Individualist

Weconductedaone-wayanalysisofvariancetotesttheeffectofnationality

(IndianversusAmerican)onvarianceofcollectivistsversusindividualistattitudes.

SimilartoStudy1,responsesbetweenAmericanandIndianparticipantsrevealedno

significantdifference,F(1,295)=0.297,p<.586.Theindividualism-collectivism

scoredidnotpredictanybiaswithineachnationalityoroverall.

ScenarioResponse

Participantsrespondedtothreescenariosreflectinganegativeact,positive

act,andaneutralact.

NegativeScenario

Weconductedaone-wayanalysisoftendencytoprofileaMuslimcharacter

(“Waqas”)totesttheeffectofnationalityontheperceivedlikelihoodthatthe

Muslimcharactercommittedthenegativeactwiththreedifferentmeasures,

ScenarioMeasure1,ScenarioMeasure2,andScenarioMeasure3.Allthreeof

measureswerequestionsregardingparticipants’beliefaboutwhichcharacter,the

Muslimorin-groupcharacter,committedthenegativeact(stealingfromthelocker).

AmaineffectfornationalitywasobtainedforScenarioMeasure1,whichasked

participantstoassessthelikelihoodthattheMuslimcharacterstolefromthelocker,

F(1,295)=10.117,p<.002.Onaverage,Indianparticipantsrateditasmore


probable(59.97%)thatWaqas(theMuslimcharacter)brokeintothelockerthan

didAmericanparticipants(52.33%).

Forthenegativescenarioinwhichanunknowncharacterstealsfroma

locker,wealsoobtainedamaineffectfornationalityonthelikelihoodthatthein-

groupmembercommittedtheact,F(1,295)=6.971,p<.009.Onaverage,Indian

participantsrateditasmoreprobable(59.92%)thatthein-groupcharacterbroke

intothelocker,thandidAmericanparticipants(54.44%).

ScenarioMeasure3askedparticipantstochooseeithertheMuslimorin-

groupmemberasthethiefiftheywereforcedtochoose.Amaineffectofnationality

ontendencytochooseeithertheMuslimorin-groupcharacterasthethiefwas

obtained,χ2(1,N=298)=12.10,p<.001:54.5%ofIndianparticipantsidentified

theMuslimcharacterasthethiefinthenegativescenario,whereas30.9%ofthe

AmericanparticipantsidentifiedtheMuslimcharacterasthethief.

PositiveScenario

Weconductedaone-wayanalysisoftendencytoprofileaMuslimcharacter

totesttheeffectofnationalityontheperceivedlikelihoodthattheMuslimcharacter

committedthepositiveactwithtwodifferentmeasures.Amaineffectfornationality

wasobtainedforScenarioMeasure1,whichaskedparticipantstoaccessthe

likelihoodthattheMuslimcharacterleftthenicenoteforanotherstudent,f(1,

295)=8.789,p<.003.Onaverage,Indianparticipantsrateditasmoreprobable

(60.60%)thattheMuslimcharacterputthenoteinthelocker,thandidAmerican

participants(52.49%).


Forthepositivescenarioinwhichanunknowncharacterleavesakindnote

inanotherstudent’slocker,nomaineffectofnationalityonthelikelihoodthatthe

in-groupmembercommittedtheactwasobtained,F(1,295)=1.187,p<.277.On

average,Indianparticipantsrateditasslightly(butnotsignificantly)moreprobable

(58.23%)thatthein-groupcharactercommittedthepositiveact,thandidAmerican

participants(55.20%).

ScenarioMeasure3askedparticipantstochooseeithertheMuslimorin-

groupmemberasthepersonwholeftthenicenote.Amaineffectofnationalityon

tendencytochooseeithertheMuslimorin-groupcharacterwholeftthenoteinthe

positivescenariowasobtained,χ2(1,N=298)=12.10,p<.001.51.5%ofIndian

participantsidentifiedtheMuslimcharacterastheactorinthepositivescenario,

whereas50%oftheAmericanparticipantsidentifiedtheMuslimcharacterasthe

actorinthepositivescenario.

ControlScenario

Forthecontrolscenariosinvolvinganeutralact,therewasnodifferencein

anyoftheScenariomeasuresasafunctionofnationality.

ExplicitXenophobia

Weconductedaone-wayanalysesofattitudestowardsimmigrantsand

attitudestowardnon-immigrantsusingafeelingthermometer,inwhich

participantsratedtheirfeelingstowardsimmigrantsandnon-immigrantsonascale

(refertoMethodssectionformoredetail)totesttheeffectofnationality(Indian

versusAmerican)onthismeasure.Themeansforattitudestowardimmigrantsand

forin-groupmembersforIndianandAmericanrespondentsarepresentedinFigure


1.Forratingsofimmigrants,therewasnodifferenceasafunctionofparticipant

nationality,F(1,295)=2.621,p<1.07.However,Indianparticipantsreportedless

warmfeelingstowardnon-immigrants(64.37)thandidAmericanparticipants

(72.26),F(1,295)=7.419,p<.007.

AmongAmericans,thedegreetowhichpeoplefavorednon-immigrantsover

immigrantsinwarmthwaslowerforAmericanswhobelievedmorethat

stereotypingwaswrong,r(92)=.32,p=.002,andwhotriedtrytobeno-

prejudiced,r(92)=.27,p=.010.ThesewerenotsignificantforIndians,r(202)=-

.09,p=.226,andr(202)=.07,p=.290.

3.6Discussion

Therewasnosignificantdifferenceincollectivistandindividualistscore

betweenIndianandAmericanparticipants.Aswesuggestedinthediscussionof

Study1,thiscouldbeadirectionforfutureresearchtoinvestigate.Onehypothesis

isthatIndiahasrecentlyexperiencedrapideconomicgrowthandthesocial

consequenceofthisishasbeenanevolutionawayfromcollectivismandtowards

individualism.

Forthenegativescenarioresponsesection,Indianparticipantstendedto

indicatethattheybelievedthatitwastheMuslimcharacterwhowasthiefmore

thanAmericanparticipants.However,Indianparticipantsalsorateditmorelikely

thatthein-groupcharacterwasthethiefmorethanAmericanparticipants.

Therefore,itispossiblethatresultswereaproductofIndianparticipantshavinga

tendencytoratehigherregardlessofthemeasure.


Forthepositivescenariointhescenario-response,Indianparticipantsagain

tendedtobelievethatitwasmorelikelythattheMuslimcharacterwholeftthenice

notecomparedtoAmericanparticipants.However,therewasnosignificant

differencebetweenIndianversusAmericanbeliefthatitwasthein-groupcharacter

(eitherIndianorAmerican)wholeftthenicenoteforthepositivescenario.

Fortheexplicitbelieftasks,inwhichparticipantsratedtheirfeelingona

“feelingsthermometer”(0=coldest,100=warmest),Indianstendedtohaveless

warmfeelingstowardsimmigrantsthanAmericans.However,Americanshoweda

greaterupwardsjumpintheirfeelingstowardsnon-immigrants(comparedtotheir

feelingstowardsimmigrants)thanIndians.WhileIndianparticipantsratedsimilar

feelingstowardsimmigrantsandnon-immigrantsthatwerebothslightlylesswarm

thanthefeelingsthatAmericansreported,Americanexpressedsignificantlygreater

feelingsofwarmthtowardnon-immigrantscomparedtotheirexpressedfeelings

towardimmigrants.

4.GeneralDiscussion

GeneralPattern

InbothStudy1andStudy2,IndianparticipantstendedtoprofiletheMuslim

characterastheactorinquestionforboththepositive,negative,andcontrol

scenariosmorethanAmericanparticipants.Acrossbothstudies,Americanstended

toexpresswarmerexplicitfeelingtowardsimmigrants.However,inStudy2wesaw

thatthoughAmericansexpressedwarmerfeelingstowardsimmigrants,they

expressedevenwarmerfeelingstowardsnon-immigrantsindicatingthattheycould


bedisplayingtheirbiasthroughin-groupfavoritism.OnlyinStudy1didweconduct

anImplicitAssociationTestwhichrevealednosignificantdifferencebetween

AmericanandIndianimplicitbiasestowardsimmigrants.However,fortheother

componentsthatwereincludedinbothstudies—scenarioresponse,cultural

ideology,andexplicitbias—therewerenocontradictoryfindingsinresults.

Asdiscussed,acrossbothstudiesAmericanstendedtohavegreaterpositive

orientationstowardsimmigrantsthanIndians.However,inStudy2,though

AmericanshadwarmerfeelingstowardsimmigrantsthanIndianparticipants,inthe

contextofhowtheyratedtheirowngroup,Americansdisplayedagreaterbias

towardsimmigrants.InapaststudyconductedbyGreenwaldandPettigrew,in-

groupfavoritismratherthanoutgroupdeprecationwasshowntobeawayinwhich

biasagainstout-groupsisexpressedamongAmericans(Greenwald&Pettigrew,

2014).Onaverage,asillustratedinFigure1,Americanparticipantstendedtoshow

greaterwarmthtowardsbothimmigrantsandnon-immigrantscomparedtoIndian

participants.

Figure1


Implications

Collectivismandindividualismhavebeenassociatedwithdifferentbeliefs

andattitudestowardsothers.AsChenetal.(2008)discuss,“oneoftheimportant

conceptualdistinctionsbetweenindividualismandcollectivismisthesignificanceof

groupmembership.Comparedtoindividualists,theboundarybetweenin-groupand

out-groupmembersissharperamongcollectivists”(Chenetal.2008).Becauseof

this,ahypothesisforbothStudy1andStudy2wasthatIndianswouldshowgreater

preferenceforthoseoftheirownnationalityandcoolerattitudestowards

immigrants.Conversely,itwashypothesizedthattherewouldonlybeaslight,ifany,

Americanpreferenceforimmigrantsversusnon-immigrants.Wehypothesizedthis

fortworeasons:firstly,Americaisanindividualistcultureandpastresearchhas

demonstratedthatpeoplefromindividualistculturestendtofosterlessof

distinctionbetweenthemselvesandout-groupmembersbecausetheirassociation

withtheirownin-groupisweaker.Secondly,wehypothesizedAmerican

participantswouldexplicitlyshowaminimalbiastowardsimmigrantsbecauseof

Americansocialpressuresandexpectationstoappearnon-prejudice.Therewasa

significantdifferencebetweenIndianparticipants’feelingstowardsimmigrantsand

Americanparticipants’feelingstowardsimmigrants.BothStudy1andStudy2

showedthatAmericanshadwarmerfeelingstowardsimmigrants.However,as

previouslydiscussed,Americanshadevenwarmerfeelingstowardsnon-

immigrantsthereforepossiblyindicatingthatanegativebiastowardsimmigrants


manifestsitselfaspreferencetowardsnon-immigrants(ratherthandirectnegative

feelingstowardsimmigrants).

Thegoalofthescenario-responsesectionofbothstudieswastodetermine

howparticipantswouldrespondiftheeventsweretakingplaceinreal-life(Paaset

al.2003).Whowouldyoublameifyourealizedyour$50hadgonemissing?Orwho

wouldyoususpectleftafriendlynote?Itislikelythatreadinga1-paragraph

scenario,fromeitherStudy1orStudy2,elicitedthesameresponseaswouldareal-

lifescenariooccurringinrealtimewithrealpeople.Futureresearchonthistopic

mayinvolveatimedvideogameoranothertoolthatmakesengagingwiththe

scenarioamoreinteractiveexperiencethansimplyreadingandrespondingtoa

writtenanecdote.

Anothermajorgoalofthepresentresearchwastounderstandifsystem1

andsystem2beliefsaboutimmigrantswasnotablydifferentbetweenAmericans

andIndians.Asecondmajorgoalofthepresentresearchwastobetterunderstand

whythosedifferencesmayexist—socialpressures,apersonaldesiretobeless

prejudice,etc.InStudy1,Americansexhibitedlowerlevelsofexplicitbiastowards

immigrantsandcomparablelevelsofimplicitbiascomparedtoIndians.Themost

interestingpartofthestudyremainsunanswered—areAmericanssuppressing

theirbiasesandaretheredangerousreboundeffectsofthissuppression?This

questioncanonlybeanswerediffutureresearchcanactuallycreateareal-life

settingthatwillultimatelyenablesocialscientiststotrulyunderstandhow

AmericansandIndiansrespondtodifferentscenariosinreallife.


Limitations

AmajorlimitationofbothStudy1andStudy2wasthatthescenarios,that

weremeanttodrawout“real-life”reactionstoeventsweretextsandthereforedid

nothavethecapacitytobringoutsucharesponseinanonlinestudy.Thoughwe

triedtomakethescenariosmorerealisticinStudy2byaddingsuperfluous

informationnotdirectlyrelatedtothequestionathand(“whostolefromthe

locker?),westilldonotthinkthatitsufficientlyenhancedthestorytomakeit“real”

enoughtodrawoutreallifereactionsfromparticipants.

AnotherlimitationofthisstudywasthatitwasconductedonMechanical

Turk.OnepossiblereasonwhytheIndianpopulationdidnotexhibitcollectivist

ideologyisbecausetheywereaspecificpopulationwithinIndia,theMTurk

population.

Howdoesovertxenophobiaexistindifferentcultures?Commonbeliefisthat

overtxenophobiaisareflectionofinternalthoughtsandideas.However,whatifthe

relationshipexistsinopposite?Doovertlyexpressedxenophobicthoughts

subsequentlyaffectimplicitxenophobia?Thisquestionremainsunansweredbythe

presentresearch,butnonethelessisanimportantonetopursue.Ifcultural

pressuresareinfacthavingtheoppositetotheintendedaffects,thatisanissuethat

needstobefixed.IntheUnitedStates,acommonrhetoricisthatfixingracism,

sexism,andanysortofprejudicebeginsatthepersonallevelofcensoringoneselfon

adailybasis.Inmanyways,socialjusticeproblemshavebecometopicsthatonlythe

oppressedhavefullauthoritytodiscussandunpack.Whatifthisrestrictionis


causingtheveryproblemitseekstofight?Thereismuchmoreresearchtobedone

inthisevolvingfield.


ReferencesAhmed,S.(1999).AdictionaryofMuslimnames.NYUPress.Apfelbaum,E.P.,Pauker,K.,Ambady,N.,Sommers,S.R.,&Norton,M.I.(2008).

Learning(not)totalkaboutrace:whenolderchildrenunderperforminsocialcategorization.Developmentalpsychology,44(5),1513.

Chaiken,S.(2013).RethinkingtheRoleofFacilitationandInhibitionin

Stereotyping.StereotypeActivationandInhibition:AdvancesinSocialCognition,11,145.

Chen,F.F.(2008).Whathappensifwecomparechopstickswithforks?Theimpact

ofmakinginappropriatecomparisonsincross-culturalresearch.Journalofpersonalityandsocialpsychology,95(5),1005.

Dovidio,JohnF.,etal."Extendingthebenefitsofrecategorization:Evaluations,self-

disclosure,andhelping."JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology33.4(1997):401-420.

Echabe,A.E.,&CASTRO,J.L.G.(1996).Imagesofimmigrants:Astudyonthe

xenophobiaandpermeabilityofintergroupboundaries.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,26(3),341-352.

Evans,J.S.B.(2008).Dual-processingaccountsofreasoning,judgment,andsocial

cognition.Annu.Rev.Psychol.,59,255-278.Ford,T.E.,Teeter,S.R.,Richardson,K.,&Woodzicka,J.A.(2016).Puttingthebrakes

onprejudicereboundeffects:Anironiceffectofdisparagementhumor.TheJournalofSocialPsychology,1-16.

Garcia,S.M.,Tor,A.,&Schiff,T.M.(2013).Thepsychologyofcompetitionasocial

comparisonperspective.PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience,8(6),634-650.

Greenwald,A.G.,&Banaji,M.R.(1995).Implicitsocialcognition:attitudes,self-

esteem,andstereotypes.Psychologicalreview,102(1),4.Greenwald,A.G.,&Krieger,L.H.(2006).Implicitbias:Scientific

foundations.CaliforniaLawReview,94(4),945-967.Greenwald,A.G.,&Pettigrew,T.F.(2014).Withmalicetowardnoneandcharityfor

some:Ingroupfavoritismenablesdiscrimination.AmericanPsychologist,69(7),669.


Karpinski,A.,&Hilton,J.L.(2001).AttitudesandtheImplicitAssociationTest.Journalofpersonalityandsocialpsychology,81(5),774.

Knobloch-Westerwick,S.(2014).Choiceandpreferenceinmediause:Advancesin

selectiveexposuretheoryandresearch.Routledge.Markus,H.R.,&Kitayama,S.(1991).Cultureandtheself:Implicationsforcognition,

emotion,andmotivation.Psychologicalreview,98(2),224.Miller,J.G.(1988).Bridgingthecontent-structuredichotomy:Cultureandtheself.Morgan,G.(2016).GlobalIslamophobia:MuslimsandmoralpanicintheWest.

Routledge.Muralidharan,S.,LaFerle,C.,&Sung,Y.(2015).Howcultureinfluencesthe“social”

insocialmedia:socializingandadvertisingonsmartphonesinIndiaandtheUnitedStates.Cyberpsychology,Behavior,andSocialNetworking,18(6),356-360.

Landrine,H.(1992).Clinicalimplicationsofculturaldifferences:Thereferential

versustheindexicalself.ClinicalPsychologyReview,12(4),401-415.Levitt,S.D.,&List,J.A.(2007).Whatdolaboratoryexperimentsmeasuringsocial

preferencesrevealabouttherealworld?.Thejournalofeconomicperspectives,21(2),153-174.

Liu,J.,Lee,C.,Hui,C.,Kwan,H.K.,&Wu,L.Z.(2013).Idiosyncraticdealsand

employeeoutcomes:Themediatingrolesofsocialexchangeandself-enhancementandthemoderatingroleofindividualism.JournalofAppliedPsychology,98(5),832.

Paas,F.,Tuovinen,J.E.,Tabbers,H.,&VanGerven,P.W.(2003).Cognitiveload

measurementasameanstoadvancecognitiveloadtheory.Educationalpsychologist,38(1),63-71.

Richeson,J.A.,&Ambady,N.(2001).Who'sincharge?Effectsofsituationalroleson

automaticgenderbias.SexRoles,44(9-10),493-512.Robbins,S.P.(2016).FromtheEditor—SticksandStones:TriggerWarnings,

Microaggressions,andPoliticalCorrectness.JournalofSocialWorkEducation,52(1),1-5.

Sanchez-Mazas,M.(2015).Xenophobia:SocialPsychologicalAspects.


Sen,R.,&Wagner,W.(2005).History,emotionsandhetero-referentialrepresentationsininter-groupconflict:theexampleofHindu-MuslimrelationsinIndia.PapersonSocialRepresentations,14(2),1-23.

Sinha,J.B.,Sinha,T.N.,Verma,J.,&Sinha,R.B.N.(2001).Collectivismcoexisting

withindividualism:AnIndianscenario.Asianjournalofsocialpsychology,4(2),133-145.

Shah,G.,Shah,G.,Rajadhyaksha,U.,&Rajadhyaksha,U.(2016).Globalcities,work

andfamilycollectivismandwork-familyconflictinIndia.SouthAsianJournalofGlobalBusinessResearch,5(3),341-361.

Shin,H.,Dovidio,J.F.,&Napier,J.L.(2013).Culturaldifferencesintargetsof

stigmatizationbetweenindividual-andgroup-orientedcultures.BasicandAppliedSocialPsychology,35(1),98-108.

Shweder,R.A.,&Bourne,E.J.(1984).Doestheconceptofthepersonvarycross-

culturally?W:RAShweder,RALeVine(red.),Culturetheory:Essaysonmind,self,andemotion(s.158-199).

Suls,J.,Martin,R.,&Wheeler,L.(2002).Socialcomparison:Why,withwhom,and

withwhateffect?.Currentdirectionsinpsychologicalscience,11(5),159-163.

Triandis,H.C.&Gelfland,M.J.(1998).Convergingmeasurementofhorizontalandverticalindividualismandcollectivism.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,74,118-128.

Valsiner,J.(2007).Cultureinmindsandsocieties:Foundationsofculturalpsychology.Psychol.Stud.(September2009),54,238-239.

Vargas,J.H.,&Kemmelmeier,M.(2013).EthnicityandcontemporaryAmerican

cultureameta-analyticinvestigationofhorizontal–verticalindividualism–collectivism.JournalofCross-CulturalPsychology,44(2),195-222.

Wenzlaff,R.M.,&Wegner,D.M.(2000).Thoughtsuppression.Annualreviewof

psychology,51(1),59-91.Xenophobia.(n.d.).RetrievedApril18,2017,fromhttps://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/xenophobia

a cross cultural analysis of implicit and explicit xenophobia · a cross cultural analysis of...

Documents