The Role of a Culturally Diverse Canadian Identity, and the Valuing, Accepting, Tolerating, and Rejecting Cultural Diversity Responses Model (The VATR-CDR Model)

Home , Polyculturalism

Promoting Positive Intergroup Relations and Group Equality: The Role of a Culturally Diverse Canadian Identity, and the Valuing, Accepting, Tolerating, and Rejecting Cultural Diversity Responses Model (the VATR-CDR Model)

Mamta Vaswani

A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph

In partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology

Guelph, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT

PROMOTING POSITIVE INTERGROUP RELATIONS AND GROUP EQUALITY: THE ROLE OF A CULTURALLY DIVERSE CANADIAN IDENTITY, AND THE VALUING, ACCEPTING, TOLERATING, AND REJECTING CULTURAL DIVERSITY RESPONSES MODEL (THE VATR-CDR MODEL)

Mamta Vaswani Advisor: University of Guelph, 2020 Dr. Benjamin Giguère

The Canadian government announced Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy in the early

1970s which has aimed to promote positive evaluations of culturally diverse Canadians and equality among Canadians (Government of Canada, 1971). The present studies aimed to examine whether the Canadian collective identity could be understood as being inherently culturally diverse as is intended by the policy, and whether such an understanding can help to achieve the policy’s goals. A novel approach to understanding how cultural diversity is responded to was also proposed: The Valuing, Accepting, Tolerating, and Rejecting Cultural Diversity Responses

Model (the VATR-CDR Model). Additionally, the present studies examined whether understanding the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse was associated with the VATR-CDR Model, and whether the model can help to achieve the policy’s goals. Finally, the role of identifying with cultural diverse others on those associations was also examined.

Results of three cross-sectional studies involving majority White Canadian participants suggested that the Canadian identity can be understood as being inherently culturally diverse, and that such an understanding may be associated with achieving the policy’s goals. Results also provided support for the utility of the VATR-CDR Model, suggesting that valuing cultural diversity may be conducive to achieving the policy’s goals, but that tolerating and rejecting cultural diversity may hinder achieving the policy’s goals, and that accepting cultural diversity

may not be associated with achieving the policy’s goals. Additionally, the results suggested that understanding the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse may increase valuing cultural diversity and decrease rejecting cultural diversity, which responses, in turn, may be conducive to achieving the policy’s goals, in particular for people who identify less with culturally diverse others. Implications of the results for achieving the goals of Canada’s

Multiculturalism Policy are discussed. iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my advisory and examination committee members, and chair to my defence, for their time, feedback, questioning and suggestions from preparing my research proposal through to my defence. I am especially grateful to have had the opportunity to pursue my graduate studies under the supervision of Dr. Benjamin Giguère. This experience has been long and challenging, but also very rewarding which is in large part due to him. I will be forever grateful for his support and mentorship. I would also like to thank my husband, Sunil Vaswani, for his support and the sacrifices he has made so that my dream may come true.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgements ...... iv

Table of Contents ...... v

List of Tables ...... viii

List of Figures ...... xii

List of Appendices ...... xiii

Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Canada’s Culturally Diverse Sociocultural Context ...... 2

1.2 Intergroup Relations Between Members of Different Cultural Groups in Canada ...... 6

1.3 A Culturally Diverse Canadian Identity and Positive Intergroup Relations ...... 8

1.4 The VATR-CDR Model and Positive Intergroup Relations ...... 15

1.5 Overview of Present Studies ...... 23

Study 1 ...... 24

2.1 Method ...... 24

2.1.1 Participants ...... 24

2.1.2 Procedure ...... 24

2.1.3 Measures ...... 25

2.2 Results ...... 26

2.2.1 Psychometric Properties of the Culturally Diverse Canadian Identity Measure .... 26

2.2.2 Exploring the Association Between a Culturally Diverse Canadian Identity and

Positive Intergroup Relations ...... 27

2.3 Discussion ...... 28

Study 2 ...... 28 vi

3.1 Method ...... 29

3.1.1 Participants ...... 29

3.1.2 Procedure ...... 29

3.1.3 Measures ...... 30

3.2 Results ...... 34

3.2.1 Psychometric Properties of the Culturally Diverse Canadian Identity Measure .... 36

3.2.2 Psychometric Properties of the VATR-CDR Model ...... 39

3.2.3 Hypothesis Testing...... 41

3.3 Discussion ...... 53

Study 3 ...... 54

4.1 Method ...... 55

4.1.1 Participants ...... 55

4.1.2 Procedure ...... 55

4.1.3 Measures ...... 56

4.2 Preliminary Analyses: Psychometric Properties of Measures of Attitudes Toward

Cultural Diversity Related Policies and Legislation ...... 57

4.2.1 Structure of Items ...... 58

4.2.2 Convergent Validity ...... 60

4.3 Results ...... 61

4.3.1 Hypothesis 1: Association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and

positive intergroup relations, and cultural diversity related policies and legislation ...... 63

4.3.2 Hypothesis 2: Association between the VATR-CDR Model and the valence of

intergroup relations, and cultural diversity related policies and legislation ...... 63 vii

4.3.3 Hypotheses 3 and 4: Mediating role of the VATR-CDR Model on the association

between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations, and cultural

diversity related policies and legislation, moderated by identification with a culturally

diverse Canadian ingroup ...... 66

4.4 Discussion ...... 90

General Discussion ...... 91

5.1 Summary ...... 91

5.2 Implications ...... 97

5.3 Limitations and Future Research Direction ...... 101

5.4 Conclusion ...... 104

References ...... 106

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Factor matrix from principle axis analysis for items measuring the culturally diverse

Canadian identity construct...... 27

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients for a culturally diverse Canadian

identity (DIV), racism (RAC), and a favourable minority evaluation (EVL), with 95%

confidence intervals...... 28

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients for a culturally diverse Canadian

identity (DIV), the VATR-CDR Model (valuing cultural diversity (VAL), accepting

cultural diversity (ACC), tolerating cultural diversity (TOL), rejecting cultural diversity

(REJ)), Canadian identification (CDN), Canadianism (CSM), assimilation orientation

(ASM), depression (DEP), anxiety (ANX), stress (STR), racism (RAC), and a

favourable minority evaluation (EVL), with 95% confidence intervals...... 35

Table 4 Estimates of confirmatory factor analysis for items measuring the culturally diverse

Canadian identity construct...... 36

Table 5 Summary of joint significance tests for the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity (DIV) and racism (RAC) through the VATR-CDR Model (valuing

cultural diversity (VAL), accepting cultural diversity (ACC), tolerating cultural

diversity (TOL), rejecting cultural diversity (REJ)), with 98.7% confidence intervals.

...... 45

Table 6 Summary of joint significance tests for the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity (DIV) and a favourable minority evaluation (EVL) through the

VATR-CDR Model (valuing cultural diversity (VAL), accepting cultural diversity

(ACC), tolerating cultural diversity (TOL), rejecting cultural diversity (REJ)), with

98.7% confidence intervals...... 45 ix

Table 7 Varimax rotated factor matrix from principal axis analysis for attitudes toward cultural

diversity related policies and legislation items for items loading at least at .50...... 59

Table 8 Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients for a culturally diverse Canadian

identity (DIV), identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (GRP), the

VATR-CDR Model (valuing cultural diversity (VAL), accepting cultural diversity

(ACC), tolerating cultural diversity (TOL), rejecting cultural diversity (REJ)), racism

(RAC), a favourable minority evaluation (EVL), support for anti-hate crime legislation

(HATE), and support to ban face coverings in the public sector (FACE), with 95%

confidence intervals...... 62

Table 9 Summary of joint significance tests for the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity (DIV) and racism (RAC) through the VATR-CDR Model (valuing

cultural diversity (VAL), accepting cultural diversity (ACC), tolerating cultural

diversity (TOL), rejecting cultural diversity (REJ)), at low and high levels of

identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (GRP), with 98.7% confidence

intervals...... 68

Table 10 Summary of joint significance tests for the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity (DIV) and a favourable minority evaluation (EVL) through the

VATR-CDR Model (valuing cultural diversity (VAL), accepting cultural diversity

(ACC), tolerating cultural diversity (TOL), rejecting cultural diversity (REJ)), at low

and high levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (GRP), with

98.7% confidence intervals...... 69

Table 11 Summary of joint significance tests for the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity (DIV) and support for anti-hate crime legislation (HATE) through the x

VATR-CDR Model (valuing cultural diversity (VAL), accepting cultural diversity

(ACC), tolerating cultural diversity (TOL), rejecting cultural diversity (REJ)), at low

and high levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (GRP), with

98.7% confidence intervals...... 70

Table 12 Summary of joint significance tests for the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity (DIV) and support to ban facing coverings in the public sector

(FACE) through the VATR-CDR Model (valuing cultural diversity (VAL), accepting

cultural diversity (ACC), tolerating cultural diversity (TOL), rejecting cultural diversity

(REJ)), at low and high levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian

ingroup (GRP), with 98.7% confidence intervals...... 71

Table 13 Summary of regression models of joint significance tests for the association between a

culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) and racism (RAC) through the VATR-CDR

Model, at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse

Canadian ingroup (GRP)...... 140

Table 14 Summary of regression models of joint significance tests for the association between a

culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) and a favourable minority evaluation (EVL)

through the VATR-CDR Model, at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a

culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (GRP)...... 141

Table 15 Summary of regression models of joint significance tests for the association between a

culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) and support for anti-hate crime legislation

(HATE) (EVL) through the VATR-CDR Model, at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of

identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (GRP)...... 142 xi

Table 16 Summary of regression models of joint significance tests for the association between a

culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) and support to ban face coverings in the

public sector (FACE) through the VATR-CDR Model, at low (aL) and high (aH) levels

of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (GRP)...... 143

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on racism (RAC) through the

VATR-CDR Model...... 46

Figure 2. Mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on a favourable minority

evaluation (EVL) through the VATR-CDR Model...... 47

Figure 3. Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on racism (RAC)

through the VATR-CDR Model at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a

culturally diverse Canadian ingroup...... 72

Figure 4. Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on a favourable

minority evaluation (EVL) through the VATR-CDR Model at low (aL) and high (aH)

levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup...... 73

Figure 5. Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on support for anti-

hate crime legislation (HATE) through the VATR-CDR Model at low (aL) and high (aH)

levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup...... 74

Figure 6. Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on support to ban

face coverings in the public sector (FACE) through the VATR-CDR Model at low (aL)

and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup...... 75

xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Reflection on Research Journey ...... 120

Appendix B Measure of Understanding the Canadian Identity as Culturally Diverse ...... 123

Appendix C Measure of Racism Toward Visible Minorities ...... 124

Appendix D Measure of a Favourable Evaluation of a Typical Visible Minority Group Member

...... 125

Appendix E Measure of VATR-CDR Model: Valuing Cultural Diversity ...... 126

Appendix F Measure of VATR-CDR Model: Accepting Cultural Diversity ...... 127

Appendix G Measure of VATR-CDR Model: Tolerating Cultural Diversity ...... 128

Appendix H Measure of VATR-CDR Model: Rejecting Cultural Diversity ...... 129

Appendix I Measure of Canadian Identification ...... 130

Appendix J Measure of Canadianism ...... 131

Appendix K Measure of Endorsing an Assimilation Orientation ...... 132

Appendix L Measure of Depression ...... 133

Appendix M Measure of Anxiety ...... 134

Appendix N Measure of Stress ...... 135

Appendix O Measure of Identification with a Culturally Diverse Canadian Ingroup ...... 136

Appendix P Measure of Support for Anti-Hate Crime Legislation ...... 138

Appendix Q Measure of Support to Ban Face Coverings in the Public Sector ...... 139

Appendix R Summaries of Regression Model Statistics for Study 3 Moderated Mediations .... 140

INTRODUCTION

In this thesis I examined whether the Canadian identity could be understood as being inherently culturally diverse in the manner intended by Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy. I also examined whether such an identity is conducive to positive evaluations of visible minority

Canadians, and support for pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation that contribute toward attaining group equality. Additionally, I propose the Valuing, Accepting, Tolerating, and

Rejecting Cultural Diversity Responses Model (the VATR-CDR Model) which suggests that valuing cultural diversity may be conducive to positive evaluations of people from different cultural groups than the widely-held belief that tolerating or accepting cultural diversity are.

Lastly, I examined whether the proposed VATR-CDR Model mediates the association between understanding the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse, and evaluations of visible minorities, and attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation, as well as the moderating role that identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup might have on that mediating effect.

Although this line of examination is not where my thesis journey began1, it provides: (1) novel insight into the identity-focused psychosocial process built into Canada’s Multiculturalism

Policy aimed at fostering positive evaluations of culturally diverse others and achieving group equality; (2) a novel approach to fostering positive intergroup relations, the VATR-CDR Model, and its role in achieving the policy’s goals. These contributions are theoretically novel, and provide novel insight into the practical implications of how Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy can be implemented to better achieve its goals.

1 See Appendix A for a reflection of my journey from proposing my dissertation research to the outcome of my dissertation. 2

1.1 Canada’s Culturally Diverse Sociocultural Context

Canadian society, like many others, has increasingly included the presence of culturally diverse people and the recognition of differences between different cultural groups. Although many countries have seen and continue to see increasing cultural diversity among its citizens,

Canada is among a few (along with the United States and Australia, for example) that have had a relatively longer history of cultural diversity. Canada has been built on waves of immigration of different cultural groups beginning with the arrival of European settler groups (Esses et al, 2001;

Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 1970). European countries continued to be the main source of immigration to Canada up until the 1960s, in large part due to restrictive immigration legislation (Boyd & Vickers, 2000; Dench, 2000). Changes in immigration policy, legislation, and practice in the 1960s began to make it feasible for people from non-European countries to also immigrate to Canada (Banting & Kymlicka, 2003; Bhatt et al., 2013; Boyd &

Vickers, 2000), and have contributed to Canada’s growing visible minority population. Canada’s most recent demographic data reveals that approximately 22% of the population is comprised of first generation immigrants predominantly from non-European countries (Statistics Canada,

2016). Additionally, approximately 22% of the Canadian population identifies as belonging to a visible minority group, and it is projected that number will grow to between approximately 31% and 36% by the year 2036 (Statistics Canada, 2016). Therefore, the Canadian sociocultural context is culturally diverse in the sense of the presence of Canadians whose ancestors originate from a variety of different countries but also in the sense of Canada’s unique culturally diverse historical context.

Canada’s culturally diverse sociocultural context has also emerged as a result of Canada having adopted an official policy of multiculturalism (Government of Canada, 1971). The aim of 3 the policy has been to assist Canadians of all cultural groups to integrate into mainstream

Canadian society as they simultaneously maintain their various heritage cultural backgrounds, in order to attain equality for all Canadians (Government of Canada, 1971). As such, the policy and related legislation (e.g., Canadian Multiculturalism Act, 1988), has attempted to remove obstacles to full participation in mainstream Canadian society and encourage the interaction of

Canadians from different cultural backgrounds, as well as accommodate Canadians’ unique cultural needs (within the bounds of Canadian legislation), in order to attain equality (Banting &

Kymlicka, 2003; Berry, 2005; Berry et al., 1977; Government of Canada, 1971; Kymlicka, 2010,

2012).

Criticisms of Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy include an argument that the policy is counterproductive to its goal of assisting Canadians of all cultural groups to integrate into mainstream Canadian society. Critics argue that instead of achieving that goal, the policy encourages cultural segregation and undermines national unity because encouraging cultural diversity impedes immigrants and their children from authentically thinking of themselves as

Canadian (see Kymlicka, 1998). However, although the Canadian Government has offered formal forms of support in order to encourage the maintenance of cultural diversity (e.g.,

Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage, Government of Canada, 2020), it has also offered formal forms of support that attempt to remove obstacles preventing participation in mainstream society and to encourage integration (e.g., Canadian Multiculturalism Act, 1988;

Action Plan for Official Languages – 2018-2023: Investing in Our Future, Government of

Canada, 2018). Furthermore, contrary to criticisms of the policy, research supports that most

Canadians who identify with different cultural groups do not segregate themselves and solely identify and engage with their heritage culture (e.g., Berry & Hou, 2016; Safdar et al., 2012). 4

Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy has, therefore, contributed toward creating a sociocultural context that is well-suited to the maintenance of cultural diversity and participation in mainstream Canadian society simultaneously, rather than creating cultural segregation.

Canada’s culturally diverse sociocultural context is beneficial both for: (a) Canadians who identify as both a member of their heritage cultural group as well as Canadian (i.e., biculturals; Birman, 1994; LaFramboise et al., 1993; Phinney & Devich-Navarros, 1997); and,

(b) mainstream Canadian society more broadly. Bicultural Canadians can benefit from a culturally diverse sociocultural context because it allows them to maintain their heritage cultures, and various aspects of heritage cultural maintenance has been associated with positive psychological outcomes (e.g., Smith & Lalonde, 2003; Vaswani et al., 2019). It also allows them to participate in and identify with mainstream Canadian culture, which has also been associated with positive psychological outcomes (e.g., Ryder et al., 2000; Vaswani et al., 2020).

Additionally, such a context allows them to simultaneously identify as Canadian and as members of their heritage cultural groups, rather than being forced to identify with one at the expense of the other or neither, which dual cultural identification is generally preferred by Canadians from different cultural groups (e.g., Berry & Hou, 2016; Chia & Costigan, 2006; Costigan et al., 2016;

Safdar et al., 2012). Moreover, such dual cultural identification has been associated with positive psychological outcomes for these individuals such as greater well-being and better psychosocial adaptation (e.g., Berry & Hou, 2016; Berry & Sabatier, 2011; Chia & Costigan, 2006; Stroink &

Lalonde, 2009). Therefore, Canada’s culturally diverse sociocultural context provides for beneficial psychological outcomes for bicultural individuals.

Canada’s culturally diverse sociocultural context is also beneficial to mainstream

Canadian society more broadly because it brings together different experiences, perspectives, 5 and ways of thinking (Costigan et al., 2016; Kirmayer, 2019). According to Hong’s (2009)

Dynamic Constructivist Approach to Culture people attain certain knowledge from their environments, which is shared with others over generations, thus resulting in a mindset that is used to make sense of the world. People from different cultural groups and social geographies can therefore come to think, feel, and behave differently from each other, having different experiences and perspectives. Being culturally diverse, Canadian society brings together individuals who may have somewhat different experiences and ways of thinking.

There is value to bringing together different experiences and ways of thinking. Being exposed to a diversity of thought can make people more open-minded and able to take on different perspectives themselves, and can result in deeper and more complex thinking and information processing, creativity and more effective problem-solving (see Galinksy et al., 2015;

Phillips et al, 2014). For instance, Antonio and colleagues (2004) found that majority White participants who engaged in group discussions including just one Black participant displayed more complex thinking in a subsequent essay writing task. Additionally, they found that information contributed to the group discussions by minority Black participants was perceived as more novel than information contributed by other White participants (Antonio et al., 2004). Such findings offer some evidence for more complex thinking and perspective-taking in the presence of cultural diversity. Sommers (2006) found that majority White participants in culturally diverse groups contributed more information to group discussions, did so more accurately, and were more open to having discussions than majority White participants in homogeneous all White groups. Such findings offer some evidence for working harder, being more communicative and open-minded, and more effective at problem-solving in the presence of cultural diversity.

Therefore, by fostering perspective taking, more complex thinking, creativity, and more 6 productivity and efficient problem-solving, Canada’s culturally diverse sociocultural context is beneficial for mainstream society more broadly.

1.2 Intergroup Relations Between Members of Different Cultural Groups in Canada

Although cultural diversity is beneficial to bicultural individuals and mainstream society more broadly, it can also be challenging for people from different cultural groups to cohesively co-exist. At times, the way people from different cultural groups think, feel, and behave may not align with each other, which can influence how people from different cultural groups evaluate and treat one another (intergroup relations; see Hogg, 2003). Intergroup relations can either be negative (e.g., perceiving people from different cultural groups as threatening, having prejudicial attitudes toward them, and treating them in a discriminatory manner) or positive (e.g., perceiving people from different cultural groups as harmless, evaluating them favourably, and treating them equitably). Therefore, in order to have a cohesive and equitable society, promoting positive intergroup relations is crucial in a culturally diverse sociocultural context such as Canada.

The Canadian government has attempted to foster positive intergroup relations through

Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy (see Berry, 2006; 2013). Research on intergroup relations supports the general association between multiculturalism as a policy and positive intergroup relations in Canada (e.g., Guimond, et al., 2013; Urbiola, et al., 2017). The policy aims to foster positive intergroup relations by incorporating within it certain psychosocial processes. One of those processes is the idea that if we are confident in our own respective cultural groups and place in society, we are more willing to interact with people from other cultural groups and, in turn, to be tolerant and/or accepting of them (Berry, 1984, 2006; Berry et al., 1977). That psychosocial process is facilitated by the Canadian government encouraging and supporting cultural and economic security, the maintenance of various cultural groups, intergroup contact, 7 and equality (Berry, 2006, 2013; Government of Canada, 1971). Research examining that psychosocial process in the Canadian context suggests that cultural group maintenance and cultural and economic security provide a sense of confidence in one’s identity which is associated with intergroup contact and acceptance and tolerance of other cultural groups (e.g.,

Berry & Kalin, 1995; Berry et al., 1977; Safdar et al., 2017; see Berry, 2006, 2013).

Some data from recent national surveys also suggests intergroup relations in Canada are positive. For instance, a recent Canadian survey conducted by Ipsos Reid revealed that 85% of participants were accepting of having racially diverse neighbours, only 22% reported prejudicial attitudes as being normal, and only 15% reported they would never engage in a romantic relationship with someone from a different cultural group (Simpson, 2019). Similarly, a recent

Canadian survey conducted by Environics Institute for Survey Research and the Canadian Race

Relations Foundation revealed that 90% of participants were accepting of having racially diverse neighbours, 75% of participants reported having contact with people from different cultural groups with 87% of them reporting that contact being positive, and 79% reported having friendships with people from different cultural groups (Environics Institute for Survey Research;

2019).

Other data from those national surveys, however, suggests poorer intergroup relations between Canadians from different cultural groups. For instance, the recent Ipsos Reid survey revealed that 49% of participants reported having racist thoughts that they would not publicly express, 55% reported that they thought everyone is a little bit racist, and 36% reported experiencing racism themselves (Simpson, 2019). Similarly, the recent Environics Institute for

Survey Research and the Canadian Race Relations Foundation survey revealed that 51% of participants reported witnessing racial discrimination and 51% reported having experienced 8 discrimination themselves (Environics Institute for Survey Research; 2019). Additionally, since

2009 when the tracking of hate-based crimes began, the number of race motivated hate crimes have been increasing, and account for most hate-based crimes in Canada (Statistics Canada,

2020). Moreover, there also exists some evidence to suggest that as cultural diversity in Canada increases so could anti-diversity attitudes (Outten et al., 2012).

Therefore, although there exists evidence of positive intergroup relations in Canada, there also exists evidence of poor intergroup relations in Canada highlighting that improving intergroup relations continues to be a crucial social issue in the Canadian context. The need to address that issue is magnified by the forecasted increase of cultural diversity in Canada in the near future (Statistics Canada, 2016). It is anticipated that the percentage of the Canadian population who identify as belonging to visible minority groups will be in the range of approximately 31% and 36% within the next two decades. Such a composition is quite different from Canada’s primarily White homogenous demographic makeup when Canada’s

Multiculturalism Policy was introduced and corresponding efforts to foster positive intergroup relations began. As such, approaches to fostering positive intergroup relations in Canada that better align with a growing culturally diverse demographic are required.

1.3 A Culturally Diverse Canadian Identity and Positive Intergroup Relations

Cultural diversity has been identified as a normative and defining feature of the Canadian identity (Guimond et al., 2013; Kymlicka, 2012; Lalonde, 2002; Safdar, 2017). Such a characteristic derives from the fact that several different cultural groups in Canada have shaped

Canadian history including Aboriginals, French and British settlers, and subsequent immigrants from other parts of the world (Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 1970).

Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy reflects such a sentiment by stating that all people from any of 9 the different cultural groups that have shaped Canadian history are equally Canadian

(Government of Canada, 1971). Furthermore, it specifically states that “…no particular culture is more ‘official’ than another” (Government of Canada, 1971, p. 8581) … “nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other” (Government of Canada, 1971, p. 8545). Moreover, the policy states that “… cultural pluralism is the very essence of Canadian identity” (Government of

Canada, 1971, p. 8580). Therefore, Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy intends for the Canadian identity to be understood as an inherently culturally diverse identity that is inclusive and representative of various cultural groups.2

Although the Canadian identity has been acknowledged as being a culturally diverse identity that is inclusive and representative of various cultural groups (e.g., Amiot et al., 2007;

Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999), it has not been explicitly assessed as a construct. As such, in this thesis I assessed the perceived culturally diverse nature of the

Canadian identity and examined its association with positive intergroup relations. As a construct,

I am defining a culturally diverse Canadian identity as a collective social identity that is inherently culturally diverse, consisting of many different cultural groups and representing cultural pluralism. Such a definition aligns with the description of the Canadian identity in

Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy.

Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy intends for Canadians from different cultural backgrounds to have a sense of belongingness and be united as a common social ingroup. In line

2 This is not to say that cultural diversity is the only or most important aspect of the Canadian identity. Other key features of the Canadian identity include: political and humanitarian aspects such as support for democratic values, individual human rights and freedoms, and equality (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act, 1982; Canadian Human Rights Act, 1985); language fluency such as the ability to speak English and/or French (Official Languages Act, 1985); and, entertainment and lifestyle aspects such as hockey and lacrosse being Canada’s national sports (National Sports of Canada Act, 1994). 10 with that intention, a culturally diverse Canadian identity could represent a common social ingroup of culturally diverse Canadians. People have a natural tendency to categorize themselves in relation to others as members of a common social ingroup or members of different social outgroups, depending on a given frame of reference or social context (Turner et al., 1987). In terms of the frame of reference or context of the Canadian identity, by understanding the

Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse, Canadians of different cultural backgrounds could see themselves as being more similar than different. As a result, Canadians of different cultural backgrounds could self-categorize as members of a common social ingroup of culturally diverse Canadians. For instance, if the Canadian identity is understood as being representative of predominantly White Canadians of European descent then Canadians from any other cultural backgrounds are excluded from the Canadian ingroup and instead positioned as outgroup members. If, however, the Canadian identity is understood as being inherently culturally diverse then Canadians from diverse cultural backgrounds are included as Canadian ingroup members. As such, it is possible for Canadians from various cultural backgrounds to self-categorize as belonging to a common social ingroup of culturally diverse Canadians, and for a culturally diverse Canadian identity to represent such an ingroup, as is intended by Canada’s

Multiculturalism Policy.

The process of self-categorizing as belonging to a common social ingroup of culturally diverse Canadians and a culturally diverse Canadian identity representing such an ingroup may be conducive to positive intergroup relations. Such a process can be explained by social identity approaches to intergroup behaviour, more particularly Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner,

1979) and Self-Categorization Theory (Turner et al., 1987), and the Common Ingroup Identity

Model (Gaertner et al., 1993). According to social identity approaches to intergroup behaviour, 11 categorizing others as part of one’s ingroup results in positive evaluations and treatment of them; whereas, categorizing others as part of a different outgroup results in less favourable evaluations and treatment (Turner et al., 1987). The Common Ingroup Identity model further states that changing cognitive categorizations to include those who would otherwise not be categorized as ingroup members can result in extending positive evaluations and treatment typically reserved for ingroup members to newly included ingroup members (Dovidio et al., 1997; Gaertner et al.,

1993). Such an inclusive cognitive categorization minimizes differences and heightens similarities between ingroup members (Turner et al., 1987). Self-categorizing as belonging to a common social ingroup of culturally diverse Canadians and a culturally diverse Canadian identity representing such an ingroup may therefore minimize perceptions of differences and heighten perceptions of similarities between Canadians from different cultural groups.

Additionally, self-categorizing as belonging to a common social ingroup of culturally diverse

Canadians and a culturally diverse Canadian identity representing such an ingroup, may facilitate

Canadians extending positive evaluations and treatment to Canadians from different cultural groups that would otherwise be reserved for Canadians from one’s own respective cultural group.

A culturally diverse Canadian identity could position cultural diversity as something to be valued, normative, and prototypical. Cultural diversity could be positioned as something to be valued because it is a defining attribute of the collective Canadian identity and people tend to view ingroup attributes positively. Being a defining attribute of the collective Canadian identity, culturally diversity could also be positioned as being normative. Moreover, because members of social groups are motivated to align with group norms (Turner, 1991) a culturally diverse

Canadian identity could motivate Canadians to think and behave in a manner that is supportive 12 of cultural diversity, including evaluating and treating Canadians from different cultural groups positively and equally. Conversely, anti-cultural diversity attitudes and behaviour such as prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behaviour could be considered inappropriate, and be supressed because they would be counter-normative to Canadian ingroup norms. Additionally, cultural diversity being a defining attribute of the Canadian identity could position cultural diversity as prototypical of Canadians (Mummendey & Wenzel, 199). Cultural diversity being prototypical of Canadians would mean that Canadians from a variety of different cultural groups could be considered prototypical representations of the Canadian ingroup. As such, no one cultural group would be deemed to be “more Canadian” than another, aligning with Canada’s

Multiculturalism Policy’s description of the Canadian identity. Positioning cultural diversity as being prototypical of the Canadian identity could also encourage positive evaluations of

Canadians from different cultural groups and group equality. Therefore, by positioning cultural diversity as something to be valued, normative, and prototypical, a culturally diverse Canadian identity could motivate Canadians to think and behave in a pro-cultural diversity manner, including evaluating and treating Canadians from different cultural groups positively and equally.

From a cognitive perspective, a culturally diverse Canadian identity can be internalized at an individual level. Internalizing a culturally diverse Canadian identity could position cultural diversity as being an important and positive aspect of being Canadian, and could be conducive to a sense of connectedness and similarity with Canadians from different cultural groups.

Internalizing social identities can be understood to have three dimensions: (a) cognitive centrality, referring to how central, important, or salient the social identity is to the self; (b) ingroup affect, referring to having positive feelings about being a member of the social group the 13 identity represents; and, (c) ingroup ties, referring to perceived connectedness, a sense of belonging, and similarity with other ingroup members (Cameron, 2004). Accordingly, internalizing a culturally diverse Canadian identity would mean that cultural diversity is an important part of Canadians’ self-definition as Canadian, that Canadians feel good about

Canada’s cultural diversity, and that Canadians feel a sense of being connected and belonging, and similarity with culturally diverse Canadians. As such, at an individual level, Canadians could identify with a culturally diverse Canadian identity that derives from a common social ingroup of culturally diverse Canadians to various degrees.

The notion that a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be conducive to positive intergroup relations is another psychosocial process built into Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy.

Although the positive association between self-categorization as a member of a common social ingroup and positive intergroup relations is well-established (see Dovidio et al., 2016; Gaertner et al., 2016) from my review no research in Canada directly examines that process by positioning culturally diverse citizens as common ingroup members. However, some research in the

Canadian context does suggest positive outcomes of such a process. For instance, Beaton and colleagues (2012) found that majority White Canadians had more positive views of Aboriginal

Canadians when the two groups were primed as belonging to a common high school ingroup than when primed as belonging to two different groups within a high school. Additionally, Esses and colleagues (2003, 2005, 2006) have found that priming a common Canadian identity that includes immigrants is associated with less prejudice toward immigrants, and more positive attitudes toward immigrants and immigration than when the Canadian identity is not primed as explicitly including immigrants. Similarly, I suggest that a culturally diverse Canadian identity 14 may be conducive to positive intergroup relations between members of the different cultural groups that it represents and includes.

In sum, by describing the Canadian identity as culturally plural, Canada’s

Multiculturalism Policy intends for Canadians to self-categorize as members of a common culturally diverse ingroup and to adopt a culturally diverse Canadian identity. Such an identity may be conducive to positive intergroup relations by encouraging Canadians to view cultural diversity is an important and positive aspect of their self-definition as Canadian, to feel a sense of attachment and similarity with culturally diverse Canadians, and by positioning cultural diversity as something to be valued, normative, and prototypical. Although some research in

Canada suggests that a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be associated with positive intergroup relations (e.g., Beaton et al., 2012; Esses et al., 2003, 2005, 2006), the association between positioning culturally diverse citizens as common ingroup members and positive intergroup relations has not been explicitly examined. In this thesis I provide novel empirical evidence that assesses the association of the perceived culturally diverse nature of the Canadian identity, and positive intergroup relations and support for pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation that contribute toward attaining group equality. Examining what may influence pro- cultural diversity policies and legislation is important because such policies and legislation contribute toward attaining group equality. For instance, one intention of the Canadian

Multiculturalism Act (1988) is to ensure the equal treatment of all Canadians and their equal protection under the law no matter what their cultural backgrounds are. Similarly, one goal of

Canada’s Employment Equity Act (1995) is to ensure equal access to employment opportunities for all Canadians regardless of their heritage cultural backgrounds. Therefore, in addition to examining the association between the perceived culturally diverse nature of the Canadian 15 identity and positive intergroup relations, I also examined its association with support for pro- cultural diversity policies and legislation. Such a line of examination advances knowledge on the effectiveness of Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy on fostering positive intergroup relations and attaining group equality from an identity-focused perspective.

1.4 The VATR-CDR Model and Positive Intergroup Relations

In addition to the intent of Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy for the Canadian identity to be understood as being inherently culturally diverse, the policy also describes how it intends for

Canadians to respond to cultural diversity. In announcing the policy, the Canadian government communicated its intent for cultural diversity to be appreciated and valued as a source of strength of Canadian society (Government of Canada, 1971). However, research examining whether the policy’s goals of fostering positive intergroup relations and group equality are being met have, to date, largely focused on tolerating and/or accepting cultural diversity. Furthermore, that research has not directly examined whether tolerating or accepting cultural diversity are conducive to achieving the policy’s goals. Rather, conclusions drawn from much of that research assume that tolerating and/or accepting cultural diversity (or multiculturalism more broadly) are synonymous with positive intergroup relations (Berry, 1984, 2001; 2006, 2013; Berry & Kalin, 1995; Berry et al., 1977). Such an assumption can be seen in the use of tolerance and/or acceptance of cultural diversity as positive outcome variables in and of themselves, and by operationalizing tolerance to mean a lack of prejudice (see Hjerm et al., 2019). Additionally, theoretical discussions similarly assume that the tolerance of cultural diversity is representative of positive intergroup relations

(e.g., Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999; Verkuyten & Yogeeswaran, 2017; Verkuyten et al., 2019).

I argue that to tolerate and accept cultural diversity are not the intent of Canada’s 16

Multiculturalism Policy, and may not be sufficient to achieve the policy’s goals of fostering positive intergroup relations and group equality.

In order to determine which responses to cultural diversity are more conducive to positive intergroup relations and group equality, and which may be conducive to poor intergroup relations and discrimination, I propose the Valuing, Accepting, Tolerating, and Rejecting Cultural

Diversity Responses Model (the VATR-CDR Model). The VATR- CDR Model distinguishes between valuing, accepting, tolerating, and rejecting as responses to cultural diversity. The model assumes that valuing cultural diversity involves liking, respecting, appreciating and enjoying cultural diversity, and recognizing that cultural diversity is overall beneficial to society.

The VATR-CDR Model also assumes that accepting cultural diversity involves acceding to approve of cultural diversity with some indifference or disregard in the sense of neither disliking or liking, avoiding or seeking it out, or having any definite perception of the impact of cultural diversity on society. Additionally, the model assumes that tolerating cultural diversity involves restraining from acting on one’s dislike, disrespect, disapproval of and unease with cultural diversity, and having the perception that cultural diversity is overall harmful to society. Lastly, the VATR-CDR Model assumes that rejecting cultural diversity involves overt dislike, disrespect, disapproval of and unease with, and avoidance of cultural diversity, as well as the perception that cultural diversity is overall harmful to society.

The VATR-CDR Model predicts that rejecting cultural diversity is associated with poor intergroup relations and discrimination. It is intuitive that if people were to reject cultural diversity they would also have less favourable evaluations of culturally diverse others and treat them in a discriminatory manner. Less intuitively, the VATR-CDR Model also predicts that accepting and tolerating cultural diversity are insufficient to elicit positive intergroup relations 17 and group equality. Rather, the model holds that accepting and tolerating cultural diversity may instead be problematic, being negatively associated with positive intergroup relations and group equality. The VATR-CDR Model suggests that accepting, tolerating, and rejecting cultural diversity are divisive, and reinforce majority-minority power dynamics. These responses to cultural diversity are divisive because they place cultural minorities as being “others” as against mainstream society. Such “othering” reinforces self-categorizations of Canadians as members of different outgroups, which self-categorization can result in less favourable evaluations and treatment of people belonging to different cultural groups (Turner et al., 1987). Accepting, tolerating, and rejecting cultural diversity may also be associated with negative intergroup relations and group inequality because such responses reinforce majority-minority power dynamics. They do so because in addition to placing cultural minorities as being “others” as against mainstream society, such responses relegate cultural minorities as “inferior others”. Such

“inferior othering” grants the majority, predominantly White Canadians of European descent, the power to respond to cultural diversity and cultural minorities as they wish (Kirmayer, 2019;

Verkuyten & Yogeeswaran, 2017). As such, the majority retains the power to accept, tolerate, or reject, cultural diversity and cultural minorities, reinforcing unequal power dynamics between cultural majority and minority Canadians.

The VATR-CDR Model predicts that valuing cultural diversity is the response that is most conducive to positive intergroup relations and group equality. Unlike accepting, tolerating, or rejecting cultural diversity, valuing cultural diversity unites Canadians, and positions both majority and minority Canadians as equally Canadian. It does so by ascribing cultural differences as being an asset to society rather than an issue requiring some resolution (Kirmayer, 2019).

Additionally, it attenuates majority-minority power dynamics by positioning cultural diversity as 18 normative rather than minority cultures being assessed as against majority, White Canadians’

European values, beliefs, and norms. Some recent empirical evidence supports an association between valuing cultural diversity and positive intergroup relations. In assessing attitudes toward

First Nations people in Canada, Urbiola and colleagues (2017) found that valuing cultural diversity (as measured by perceptions of whether cultural diversity would be enriching to one’s school, workplace, and neighbourhood) was associated with positive evaluations and less racism.

Additionally, although not in the Canadian context, Hjerm and colleagues (2019) found that appreciating diversity was associated with less prejudice, however, accepting diversity was not.

The possible association between valuing cultural diversity and positive intergroup relations is also supported by some research on polyculturalism, an ideology focusing on interactions, influence of and connections between different cultural groups (Rosenthal & Levy, 2010).

Although not in the Canadian context, Rosenthal and Levy (2012) have found a positive association between polyculturalism, and interest in and appreciation of cultural diversity among

White participants. The VATR-CDR Model’s description of valuing cultural diversity and ascribing cultural differences as being an asset to society aligns with polyculturalism’s focus on interactions, influence of and connections between different cultural groups, providing some further support for the suggestion that valuing cultural diversity may be associated with positive intergroup relations. Therefore, the VATR-CDR Model’s prediction that valuing cultural diversity may be more conducive to positive intergroup relations and group equality than tolerating or accepting cultural diversity is supported by some existing empirical evidence.

The VATR-CDR Model is a model of intergroup relations that focuses on attitudes toward culturally diverse others in multicultural societies such as Canada. The model complements and extends existing models of intergroup relations derived in the Canadian 19 context, offering a novel approach to examining intergroup relations. Central to models of intergroup relations in Canada is Berry’s Acculturation Model (Berry et al., 1977; see Berry,

2006), which includes assessing majority group members’ acculturation preferences for minority group members. The model distinguishes between four preferences and efforts of majority group members for minority group members: (1) melting pot, wherein minority group members assimilate into mainstream society, leaving behind their heritage cultures; (2) segregation, wherein minority group members do not participate in mainstream society, but maintain their heritage cultures; (3), exclusion, wherein minority group members neither participate in mainstream society or maintain their heritage cultures; and, (4) multiculturalism, wherein minority group members both participate in mainstream society and maintain their heritage cultures. Berry’s Acculturation Model predicts, among other things, that the multiculturalism strategy is associated with positive intergroup relations, in part, by contributing toward a sociocultural context that is conducive to the multiculturalism hypothesis (Berry, 1984; Berry et al., 1977; see Berry, 2006). The multiculturalism hypothesis states that cultural group maintenance and cultural and economic security provide a sense of confidence in one’s identity which is associated with intergroup contact, and acceptance and tolerance of other cultural groups (Berry, 1984; Berry et al., 1977; see Berry, 2006).

Building on decades of work on intergroup relations in Canada Bourhis and colleagues

(1997) proposed the Interactive Acculturation Model, which also includes assessing majority group members’ acculturation preferences for minority group members (as well as acculturation preferences of minority group members themselves). The model distinguishes between five strategies or preferences of majority group members for minority group members: (1) assimilation, wherein minority group members adopt the mainstream culture, leaving behind 20 their heritage cultures; (2) segregation, wherein minority group members do not adopt the mainstream culture, but maintain their heritage cultures; (3), exclusion, wherein minority group members neither adopt the mainstream culture or maintain their heritage cultures; (4) integration, wherein minority group members adopt the mainstream culture and maintain their heritage cultures; and, (5) individualism, wherein majority and minority group members are viewed as individuals and not as belonging to any cultural group. The Interactive Acculturation

Model (Bourhis et al., 1997) predicts, among other things, that concordance among acculturation preferences of majority group members for minority group members and minority group members’ acculturation preferences for themselves, is associated with positive intergroup relations.

Berry’s Acculturation Model (Berry et al., 1977; see Berry, 2006), the Interactive

Acculturation Model (Bourhis et al., 1997), and the VATR-CDR Model all examine fostering positive intergroup relations in a manner that aligns with Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy. All three models suggest positive outcomes for intergroup relations from simultaneous participation in mainstream society/adopting mainstream culture, and the maintenance of Canadians’ heritage cultural backgrounds, a key goal of the policy. Berry’s Acculturation Model (Berry et al., 1977; see Berry, 2006) does so by suggesting that the multiculturalism strategy is associated with positive intergroup relations because such a strategy contributes toward a sociocultural context that is conducive to the multiculturalism hypothesis. The Interactive Acculturation Model

(Bourhis et al., 1997) does so by suggesting that concordance between majority and minority group members’ acculturation preferences (e.g., concordant preferences for integration within a multicultural society that has adopted cultural diversity supportive policies) can promote positive intergroup relations. The VATR-CDR Model does so by suggesting that valuing cultural 21 diversity, which would require different heritage cultures to be maintained, unites Canadians as equal members of mainstream Canadian society. As such, the VATR-CDR Model complements existing models of intergroup relations that are grounded in Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy.

The VATR-CDR Model also extends both Berry’s Acculturation Model (Berry et al.,

1977; see Berry, 2006) and the Interactive Acculturation Model (Bourhis et al., 1997). It does so by suggesting that people can prefer multiculturalism, according to Berry’s Acculturation Model

(Berry et al., 1977; see Berry, 2006), and integration, according to the Interactive Acculturation

Model (Bourhis et al., 1997) as acculturation preferences and yet still respond to cultural diversity in ways that that may be differentially associated with intergroup relations. Such individuals would likely not reject cultural diversity; however, they may value, accept, or tolerate cultural diversity to varying degrees. According to the VATR-CDR Model, the varying degrees to which people may value, accept, or tolerate cultural diversity may be differentially associated with the valence of intergroup relations. By distinguishing the different associations between those responses to cultural diversity and the valence of intergroup relations, the VATR-CDR

Model provides a novel approach to examining attitudes toward culturally diverse others from existing models of intergroup relations that are also grounded in Canada’s Multiculturalism

Policy.

In this thesis I examined the predictions of the VATR-CDR Model. I provide novel empirical evidence that directly assesses the association between each of valuing cultural diversity, accepting cultural diversity, tolerating cultural diversity, and rejecting cultural diversity and the valence of intergroup relations, and attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation that contribute toward attaining group equality. Such a line of examination advances knowledge on the effectiveness of Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy on 22 fostering positive intergroup relations and group equality from the perspective of how cultural diversity is responded to, and provides insight into which responses could be more conducive to achieving the policy’s goals.

The predictions of the VATR-CDR Model align closely with the intent of Canada’s

Multiculturalism Policy that the Canadian identity be understood as being inherently culturally diverse. The model predicts that accepting, tolerating, and rejecting cultural diversity may be associated with poor intergroup relations and discrimination because such responses position cultural minorities as inferior others which is divisive and reinforces majority-minority power dynamics. Such outcomes contradict the policy’s intent of the Canadian identity being understood as an inherently culturally diverse identity that includes and represents Canadians from different cultural backgrounds as equal members of a common social ingroup. In contrast, the VATR-CDR Model’s prediction that valuing cultural diversity is associated with positive intergroup relations and group equality aligns closely with the policy’s description of the

Canadian identity being perceived as diverse because valuing cultural diversity positions cultural diversity as normative, and unites both majority and minority Canadians as equal members of a common social ingroup of culturally diverse Canadians. Therefore, the VATR-CDR Model may play a role in the association between the Canadian identity being understood as being inherently culturally diverse and the policy’s goals of fostering positive intergroup relations and group equality. As such, in this thesis I not only examined the predictions of the VATR-CDR Model, but also examined the mediating role of the VATR-CDR Model on the association between the perceived culturally diverse nature of the Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations, and attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation that contribute toward attaining group equality. 23

1.5 Overview of Present Studies

The present studies aimed to: (a) assess a culturally diverse Canadian identity, and examine its association with positive intergroup relations, and attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation; (b) examine the predictions of the VATR-CDR Model and its association with attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation; (c) examine the mediating role of the VATR-CDR Model on the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations, and attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation; and, (d) examine the role of identification with a culturally diverse

Canadian ingroup on the those various associations. Study 1 was an exploratory study to pilot test items measuring a culturally diverse Canadian identity as a construct, and to explore the association between that construct and positive intergroup relations.

Study 2 included determining construct validity of the culturally diverse Canadian identity measure. Study 2 also included an examination of the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations. Additionally, Study 2 included determining construct validity of the VATR-CDR Model and examining the predictions of the model. Study 2 also examined the mediating role of the VATR-CDR Model on the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations.

Study 3 was conducted to replicate the results of the hypotheses that were examined in

Study 2, and to include attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation as an outcome of interest in addition to positive intergroup relations. Study 3 also examined the moderating role of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup on the various associations. Identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup was examined in order to account for the importance of, affect toward, and sense of attachment with culturally diverse 24 others that could occur at individual level. Accounting for such an individual level difference allows for a more in-depth understanding of the influence of societal level constructs related to cultural diversity on intergroup relations (Ramos et al., 2016).

STUDY 1

Study 1 was a pilot study conducted to explore the internal consistency of the researcher generated items to measure a culturally diverse Canadian identity as a construct, and to explore the possible association between that construct and positive intergroup relations. As such, Study

1 involved an exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis of the items intended to measure a culturally diverse Canadian identity. Study 1 also included a preliminary examination of the association between a potential culturally diverse Canadian identity construct and racist attitudes toward visible minorities (racism), and a more favourable evaluation of a typical visible minority group member (a favourable minority evaluation).

2.1 Method

2.1.1 Participants

Undergraduate students were recruited from the psychology participant pool at the

University of Guelph to take part in Study 1 in exchange for course credit. The eligibility requirements to participate were that participants self-identified as White, were born in Canada, that both of their parents were born in Canada, and that at least one of their grandparents was born in Canada. The sample consisted of 231 participants (44 male, 187 female; Mage = 19.10,

SD = 4.54).

2.1.2 Procedure

After providing consent participants were asked to complete an online questionnaire hosted on the Qualtrics platform. The questionnaire included demographics questions, items 25 measuring a culturally diverse Canadian identity, a measure of racism, and a measure of a favourable minority evaluation.3 After being debriefed participants were given 1 course credit for their participation.

2.1.3 Measures4

A culturally diverse Canadian identity. The construct of a culturally diverse Canadian identity was measured using 5 researcher generated items. Items were generated taking a deductive approach drawing from the intent of Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy that the

Canadian identity be understood as being inherently culturally diverse and research supporting cultural diversity as being a defining feature of the Canadian identity (Guimond et al., 2013;

Lalonde, 2002; Safdar, 2017). Participants were asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) how much they understood the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse. A sample item is “The Canadian identity includes many different cultures.” (See Table 1 and Appendix B for the complete measure.)

Racism. Racism was measured using 6 items adapted from the McConahay (1989)

Modern Racism Scale. Participants were asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from

1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) how racist they were toward visible minorities

3 Study 1 was conducted as part of broader study examining Canadians’ cultural identities, their attitudes towards culturally diverse others, and their psychological well-being. However, only measures relevant to the goals of Study 1 are being discussed. Other measures included: a researcher generated measure of a form of simultaneous Canadian and heritage cultural identification; heritage cultural identification (adapted from Cameron, 2004); Canadian cultural identification (adapted from Cameron, 2004); self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965); life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985); eudaimonic well-being (Waterman et al., 2010); psychological flourishing (Diener et al., 2010); depression, anxiety, and stress (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995; Radloff, 1977). 4 In order to meet assumptions of normality, all outliers were transformed by Winsorization. However, the distribution of responses for a culturally diverse Canadian identity was slightly negatively skewed with positive kurtosis. 26

(Cronbach’s α = .80). A sample item is “Over the past few years, visible minorities have gotten more economically than they deserve.” Ratings were averaged across items such that a higher value was indicative of greater racism. See Appendix C for the complete measure.

A favourable minority evaluation. A favourable minority evaluation was measured using a one-item evaluation thermometer, as has been used in previous research to assess intergroup relations between people of different cultural groups (e.g., Esses et al, 1993; Urbiola et al., 2017). Participants were asked to indicate on a 101-point scale ranging from 0 (extremely unfavourable) to 100 (extremely favourable) how favourably they evaluate a typical visible minority. Higher values were indicative of a more favourable minority evaluation. See Appendix

D for the evaluation thermometer.

2.2 Results

2.2.1 Psychometric Properties of the Culturally Diverse Canadian Identity Measure

In order to explore whether the items measuring a culturally diverse Canadian identity could be used together to measure a single construct an exploratory factor analysis was conducted using principal axis analysis on the 5 researcher generated items, requesting a

Varimax rotated solution. Results reveled that all items loaded onto one factor and as such rotating the solution was not necessary. Therefore, the results supported a one factor solution

(with all items loading above .50), accounting for 50.13% of the variance of the construct, suggesting that the items could be used together to assess a single construct. See Table 1 for factor loadings. 27

Table 1

Factor matrix from principle axis analysis for items measuring the culturally diverse Canadian identity construct.

Items Factor loadings The Canadian identity includes many different cultures. .59 Celebrating cultural diversity is part of being Canadian. .73 Canadians are people of many different cultural backgrounds. .74 Even though Canadians have different cultural backgrounds, we are all .71 united as Canadians. Canadians from all cultural backgrounds are equally Canadian. .76

In order to determine internal consistency, a reliability analysis was conducted. Results revealed that the internal consistency of the 5 items was good, Cronbach’s α = .83 (see Gliem &

Gliem, 2003), providing further support that the items could be used together to assess a single construct. Therefore, ratings were averaged across items such that a higher value was indicative of a greater understanding of the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse.

2.2.2 Exploring the Association Between a Culturally Diverse Canadian Identity and

Positive Intergroup Relations

As can be seen in Table 2 below the Pearson correlation coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and racism fell within a negative confidence interval and reflected a large effect size, r = -.47, p < .001, 95% CI [-.59, -.33], suggesting a negative association. Additionally, the correlation coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and a favourable minority evaluation fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a medium effect size, r = .25, p < .001,

95% CI [.11, .38], suggesting a positive association. 28

Table 2

Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients for a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV), racism (RAC), and a favourable minority evaluation (EVL), with 95% confidence intervals.

Measure 1 2 3 -.47*** .25*** 1. DIV  [-.59, -.33] [.11, .38] -.29*** 2. RAC   [-.42, -.14] 3. EVL    M 6.35 2.57 66.38 SD .84 1.14 22.28 Note: *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001.

2.3 Discussion

The aim of Study 1 was to explore whether a culturally diverse Canadian identity could be assessed and its possible association with positive intergroup relations. Examining the psychometric properties of the researcher generated items to measure a culturally diverse

Canadian identity suggested that the items can be used together to assess a single construct.

Additionally, results of correlation analyses suggested that the potential culturally diverse

Canadian identity construct may be associated with positive intergroup relations.

STUDY 2

The aim of Study 2 was to determine construct validity of the culturally diverse Canadian identity measure and the VATR-CDR Model. Study 2 also aimed to examine the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity, the VATR-CDR Model, and the valence of intergroup relations. Hypothesis 1 was that a culturally diverse Canadian identity would be associated with positive intergroup relations indicated by less racism toward visible minorities 29

(racism) and a more favourable evaluation of a typical visible minority group member (a favourable minority evaluation). Hypothesis 2 was that the responses comprising the VATR-

CDR Model would be associated with intergroup relations differently. Hypothesis 3 was that the

VATR-CDR Model would mediate the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations.

3.1 Method

3.1.1 Participants

Recruitment and eligibility requirements were as in Study 1. The sample consisted of 320 participants (87 male, 232 female; Mage = 18.97, SD = 1.54).

3.1.2 Procedure

As in Study 1, after providing consent participants were asked to complete an online questionnaire hosted on the Qualtrics platform. The questionnaire included demographics questions, a measure of a culturally diverse Canadian identity, measures of the responses comprising the VATR-CDR Model, measures to assess construct validity of a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and of the VATR-CDR Model, a measure of racism, and a measure of a favourable minority evaluation.5 As in Study 1, after being debriefed participants were given 1 course credit for their participation.

5 Study 2 was conducted as part of broader study examining Canadians’ cultural identities, their attitudes towards culturally diverse others and importance of Canadian rights and freedoms, and their psychological well-being. However, only measures relevant to the hypotheses being examined are discussed. Other measures included: a researcher generated measure of a form of simultaneous Canadian and heritage cultural identification; heritage cultural identification (adapted from Cameron, 2004); a researcher generated measure of the importance of Canadian rights and freedoms; acculturation attitudes (Berry et al, 2006); self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965); life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985); eudaimonic well-being (Waterman et al., 2010); and psychological flourishing (Diener et al., 2010). 30

3.1.3 Measures6

A culturally diverse Canadian identity. The construct of a culturally diverse Canadian identity was measured as in Study 1.

The VATR-CDR Model. Descriptions of each of valuing, accepting, tolerating, and rejecting cultural diversity were generated taking a deductive approach drawing from how

Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy intends for cultural diversity to be responded to. First, based on the intent of the policy that cultural diversity be appreciated and valued as a source of strength of Canadian society (Government of Canada, 1971), the description of valuing cultural diversity was generated. Next, the valuing cultural diversity description was amended to reflect each of accepting, tolerating, and rejecting cultural diversity using a layperson’s understanding of each of acceptance, tolerance, and rejection.

Valuing cultural diversity. Valuing cultural diversity was measured by presenting a description of how a Canadian who values cultural diversity may feel (e.g., “I like how culturally diverse Canada is. I see value in the differences between my culture and other cultures in

Canada”). Participants were then asked to indicate on a 11-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 10 (very much) how much the description describes how they feel about cultural diversity in

Canada. Higher values were indicative of a greater valuing of cultural diversity. See Appendix E for the measure.

6 In order to meet assumptions of normality, all outliers were transformed by Winsorization. However, the distribution of responses for: a culturally diverse Canadian identity was slightly negatively skewed with positive kurtosis, valuing cultural diversity was slightly negatively skewed with positive kurtosis, tolerating cultural diversity was slightly positively skewed with positive kurtosis, rejecting cultural diversity was positively skewed with positive kurtosis, and Canadianism was slightly negatively skewed with positive kurtosis. 31

Accepting cultural diversity. Accepting cultural diversity was measured by presenting a description of how a Canadian who accepts cultural diversity may feel (e.g., “I have come to terms with the fact that Canada is so culturally diverse. I have also come to accept the differences between my culture and other cultures in Canada”). Participants were then asked to indicate on a

11-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 10 (very much) how much the description describes how they feel about cultural diversity in Canada. Higher values were indicative of greater acceptance of cultural diversity. See Appendix F for the measure.

Tolerating cultural diversity. Tolerating cultural diversity was measured by presenting a description of how a Canadian who tolerates cultural diversity may feel (e.g., “I hold back from letting people know that I don’t like how culturally diverse Canada is. I also hold back from letting people know that I don’t approve of the differences between my culture and other cultures in Canada”). Participants were then asked to indicate on a 11-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 10 (very much) how much the description describes how they feel about cultural diversity in Canada. Higher values were indicative of greater tolerance of cultural diversity. See Appendix

G for the measure.

Rejecting cultural diversity. Rejecting cultural diversity was measured by presenting a description of how a Canadian who rejects cultural diversity may feel (e.g., “I don’t like how culturally diverse Canada is. I also don’t approve of the differences between my culture and other cultures in Canada”). Participants were then asked to indicate on a 11-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 10 (very much) how much the description describes how they feel about cultural diversity in Canada. Higher values were indicative of greater rejection of cultural diversity. See Appendix H for the measure. 32

Canadian identification. In order to determine convergent validity of the culturally diverse Canadian identity construct, Canadian identification was measured using items adapted from the Cameron (2004) 12 item social identification measure. Participants were asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) how much they identified as Canadian (Cronbach’s α = .80). A sample item is “I have a lot in common with other Canadians.” Ratings were averaged across items such that a higher value was indicative of greater Canadian identification. See Appendix I for the complete measure.

Canadianism. In order to determine convergent validity of the culturally diverse

Canadian identity construct and the VATR-CDR Model, Canadianism, defined as an attachment and commitment to Canada, and a sense of unity among its diverse citizens, was measured using

Berry and Kalin’s (1995) 8 item measure of Canadianism. Participants were asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) how attached they felt to Canada (Cronbach’s α = .88). A sample item is “I am proud to be a Canadian citizen.”

Ratings were averaged across items such that a higher value was indicative of greater

Canadianism. See Appendix J for the complete measure.

Assimilation orientation. In order to determine convergent validity of the culturally diverse Canadian identity construct and the VATR-CDR Model, assimilation orientation, defined as an orientation toward preferring that minority group members adopt the mainstream culture and leave behind their heritage cultures, was measured using 4 items adapted from Berry and colleagues (2006) acculturation attitudes measure. Participants were asked to indicate on a 7- point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) how much they endorse an assimilation orientation (Cronbach’s α = .76). A sample item is “I feel that visible minorities should adapt to Canadian cultural traditions and not maintain those of their own.” 33

Ratings were averaged across items such that a higher value was indicative of a greater assimilation orientation. See Appendix K for the complete measure.

Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale – 21 (DASS-21). The DASS-21 (Lovibond &

Lovibond, 1995) is a clinical tool used to assess depression, anxiety, and stress, and was used to determine discriminant validity of the culturally diverse Canadian identity construct and the

VATR-CDR Model. The DASS-21 (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) is comprised of three separate subscales for each of depression, anxiety, and stress.

Depression. Depression was measured using the DASS-21 7 item depression subscale

(Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). Participants were asked to indicate on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (did not apply to me at all) to 3 (applied to me very much or most of the time) how much each item describing depression applied to them over the previous week (Cronbach’s α = .91). A sample item is “I felt that I had nothing to look forward to.” As is typically done in clinical settings, ratings were summed and doubled, creating depression scores that ranged between 0 and 42, with higher values being indicative of greater depression. See Appendix L for the complete measure.

Anxiety. Anxiety was measured using the DASS-21 7 item anxiety subscale (Lovibond &

Lovibond, 1995). Participants were asked to indicate on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (did not apply to me at all) to 3 (applied to me very much or most of the time) how much each item describing anxiety applied to them over the previous week (Cronbach’s α = .85). A sample item is “I was aware of dryness of my mouth.” As with depression, ratings were summed and doubled, creating anxiety scores that ranged between 0 and 42, with higher values being indicative of greater anxiety. See Appendix M for the complete measure. 34

Stress. Stress was measured using the DASS-21 7 item stress subscale (Lovibond &

“I found it hard to wind down.” Again, ratings were summed and doubled, creating stress scores that ranged between 0 and 42, with higher values being indicative of greater stress. See

Appendix N for the complete measure.

Racism. Racism was measured as in Study 1 (Cronbach’s α = .85).

A favourable minority evaluation. A favourable minority evaluation was measured as in Study 1.

3.2 Results

For statistical completeness Table 3 presents descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients for a culturally diverse Canadian identity, the VATR-CDR Model, Canadian identification, Canadianism, assimilation orientation, depression, anxiety, stress, racism, and a favourable minority evaluation. 35

Table 3

Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients for a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV), the VATR-CDR Model (valuing cultural diversity (VAL), accepting cultural diversity (ACC), tolerating cultural diversity (TOL), rejecting cultural diversity (REJ)), Canadian identification (CDN), Canadianism (CSM), assimilation orientation (ASM), depression (DEP), anxiety (ANX), stress (STR), racism (RAC), and a favourable minority evaluation (EVL), with 95% confidence intervals.

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .42*** .12 -.33*** -.39*** .25*** .46*** -.43*** -.12 -.06 -.03 -.43*** .22*** 1. DIV  [.29, .55] [.00, .23] [-.47, -.18] [-.53, -.24] [.12, .38] [.32, .58] [-.54, -.31] [-.24, .00] [-.17, .06] [-.15, .09] [-.54, -.31] [.10, .34] .11 -.60*** -.63*** .04 .30*** -.45*** .11 .10 .12 -.47*** .27*** 2. VAL   [-.01, .22] [-.70, -.49] [-.73, -.51] [-.10, .19] [.18, .43] [-.56, -.33] [-.02, .23] [-.02, .21] [.01, .23] [-.57, -.35] [.15, .38] -.02 .01 .05 .03 -.07 -.04 -.09 -.10 .03 .08 3. ACC    [-.13, .09] [-.10, .12] [-.07, .17] [-.08, .14] [-.20, .05] [-.17, .09] [-.21, .04] [-.23, .03] [-.09, .15] [-.06, .21] .71*** -.04 -.11 .49*** -.01 .04 .00 .53*** -.17** 4. TOL     [.59, .81] [-.18. .08] [-.28, .04] [.38, .59] [-.16, .14] [-.11, .18] [-.12, .13] [.42, .63] [-.29, -.06] -.05 -.20** .44*** -.03 .04 -.02 .45*** -.15* 5. REJ      [-.18. .08] [-.36, -.05] [.31, .55] [-.16, .12] [-.09, .17] [-.14, .11] [.32, .57] [-.28, -.02] .28*** -.16* -.25*** -.25*** -.22*** -.08 .04 6. CDN       [.16, .39] [-.29, -.02] [-.37, -.13] [-.37, -.13] [-.34, -.09] [-.21, .05] [-.09, .18] -.26*** .01 .01 .02 -.24*** .26*** 7. CSM        [-.38, -.13] [-.10, .13] [-.11, .12] [-.08, .13] [-.37, -.11] [.14, .37] -.06 -.04 -.08 .57*** -.26*** 8. ASM         [-.19, .08] [-.16, .08] [-.20, .05] [.48, .66] [-.38, -.13] .71*** .66*** -.08 .02 9. DEP          [.64, .78] [.57, .74] [-.22, .07] [-.12, 16] .77*** -.04 .06 10. ANX           [.72, .82] [-.17, .10] [-.06, .19] -.05 .06 11. STR            [-.18, .09] [-.06, .18] -.29*** 12. RAC             [-.41, -.17] 13. EVL              M 6.35 8.58 6.68 1.93 1.86 5.61 6.30 2.86 12.40 13.38 16.18 2.65 68.47 SD .82 1.73 2.70 1.50 1.54 .74 .71 1.10 10.65 10.16 9.49 1.14 19.99 Note: *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001. 36

3.2.1 Psychometric Properties of the Culturally Diverse Canadian Identity Measure

3.2.1.1 Structure of Items

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted by way of structural equation modeling using SPSS AMOS in order to determine the fit between the data and the measurement model of the culturally diverse Canadian identity measure (see Table 4 for estimates and standard errors).

Table 4

Estimates of confirmatory factor analysis for items measuring the culturally diverse Canadian identity construct.

Items b SE The Canadian identity includes many different cultures. 1.007 Celebrating cultural diversity is part of being Canadian. 1.21 .12 Canadians are people of many different cultural backgrounds. .99 .10 Even though Canadians have different cultural backgrounds, we are all .90 .10 united as Canadians. Canadians from all cultural backgrounds are equally Canadian. 1.33 .13

The following four indices were used to determine fit: Chi-Square fit index, which is an estimate of the lack of fit between the observed data and expected data and which estimate should be statistically insignificant; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), which is an estimate of the lack of fit between a measurement model error and that of a model that perfectly fits the data and which estimate should be less than .03; Comparative Fit Index

(CFI), which is an estimate of how much a measurement model improves an independent or baseline model where the variables are not associated with one another and which estimate should be above .95; and, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), which is also an estimate of a measurement model as compared to an independent or baseline model which estimate should also be above .95

7 The regression coefficient was fixed at 1.00 as is required for confirmatory factor analysis using SPSS AMOS (Arbuckle, 2014). 37

(Hooper et al., 2008). Results of the confirmatory factor analysis revealed an acceptable fit: x2(5)

= 5.70, p = .337, RMSEA = .02, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00. Therefore, results of the confirmatory factor analysis supported that the items measuring a culturally diverse Canadian identity could be used together to assess a single construct. As such, ratings of the items assessing a culturally diverse Canadian identity were averaged to create combined scores (Cronbach’s α = .81), with greater values being indicative of a greater understanding of the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse.

3.2.1.2 Convergent Validity

In order to determine convergent validity, responses to the culturally diverse Canadian identity measure were compared to responses to measures for constructs that should theoretically be associated. Theoretically, if the culturally diverse Canadian identity measure is measuring a form of the Canadian identity, it should be associated with a measure of identification as

Canadian. As such, responses to the culturally diverse Canadian identity measure were compared to responses on a measure of Canadian identification (Cameron, 2004). The Pearson correlation coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and

Canadian identification fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a medium effect size, r = .25, p < .001, 95% CI [.12, .38], suggesting a positive association providing support of convergent validity.

Similarly, if the culturally diverse Canadian identity measure is measuring a form of the

Canadian identity, it should be positively associated with a sense of attachment and commitment to Canada, and a sense of unity among its diverse citizens. As such, responses to the culturally diverse Canadian identity measure were compared to responses on a measure of national attachment and commitment to Canada, and unity among Canadians, Canadianism (Berry & 38

Kalin, 1995). As can be seen in Table 3, the correlation coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and Canadianism fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a large effect size, r = .46, p < .001, 95% CI [.32, .58], suggesting a positive association providing further support of convergent validity.

Additionally, if the Canadian identity is understood as being inherently culturally diverse, it should be negatively associated with an assimilation orientation which is colour-blind to cultural diversity aiming to disregard it. As such, responses to the culturally diverse Canadian identity measure were compared to responses on a measure of assimilation orientation (Berry, et al., 2006). The correlation coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and an assimilation orientation fell within a negative confidence interval and reflected a medium to large effect size, r = -.43, p < .001, 95% CI [-.54, -.31], suggesting a negative association, again, providing support of convergent validity.

3.2.1.3 Discriminant Validity

In order to determine discriminant validity, responses to the culturally diverse Canadian identity measure were compared to responses to measures for constructs that it should not theoretically be associated with. There is no theoretical reason for why a culturally diverse

Canadian identity should be associated with ill-being. As such, responses to the culturally diverse Canadian identity measure were compared to responses on measures of depression, anxiety, and stress (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). As can be seen in Table 3, the Pearson correlation coefficients representing the associations between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and each of depression, anxiety, and stress fell within confidence intervals that were neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, suggesting that a culturally diverse Canadian 39 identity is not associated with each of depression, anxiety, or stress, providing support of discriminant validity.

3.2.2 Psychometric Properties of the VATR-CDR Model

3.2.2.1 Convergent Validity

In order to determine convergent validity, responses to the VATR-CDR Model measure were compared to responses to measures for constructs that should theoretically be associated.

Theoretically, if the VATR-CDR Model is measuring valuing, accepting, tolerating, and rejecting cultural diversity, it should be associated with Canadianism. Such an association can be expected because the different ways that people respond to cultural diversity should coincide with their sense of unity among its diverse citizens, an aspect of Canadianism. In particular, there should be a positive association with valuing cultural diversity, but not with accepting, tolerating, or rejection cultural diversity. As such, responses to the measure of the VATR-CDR Model were compared to responses on the measure of Canadianism (Berry & Kalin, 1995). As can be seen in

Table 3, the Pearson correlation coefficient representing the association between valuing cultural diversity and Canadianism fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a medium effect size, r = .30, p < .001, 95% CI [.18, .43], suggesting a positive association. The correlation coefficient representing the association between accepting cultural diversity and Canadianism fell within a confidence interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, r = .03, p = .636, 95% CI [-.08, .14], suggesting that accepting cultural diversity is not associated with

Canadianism. Similarly, the correlation coefficient representing the association between tolerating cultural diversity and Canadianism fell within a confidence interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, r = -.11, p = .070, 95% CI [-.28, .04], suggesting that tolerating cultural diversity is also not associated with Canadianism. Lastly, the correlation 40 coefficient representing the association between rejecting cultural diversity and Canadianism fell within a negative confidence interval and reflected a small to medium effect size, r = -.20, p <

.01, 95% CI [-.36, -.05], suggesting a negative association. Given the Canadianism measure includes assessing a sense of unity among Canada’s diverse citizens, the positive association between that measure and valuing cultural diversity, and the negative association between that measure and rejecting cultural diversity provide support of convergent validity.

Additionally, if the VATR-CDR Model is measuring valuing, accepting, tolerating, and rejecting cultural diversity, it should be associated with an assimilation orientation which is colour-blind to cultural diversity aiming to disregard it. In particular, there should be a negative association with valuing cultural diversity, but not with accepting, tolerating, or rejection cultural diversity. As such, responses to the measure of the VATR-CDR Model were compared to responses on a measure of assimilation orientation (Berry, et al., 2006). The correlation coefficient representing the association between valuing cultural diversity and an assimilation orientation fell within a negative confidence interval and reflected a large effect size, r = -.45, p

< .001, 95% CI [-.56, -.33], suggesting a negative association. The correlation coefficient representing the association between accepting cultural diversity and an assimilation orientation fell within a confidence interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, r = -

.07, p = .241, 95% CI [-.20, .05], suggesting that accepting cultural diversity is not associated with an assimilation orientation. The correlation coefficient representing the association between tolerating cultural diversity and an assimilation orientation fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a large effect size, r = .49, p < .001, 95% CI [.38, .59], suggesting a positive association. Similarly, the correlation coefficient representing the association between rejecting cultural diversity and an assimilation orientation also fell within a positive confidence 41 interval and reflected a large effect size, r = .44, p < .001, 95% CI [.31, .55], suggesting a positive association. Given the assimilation orientation measure aims to disregard cultural diversity, the negative association between that measure and valuing cultural diversity, and the positive associations between that measure, and tolerating and rejecting cultural diversity provide further support of convergent validity.

3.2.2.2 Discriminant Validity

In order to determine discriminant validity, responses to the VATR-CDR Model measure were compared to responses to measures for constructs that it should not theoretically be associated with. There is no theoretical reason for why the VATR-CDR Model should be associated with ill-being. As such, responses to the VATR-CDR Model measure were compared to responses on measures of depression, anxiety, and stress (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). As can be seen in Table 3, the Pearson correlation coefficients representing the associations between each of valuing, accepting, tolerating, and rejecting cultural diversity and each of depression, anxiety, and stress fell within confidence intervals that were neither positive or negative, crossing over zero. These results suggest that the VATR-CDR Model is not associated with each of depression, anxiety, or stress, providing support of discriminant validity.

3.2.3 Hypothesis Testing

3.2.3.1 Hypothesis 1: Association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and

positive intergroup relations

Hypothesis 1, that a culturally diverse Canadian identity would be associated with positive intergroup relations indicated by less racism toward visible minorities (racism) and a more favourable evaluation of a typical visible minority group member (a favourable minority evaluation), was supported. As can be seen in Table 3, the Pearson correlation coefficient 42 representing the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and racism fell within a negative confidence interval and reflected a medium to large effect size, r = -.43, p < .001, 95%

CI [-.54, -.31], suggesting a negative association. Additionally, the correlation coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and a favourable minority evaluation fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a small to medium effect size, r = .22, p < .001, 95% CI [.10, .34], suggesting a positive association.

3.2.3.2 Hypothesis 2: Association between the VATR-CDR Model and positive intergroup

relations

Hypothesis 2, that the responses comprising the VATR-CDR Model would be associated with intergroup relations differently, was also supported. As can be seen in Table 3, the Pearson correlation coefficient representing the association between valuing cultural diversity and racism fell within a negative confidence interval and represented a large effect size, r = -.47, p < .001,

95% CI [-.57, -.35], suggesting a negative association. The correlation coefficient representing the association between valuing cultural diversity and a favourable minority evaluation fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a medium effect size, r = .27, p < .001, 95%

CI [.15, .38], suggesting a positive association. However, the correlation coefficients representing the associations between accepting cultural diversity and racism, r = .03, p = .598,

95% CI [-.09, .15], and a favourable minority evaluation, r = .08, p = .231, 95% CI [-.06, .21] both fell within confidence intervals that were neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, suggesting that accepting cultural diversity is not associated with either of these outcome variables. Additionally, the correlation coefficient representing the association between tolerating cultural diversity and racism fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a large effect size, r = .53, p < .001, 95% CI [.42, .63], suggesting a positive association. The 43 correlation coefficient representing the association between tolerating cultural diversity and a favourable minority evaluation fell within a negative confidence interval and reflected a small effect size, r = -.17, p < .01, 95% CI [-.29, -.06], suggesting a negative association. Similarly, the correlation coefficient representing the association between rejecting cultural diversity and racism fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a large effect size, r = .45, p <

.001, 95% CI [.32, .57], suggesting a positive association. The correlation coefficient representing the association between rejecting cultural diversity and a favourable minority evaluation fell within a negative confidence interval and reflected a small effect size, r = -.15, p

< .05, 95% CI [-.28, -.02], suggesting a negative association.

3.2.3.3 Hypothesis 3: Mediating role of the VATR-CDR Model on the association between

a culturally diverse Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations

Hypothesis 3, that the VATR-CDR Model would mediate the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations, was partially supported.

Mediation analyses were conducted by way of joint significance testing wherein mediation exists when the associations between a predictor variable and mediator (path a), and between a mediator and outcome variable (path b) are both statistically significant (MacKinnon et al.,

2002). Joint significance testing was used over other analytical methods to determine mediation because it keeps Type I error rates low and has greater power to determine effects over other methods (MacKinnon et al., 2002). The tests of joint significance of paths a and b were conducting by way of two separate multiple regression analyses using one for each path. The regression model for path a consisted of regressing the mediator on the predictor variable, and the regression model for path b consisted of regressing the outcome variable on the mediator.

Additionally, confidence intervals for the products of paths a and b representing indirect effects 44 were calculated using Tofighi and MacKinnon’s (2011) indirect effect confidence interval calculator.8 Each of the four responses comprising the VATR-CDR Model were examined as mediators separately for the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and each of racism and a favourable minority evaluation, resulting in four separate joint significance tests for each outcome variable.9 Bonferroni corrected p values of .013 and 98.7% confidence intervals were used to determine statistical significance. A summary of the four mediation analyses by way of joint significance testing for racism are presented in Table 5 and depicted in

Figure 1, and for a favourable minority evaluation are presented in Table 6 and depicted in

Figure 2.

8 The confident interval calculator was accessed online at https://amplab.shinyapps.io/MEDCI/. 9 The predictor variable and all mediators were mean centered. 45

Table 5

Summary of joint significance tests for the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) and racism (RAC) through the VATR-CDR Model (valuing cultural diversity (VAL), accepting cultural diversity (ACC), tolerating cultural diversity (TOL), rejecting cultural diversity (REJ)), with 98.7% confidence intervals.

VAL ACC TOL REJ 98.7% CI 98.7% CI 98.7% CI 98.7% CI b SE LL UL b SE LL UL b SE LL UL b SE LL UL Association with DIV (path a) .85 .14 .52 1.20 .32 .17 -.14 .71 -.65 .13 -1.00 -.34 -.75 .14 -1.11 -.40 Association with RAC (path b) -.29 .04 -.39 -.18 .01 .02 -.05 .07 .41 .04 .32 .50 .34 .05 .22 .46 Indirect effect (paths a x b) -.25 .05 -.39 -.13 .00 .01 -.02 .03 -.27 .06 -.43 -.13 -.26 .06 -.42 -.12

Table 6

Summary of joint significance tests for the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) and a favourable minority evaluation (EVL) through the VATR-CDR Model (valuing cultural diversity (VAL), accepting cultural diversity (ACC), tolerating cultural diversity (TOL), rejecting cultural diversity (REJ)), with 98.7% confidence intervals.

VAL ACC TOL REJ 98.7% CI 98.7% CI 98.7% CI 98.7% CI b SE LL UL b SE LL UL b SE LL UL b SE LL UL Association with DIV (path a) .85 .14 .53 1.19 .32 .17 -.12 .73 -.65 .14 -1.00 -.34 -.75 .14 -1.11 -.40 Association with EVL (path b) 2.69 .67 .96 4.31 .67 .50 -.55 1.95 -2.49 .77 -4.48 -.65 -1.87 .83 -3.96 .23 Indirect effect (paths a x b) 2.29 .69 .79 4.22 .21 .21 -.22 .93 1.62 .62 .33 3.41 1.40 .69 -.14 3.33 46

a VAL b β = .40*** β = -.44*** a ACC b β = .10 β = .03

DIV RAC DIV RAC

(a) Mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on (b) Mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on racism (RAC) through valuing cultural diversity (VAL). racism (RAC) through accepting cultural diversity (ACC).

b a TOL a REJ b β = -.36*** β = .54*** β = -.40*** β = .46***

DIV RAC DIV RAC

Note: A Bonferroni adjustment was calculated revealing statistical significance can be determined at p = .013; *p < .013, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Figure 1. Mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on racism (RAC) through the VATR-CDR Model. 47

a VAL b a ACC b β = .40*** β = .24*** β = .10 β = .09

DIV EVL DIV EVL

(a) Mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on (b) Mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on a favourable minority evaluation (EVL) through valuing cultural a favourable minority evaluation (EVL) through accepting diversity (VAL). cultural diversity (REJ).

b a TOL a REJ b β = -.36*** β = -.19** β = -.40*** β = -.15

DIV EVL DIV EVL

(c) Mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on (d) Mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on racism (RAC) through tolerating cultural diversity (TOL). a favourable minority evaluation (EVL) through rejecting cultural diversity (REJ). Note: A Bonferroni adjustment was calculated revealing statistical significance can be determined at p = .013; *p < .013, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Figure 2. Mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on a favourable minority evaluation (EVL) through the VATR- CDR Model.

3.2.3.3.1 Racism

3.2.3.3.1.1 Valuing cultural diversity as a mediator

The regression coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and valuing cultural diversity (path a) fell within a positive confidence interval, b = .85, SE = .14, p < .001, 98.7% CI [.52, 1.20], F(1, 312) = 59.85, p < .001, R2 = .16, with the regression model reflecting a medium effect size, f2 = .19, suggesting a positive association. The regression coefficient representing the association between valuing cultural diversity and racism (path b) fell within a negative confidence interval, b = -.29, SE = .04, p <

.001, 98.7% CI [-.39, -.18]), F(1, 312) = 73.58, p < .001, R2 = .19, with the regression modeling reflecting a medium effect size, f2 = .23, suggesting a negative association. Paths a and b being jointly statistically significant suggest an indirect effect of a culturally diverse Canadian identity on racism through valuing cultural diversity. The indirect effect was further supported by the coefficient representing the indirect effect (path a x path b) falling within a negative confidence interval, b = -.25, SE = .05, 98.7% CI [-.39, -.13]. As can be seen in Figure 1a, the joint significance test suggests that a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be negatively associated with racism by way of an increase in valuing cultural diversity.

3.2.3.3.1.2 Accepting cultural diversity as a mediator

The regression coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and accepting cultural diversity (path a) fell within a confidence interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, b = .32, SE = .17, p = .067, 98.7% CI [-.14,

.71], F(1, 313) = 2.84, p = .093, R2 = .01, with the regression model reflecting no effect, f2 = .01, suggesting that a culturally diverse Canadian identity and accepting cultural diversity are not associated. The regression coefficient representing the association between accepting cultural 49 diversity and racism (path b) also fell within a confidence interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, b = .01, SE = .02, p = .559, 98.7% CI [-.05, .07], F(1, 313) = .32, p

= .574, R2 = .00, with the regression model reflecting no effect, f2 = .00, suggesting that accepting cultural diversity and racism are not associated. Paths a and b not being jointly statistically significant suggest there is no indirect effect of a culturally diverse Canadian identity on racism through accepting cultural diversity. The lack of an indirect effect was further supported by the coefficient representing the indirect effect (path a x path b) falling within a confidence interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, b = .00, SE = .01,

98.7% CI [-.02, .03]. As can be seen in Figure 1b, accepting cultural diversity did not mediate the negative association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and racism.

3.2.3.3.1.3 Tolerating cultural diversity as a mediator

The regression coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and tolerating cultural diversity (path a) fell within a negative confidence interval, b = -.65, SE = .13, p < .001, 98.7% CI [-1.00, -.34], F(1, 310) = 44.86, p < .001, R2 =

.13, with the regression model reflecting a small to medium effect size, f2 = .15, suggesting a negative association. The regression coefficient representing the association between tolerating cultural diversity and racism (path b) fell within a positive confidence interval, b = .41, SE = .04, p < .001, 98.7% CI [.32, .50], F(1, 310) = 125.34, p < .001, R2 = .29, with the regression model reflecting a large effect size, f2 = .41, suggesting a positive association. Paths a and b being jointly statistically significant suggest an indirect effect of a culturally diverse Canadian identity on racism through tolerating cultural diversity. The indirect effect was further supported by the coefficient representing the indirect effect (path a x path b) falling within a negative confidence interval, b = -.27, SE = .06, 98.7% CI [-.43, -.13]. As can be seen in Figure 1c, the joint 50 significance test suggests that a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be negatively associated with racism by way of a decrease in tolerating cultural diversity.

3.2.3.3.1.4 Rejecting cultural diversity as a mediator

The regression coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and rejecting cultural diversity (path a) fell within a negative confidence interval, b = -.75, SE = .14, p < .001, 98.7% CI [-1.11, -.40], F(1, 317) = 60.29, p < .001, R2 =

.16, with the regression model reflecting a medium effect size, f2 = .19, suggesting a negative association. The regression coefficient representing the association between rejecting cultural diversity and racism (path b) fell within a positive confidence interval, b = .34, SE = .05, p <

.001, 98.7% CI [.22, .46], F(1, 317) = 83.43, p < .001, R2 = .21, with the regression model reflecting a medium effect size, f2 = .27, suggesting a positive association. Paths a and b being jointly statistically significant suggest an indirect effect of a culturally diverse Canadian identity on racism through rejecting cultural diversity. The indirect effect was further supported by the coefficient representing the indirect effect (path a x path b) falling within a negative confidence interval, b = -.26, SE = .06, 98.7% CI [-.42, -.12]. As can be seen in Figure 1d, the joint significance test suggests that a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be negatively associated with racism by way of a decrease in rejecting cultural diversity.

3.2.3.3.2 A Favourable Minority Evaluation

3.2.3.3.2.1 Valuing cultural diversity as a mediator

The regression coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and valuing cultural diversity (path a) fell within a positive confidence interval, b = .85, SE = .14, p < .001, 98.7% CI [.53, 1.19], F(1, 312) = 59.85, p < .001, R2 = .16, with the regression model reflecting a medium effect size, f2 = .19, suggesting a positive 51 association. The regression coefficient representing the association between valuing cultural diversity and a favourable minority evaluation (path b) also fell within a positive confidence interval, b = 2.69, SE = .67, p < .001, 98.7% CI [.96, 4.31], F(1, 265) = 15.67, p < .001, R2 = .06, with the regression model reflecting a small effect size, f2 = .06, suggesting a positive association. Paths a and b being jointly statistically significant suggest an indirect effect of a culturally diverse Canadian identity on a favourable minority evaluation through valuing cultural diversity. The indirect effect of was further supported by the coefficient representing the indirect effect (path a x path b) falling within a positive confidence interval, b = 2.29, SE = .69, 98.7% CI

[.79, 4.22]. As can be seen in Figure 2a, the joint significance test suggests that a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be positively associated with a favourable minority evaluation by way of an increase in valuing cultural diversity.

3.2.3.3.2.2 Accepting cultural diversity as a mediator

The regression coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and accepting cultural diversity (path a) fell within a confidence interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, b = .32, SE = .17, p = .061, 98.7% CI [-.12,

.73], F(1, 313) = 2.84, p = .093, R2 = .01, with the regression model having no effect, f2 = .01, suggesting that a culturally diverse Canadian identity and accepting cultural diversity are not associated. The regression coefficient representing the association between accepting cultural diversity and a favourable minority evaluation (path b) also fell within a confidence interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, b = .67, SE = .50, p = .187, 98.7% CI [-.55,

1.95], F(1, 265) = 2.19, p = .140, R2 = .01, with the regression model reflecting no effect, f2 =

.01, suggesting that accepting cultural diversity and a favourable minority evaluation are not associated. Paths a and b not being jointly statistically significant suggest there is no indirect 52 effect of a culturally diverse Canadian identity on a favourable minority evaluation through accepting cultural diversity. The lack of an indirect effect was further supported by the coefficient representing the indirect effect (path a x path b) falling within a confidence interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, b = .21, SE = .21, 98.7% CI [-.28, .93].

As can be seen in Figure 2b, accepting cultural diversity did not mediate the positive association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and a favourable minority evaluation.

3.2.3.3.2.3 Tolerating cultural diversity as a mediator

The regression coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and tolerating cultural diversity (path a) fell within a negative confidence interval, b = -.65, SE = .14, p < .001, 98.7% CI [-1.00, -.34], F(1, 310) = 44.86, p < .001, R2 =

.01, R2 = .04, with the regression model reflecting a small effect size, f2 = .04, suggesting a negative association. Paths a and b being jointly statistically significant suggest an indirect effect of a culturally diverse Canadian identity on a favourable minority evaluation through tolerating cultural diversity. The indirect effect was further supported by the coefficient representing the indirect effect (path a x path b) falling within a positive confidence interval, b = 1.62, SE = .62,

98.7% CI [.33, 3.41]. As can be seen in Figure 2c, the joint significance test suggests that a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be positively associated with a favourable minority evaluation by way of a decrease in tolerating cultural diversity. 53

3.2.3.3.2.4 Rejecting cultural diversity as a mediator

The regression coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and rejecting cultural diversity (path a) fell within a negative confident interval, b = -.75, SE = .14, p < .001, 98.7% CI [-1.11, -.40], F(1, 317) = 60.29, p < .001, R2 =

.16, with the regression model reflecting a medium effect size, f2 = .19, suggesting a negative association. However, the regression coefficient representing the association between rejecting cultural diversity and a favourable minority evaluation (path b) fell within a confidence interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, b = -1.87, SE = .83, p = .026, 98.7% CI

[-3.96, .23], F(1, 268) = 6.10, p = .014, R2 = .02, with the regression model reflecting no effect, f2

= .02, suggesting that rejecting cultural diversity and a favourable minority evaluation are not associated. Paths a and b not being jointly statistically significant suggest there is no indirect effect of a culturally diverse Canadian identity on a favourable minority evaluation through rejecting cultural diversity. The lack of an indirect effect was further supported by the coefficient representing the indirect effect (path a x path b) falling within a confidence interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, b = 1.40, SE = .69, 98.7% CI [-.14, 3.33]. As can be seen in Figure 2d, rejecting cultural diversity did not mediate the positive association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and a favourable minority evaluation.

3.3 Discussion

Study 2 aimed to determine construct validity of a culturally diverse Canadian identity and the VATR-CDR Model. The results of Study 2 did provide support for construct validity of both a culturally diverse Canadian identity and the VATR-CDR Model.

Study 2 also aimed to examine the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity, the VATR-CDR Model, and the valence of intergroup relations. The results suggested 54 that a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be associated with more positive intergroup relations. Results also suggested that a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be positively associated with valuing cultural diversity, and negatively associated with tolerating and rejecting cultural diversity, but may not be associated with accepting cultural diversity. The results of

Study 2 also suggest that valuing cultural diversity may be associated with more positive intergroup relations, that tolerating and rejecting cultural diversity may be associated with less positive intergroup relations, and that accepting cultural diversity may not be associated with the valence of intergroup relations at all. These results provide support for the predictions of the

VATR-CDR Model. Additionally, the results suggest that some responses that comprise the

VATR-CDR Model may mediate the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and the valence of intergroup relations. More specifically, a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be associated with positive intergroup relations by way of an increase in valuing cultural diversity, and decrease in tolerating and rejecting cultural diversity.

STUDY 3

The aim of Study 3 was to replicate Study 2, and to examine whether identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup impacts the associations between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity, the VATR-CDR Model, and the valence of intergroup relations. Additionally,

Study 3 aimed to examine the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity, the

VATR-CDR Model, and attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation, and whether identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup impacts those associations.

Hypothesis 1 was that a culturally diverse Canadian identity would be associated with positive intergroup relations indicated by less racism toward visible minorities (racism) and a more favourable evaluation of a typical visible minority group member (a favourable minority 55 evaluation), and with support for pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation. Hypothesis 2 was that the responses comprising the VATR-CDR Model would be associated with intergroup relations and with support for pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation differently.

Hypothesis 3 was that the VATR-CDR Model would mediate the associations between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations, and support for pro- cultural diversity policies and legislation. Lastly, Hypothesis 4 was that identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup would moderate the mediating role of the VATR-CDR

Model on the associations between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations, and support for pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation by influencing the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and the VATR-CDR Model.

4.1 Method

4.1.1 Participants

Recruitment and eligibility requirements were as in Study 1 and Study 2. The sample consisted of 374 participants (95 male, 278 female; Mage = 18.97, SD = 2.19).

4.1.2 Procedure

As in Study 1 and Study 2, after providing consent participants were asked to complete an online questionnaire hosted on the Qualtrics platform. The questionnaire included demographics questions, a measure of a culturally diverse Canadian identity and a measure of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. Next participants were asked to complete measures of the responses comprising VATR-CDR Model. Participants were then presented with a measure of racism, a measure of a favourable minority evaluation, and a 56 measure of attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation.10 As in Study 1 and

Study 2, after being debriefed participants were given 1 course credit for their participation.

4.1.3 Measures11

A culturally diverse Canadian identity. The construct of a culturally diverse Canadian identity was measured as in Study 1 and Study 2 (Cronbach’s α = .82).

The VATR-CDR Model.

Valuing cultural diversity. Valuing cultural diversity was measured as in Study 2.

Accepting cultural diversity. Accepting cultural diversity was measured as in Study 2.

Tolerating cultural diversity. Tolerating cultural diversity was measured as in Study 2.

Rejecting cultural diversity. Rejecting cultural diversity was measured as in Study 2.

Identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. Identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup was measured using items adapted from the Cameron (2004)

12 item social identification measure. Participants were asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) how much they identified as a

10 Study 3 was conducted as part of broader study examining Canadians’ cultural identities, their attitudes towards culturally diverse others and importance of Canadian rights and freedoms, and their psychological well-being. However, only measures relevant to the hypotheses being examined are discussed. Other measures included: a researcher generated measure of a form of simultaneous Canadian and heritage cultural identification; heritage cultural identification (adapted from Cameron, 2004); Canadian cultural identification (adapted from Cameron, 2004); a researcher generated measure of the importance of Canadian rights and freedoms; acculturation attitudes (Berry et al, 2006 ); Canadianism (Berry & Kalin, 1995); self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965); life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985); eudaimonic well-being (Waterman et al., 2010); psychological flourishing (Diener et al., 2010); depression, anxiety, and stress (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). 11 In order to meet assumptions of normality, all outliers were transformed by Winsorization. However, the distribution of responses for: a culturally diverse Canadian identity was slightly negatively skewed with positive kurtosis, valuing cultural diversity was slightly negatively skewed with positive kurtosis, tolerating cultural diversity was positively skewed with positive kurtosis, rejecting cultural diversity was positively skewed with positive kurtosis, and support for anti-hate crime legislation was slightly negatively skewed with positive kurtosis. 57 member of a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (Cronbach’s α = .85). A sample item is “I have a lot in common with Canadians from different cultures.” Ratings were averaged across items to create combined scores. Greater values are indicative of greater identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. See Appendix O for the complete measure.

Racism. Racism was measured as in Study 1 and Study 2 (Cronbach’s α = .83).

A favourable minority evaluation. A favourable minority evaluation was measured as in Study 1 and Study 2.

Attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation. Attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation was measured using 15 researcher generated items. Participants were asked to indicate on a 21-point scale ranging from -10 (extremely unfavourable) to 10 (extremely favourable) how much they favoured or disfavoured cultural diversity related policies and legislation. Items were generated taking a deductive approach based on current cultural diversity related social issues (e.g., increasing race-based hate crimes

(Statistics Canada, 2020), cultural accommodation, or a lack thereof, and cultural competence) and related legislation (e.g., Canada’s Employment Equity Act (1995), An Act Respecting the

Laicity of the State (more commonly known as Bill 21; 2019), and what is not included in the

Canadian Criminal Code (1985)). As such, the items were transparent in what they were assessing, providing good face validity. A sample item is “Public service employees should be required to have their faces uncovered while at work.”

4.2 Preliminary Analyses: Psychometric Properties of Measures of Attitudes Toward

Cultural Diversity Related Policies and Legislation

Preliminary analyses were conducted to explore the psychometric properties of the items measuring attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation. 58

4.2.1 Structure of Items

In order to explore whether the items measuring attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation could be used together to measure a single construct an exploratory factor analysis was conducted using a principal axis analysis on the 15 researcher generated items.

Results supported that a 4 factor solution comprised of 8 items with minimum factor loadings of

.50 accounting for 47.26% of the variance, was appropriate to be extracted for which Varimax rotation was used. Of the 8 items that did load, 2 loaded individually on 2 separate factors and were therefore omitted from further analyses. See Table 7 for factor loadings. 59

Table 7

Varimax rotated factor matrix from principal axis analysis for attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation items for items loading at least at .50.

Factor Items 1 2 3 4 Public service employees should not be allowed to wear religious -.13 .38 -.19 -.20 symbols while at work. Public service employees should be required to have their faces -.11 .64 -.23 -.05 uncovered while at work. People who have their faces covered should not be able to receive -.21 .80 -.11 -.17 public services. Organizations should be required to hire the same proportion of visible minorities that matches the proportion of visible minorities in the .16 -.04 .47 .14 general population. Employers should be required to accommodate the different cultural .24 -.32 .57 .39 needs of their employees. People of different religions should be able to take their religions’ .32 -.21 .18 .42 holidays off from work. Committing hate crimes targeting different cultural groups should be a .69 -.21 .06 .37 criminal offence. Committing hate crimes targeting different religious groups should be .78 -.22 .01 .21 a criminal offence. Hiring a visible minority over an equally qualified majority Canadian -.09 .25 -.43 -.03 is reverse racism. Public school curriculums should have to include learning about .28 -.15 .40 .47 different cultures. Public service employees should be trained to work with Canadians .25 -.09 .45 .49 from different cultural groups. Public service employees should not have to worry about the different -.03 .12 -.33 -.11 cultural needs of Canadians while doing their jobs. It should be a crime to spread hate toward different cultural groups. .70 -.11 .32 .15 It should be a crime to spread hate toward different religious groups. .79 -.10 .32 .06 Canadians should also be allowed to be citizens of a different country .10 -.09 .12 .52 as well as Canada. 60

The first factor comprised of 4 items that reflect support for anti-hate crime legislation. In order to determine internal consistency, a reliability analysis was conducted. Results revealed that the internal consistency of the 4 items was good, Cronbach’s α = .85 (see Gliem & Gliem,

2003), providing further support that the items could be used together to assess a single construct. Therefore, ratings were averaged across items such that a higher value was indicative of greater support for anti-hate crime legislation. See Appendix P for the resulting measure.

The second factor comprised of 2 items that reflect support to ban face coverings in the public sector. In order to determine internal consistency, a reliability analysis was conducted.

Results revealed that the internal consistency of the 2 items was acceptable, Cronbach’s α = .70

(see Gliem & Gliem, 2003), providing further support that the items could be used together to assess a single construct. Therefore, ratings were averaged across items such that a higher value was indicative of greater support to ban face coverings in the public sector. See Appendix Q for the resulting measure.

4.2.2 Convergent Validity

In order to determine convergent validity, responses to the support for anti-hate crime legislation measure were compared to responses to measures for constructs that should theoretically be associated. Theoretically, the support for anti-hate crime legislation measure should be associated with less racism and a more favourable evaluation of culturally diverse others. As such, responses to the support for anti-hate crime legislation measure were compared to responses on the measure of racism and the measure of a favourable minority evaluation. The

Pearson correlation coefficient representing the association between support for anti-hate crime legislation and racism fell within a negative confidence interval and reflected a large effect size, r = -.49, p < .001, 95% CI [-.58, -.39], suggesting a negative association, providing support of 61 convergent validity. Additionally, the correlation coefficient representing the association between support for anti-hate crime legislation and a favourable minority evaluation fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a medium effect size, r = .28, p < .001, 95% CI [.16,

.39], suggesting a positive association, providing further support of convergent validity.

In order to determine convergent validity, responses to the support to ban face coverings in the public sector measure were also compared to responses to measures for constructs that should theoretically be associated. Theoretically, the support to ban face coverings in the public sector measure should be associated with more racism and a less favourable evaluation of culturally diverse others. As such, responses to the support to ban face coverings in the public sector measure were compared to responses on the measure of racism and the measure of a favourable minority evaluation. The Pearson correlation coefficient representing the association between support to ban face coverings in the public sector and racism fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a large effect size, r = .48, p < .001, 95% CI [.37, .57], suggesting a positive association, providing support of convergent validity. Additionally, the correlation coefficient representing the association between support to ban face coverings in the public sector and a favourable minority evaluation fell within a largely negative confidence interval and reflected a small effect size, r = -.13, p < .05, 95% CI [-.26, .00], suggesting a negative association, providing further support of convergent validity.

4.3 Results

For statistical completeness Table 8 presents descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients for a culturally diverse Canadian identity, identification with a culturally diverse

Canadian ingroup, the VATR-CDR Model, racism, a favourable minority evaluation, support for anti-hate crime legislation, and support to ban face coverings in the public sector. 62

Table 8

Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients for a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV), identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (GRP), the VATR-CDR Model (valuing cultural diversity (VAL), accepting cultural diversity (ACC), tolerating cultural diversity (TOL), rejecting cultural diversity (REJ)), racism (RAC), a favourable minority evaluation (EVL), support for anti-hate crime legislation (HATE), and support to ban face coverings in the public sector (FACE), with 95% confidence intervals.

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .68*** .57*** .04 -.37*** -.47*** -.49*** .26*** .43*** -.32*** 1. DIV  [.61, .73] [.46, .66] [-.08, .16] [-.50, -.24] [-.59, -.34] [-.58, -.38] [.13, .39] [.30, .54] [-.44, -.20] .55*** .08 -.41*** -.43*** -.46*** .22*** .30*** -.26*** 2. GRP   [.45, .64] [-.04, .19] [-.52, -.29] [-.53, -.31] [-.56, -.35] [.10, .33] [.18, .41] [-.38, -.15] .16** -.59*** -.59*** -.56*** .25*** .35*** -.39*** 3. VAL    [.05, .27] [-.70, -.46] [-.70, -.47] [-.65, -.47] [.13, .37] [.22, .47] [-.49, -.28] .09 .03 -.01 -.06 .02 -.03 4. ACC     [-.02, .18] [-.07, 13] [-.13, .11] [-.19, .06] [-.10, .14] [-.15, .09] .76*** .50*** -.21*** -.27*** .34*** 5. TOL      [.65, .85] [.39, .59] [-.32, -.10] [-.39, -.16] [.23, .44] .52*** -.23*** -.37*** .39*** 6. REJ       [.41, 62] [-.34, -.11] [-.49, -.24] [.28, .50] -.29*** -.49*** .48*** 7. RAC        [-.41, -.17] [-.58, -.39] [.37, .57] .28*** -.13* 8. EVL         [.16, .39] [-.26, .00] -.35*** 9. HATE          [-.47, -.23] 10. FACE           M 6.18 5.23 8.50 6.42 1.92 1.85 2.56 69.71 7.45 -4.37 SD .90 .87 1.83 2.76 1.58 1.57 1.09 19.54 3.14 4.75 Note: *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001. 63

4.3.1 Hypothesis 1: Association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and

positive intergroup relations, and cultural diversity related policies and legislation

As can be seen in Table 8, the Pearson correlation coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and racism fell within a negative confidence interval and reflected a large effect size, r = -.49, p < .001, 95% CI [-.58, -.38], suggesting a negative association. The correlation coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and a favourable minority evaluation fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a medium effect size, r = .26, p < .001, 95% CI [.13, .39], suggesting a positive association. The correlation coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and support for anti-hate crime legislation also fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a medium to large effect size, r = .43, p < .001, 95% CI [.30,

.54], suggesting a positive association. Lastly, the correlation coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and support to ban face coverings in the public sector fell within a negative confidence interval and reflected a medium effect size, r =

-.32, p < .001, 95% CI [-.44, -.20], suggesting a negative association.

4.3.2 Hypothesis 2: Association between the VATR-CDR Model and the valence of

intergroup relations, and cultural diversity related policies and legislation

Hypothesis 2, that the responses comprising the VATR-CDR Model would be associated with intergroup relations and with support for pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation 64 differently, was supported. As can be seen in Table 8, the Pearson correlation coefficient representing the association between valuing cultural diversity and racism fell within a negative confidence interval and reflected a large effect size, r = -.56, p < .001, 95% CI [-.65, -.47], suggesting a negative association. The correlation coefficient representing the association between valuing cultural diversity and a favourable minority evaluation fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a medium effect size, r = .25, p < .001, 95% CI [.13, .37], suggesting a positive association. The correlation coefficient representing the association between valuing cultural diversity and support for anti-hate crime legislation also fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a medium effect size, r = .35, p < .001, 95% CI [.22,

.47], suggesting a positive association. Lastly, the correlation coefficient representing the association between valuing cultural diversity and support to ban face coverings in the public sector fell within a negative confidence interval and reflected aa medium effect size, r = -.39, p <

.001, 95% CI [-.49, -.28], suggesting a negative association.

The correlation coefficients representing the associations between accepting cultural diversity and racism, r = -.01, p = .846, 95% CI [-.13, .11], a favourable minority evaluation, r =

-.06, p = .274, 95% CI [-.19, .06], support for anti-hate crime legislation, r = .02, p = .687, 95%

CI [-.10, .14], and support to ban face coverings in the public sector, r = -.03, p = .636, 95% CI [-

.15, .09] all fell within confidence intervals that were neither positive or negative, crossing over zero. These results suggest that accepting cultural diversity is not associated with any of the outcome variables.

The correlation coefficient representing the association between tolerating cultural diversity and racism fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a large effect size, r =

.50, p < .001, 95% CI [.39, .59], suggesting a positive association. The correlation coefficient 65 representing the association between tolerating cultural diversity and a favourable minority evaluation fell within a negative confidence interval and reflected a small to medium effect size, r = -.21, p < .001, 95% CI [-.32, -.10], suggesting a negative association. The correlation coefficient representing the association between tolerating cultural diversity and support for anti- hate crime legislation also fell within a negative confidence interval and reflected a medium effect size, r = -.27, p < .001, 95% CI [-.39, -.16], suggesting a negative association. Lastly, the correlation coefficient representing the association between tolerating cultural diversity and support to ban face coverings in the public sector fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a medium effect size, r = .34, p < .001, 95% CI [.23, .44], suggesting a positive association.

The correlation coefficient representing the association between rejecting cultural diversity and racism fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a large effect size, r =

.52, p < .001, 95% CI [.41, .62], suggesting a positive association. The correlation coefficient representing the association between rejecting cultural diversity and a favourable minority evaluation fell within a negative confidence interval reflecting a small to medium effect size, r =

-.23, p < .001, 95% CI [-.34, -.11], suggesting a negative association. The correlation coefficient representing the association between rejecting cultural diversity and support for anti-hate crime legislation also fell within a negative confidence interval and reflected a medium effect size, r = -

.37, p < .001, 95% CI [-.49, -.24], suggesting a negative association. Lastly, the correlation coefficient representing the association between rejecting cultural diversity and support to ban face coverings in the public sector fell within a positive confidence interval and reflected a medium effect size, r = .39, p < .001, 95% CI [.28, .50], suggesting a positive association. 66

4.3.3 Hypotheses 3 and 4: Mediating role of the VATR-CDR Model on the association

between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations,

and cultural diversity related policies and legislation, moderated by identification

with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup

Hypothesis 3, was that the VATR-CDR Model would mediate the associations between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations, and support for pro- cultural diversity policies and legislation. Hypothesis 4, was that identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup would moderate the mediating role of the VATR-CDR Model on the associations between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations, and support for pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation by influencing the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and the VATR-CDR Model. Hypothesis 3 and 4 were examined together in moderated mediation models.

Moderated mediation analyses were conducted by way of joint significance testing at two values of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup: at one standard above the mean (high) and one standard deviation below the mean (low).12 The tests of joint significance of paths a and b, at the two levels of the moderator, were conducting by way of three separate multiple regression analyses. The regression model for path a at a low level of the moderator consisted of regressing the mediator on the predictor variable, the moderator at a low level, and the interaction of the predictor variable and the moderator at a low level. The regression model for path a at a high level of the moderator consisted of regressing the mediator on the predictor variable, the moderator at a high level, and the interaction of the predictor variable and the moderator at a high level. Finally, the regression model for path b consisted of regressing the

12 The predictor variable, moderating variable, and all mediators were mean centered. 67 outcome variable on the mediator. Additionally, confidence intervals for the products of each path a and path b combination representing indirect effects were calculated using Tofighi and

MacKinnon’s (2011) indirect effect confidence interval calculator. Each of the four responses comprising the VATR-CDR Model were examined as mediators separately for the associations between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and each of racism, a favourable minority evaluation, support for anti-hate crime legislation, and support to ban face coverings in the public sector, resulting in four separate joint significance tests for each outcome variable. Bonferroni corrected p values of .013 and 98.7% confidence intervals were used to determine statistical significance. A summary of the four moderated mediation analyses by way of joint significance testing for racism are presented in Table 9 and depicted in Figure 3, for a favourable minority evaluation are presented in Table 10 and depicted in Figure 4, for support for anti-hate crime legislation are presented in Table 11 and depicted in Figure 5, and for support to ban face coverings in the public sector are presented in Table 12 and depicted in Figure 6. 68

Table 9

VAL ACC TOL REJ 98.7% CI 98.7% CI 98.7% CI 98.7% CI b SE LL UL b SE LL UL b SE LL UL b SE LL UL

Association with DIV at low GRP (path aL) .70 .14 .38 1.08 -.04 .20 -.53 .45 -.26 .17 -.75 .08 -.49 .14 -.86 -.17

Association with DIV at high GRP (path aH) .20 .22 -.38 .70 -.80 .36 -1.63 .14 -.15 .26 -.68 .53 .00 .20 -.50 .48 Association with RAC (path b) -.34 .03 -.41 -.27 .00 .02 -.06 .05 .36 .03 .27 .44 .37 .04 .28 .47

Indirect effect at low GRP (paths aL x b) -.24 .05 -.38 -.12 .00 .00 -.01 .01 -.09 .06 -.25 .06 -.18 .06 -.33 -.05

Indirect effect at high GRP (paths aH x b) -.07 .08 -.26 .12 .00 .02 -.05 .05 -.05 .09 -.29 .18 .00 .07 -.19 .19

Table 10

VAL ACC TOL REJ 98.7% CI 98.7% CI 98.7% CI 98.7% CI b SE LL UL b SE LL UL b SE LL UL b SE LL UL

Association with DIV at low GRP (path aL) .70 .14 .39 1.07 -.04 .20 -.55 .45 -.26 .17 -.74 .08 -.49 .14 -.86 -.16

Association with DIV at high GRP (path aH) .20 .22 -.39 .69 -.80 .36 -1.65 .18 -.15 .26 -.68 .52 .00 .20 -.50 .49 Association with EVL (path b) 2.50 .63 .96 4.09 -.53 .44 -1.58 .59 -2.42 .68 -4.24 -.81 -2.53 .73 -4.46 -.84

Indirect effect at low GRP (paths aL x b) 1.75 .57 .55 3.38 .02 .14 -.40 .49 .63 .46 -.40 2.01 1.24 .51 .23 2.76

Indirect effect at high GRP (paths aH x b) .50 .58 -.92 2.16 .42 .43 -.51 1.82 .36 .66 -1.32 2.25 .00 .53 -1.44 1.44

Table 11

Summary of joint significance tests for the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) and support for anti-hate crime legislation (HATE) through the VATR- CDR Model (valuing cultural diversity (VAL), accepting cultural diversity (ACC), tolerating cultural diversity (TOL), rejecting cultural diversity (REJ)), at low and high levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (GRP), with 98.7% confidence intervals.

VAL ACC TOL REJ 98.7% CI 98.7% CI 98.7% CI 98.7% CI b SE LL UL b SE LL UL b SE LL UL b SE LL UL

Association with DIV at low GRP (path aL) .70 .14 .37 1.08 -.04 .20 -.53 .45 -.26 .17 -.74 .08 -.49 .14 -.87 -.16

Association with DIV at high GRP (path aH) .20 .22 -.38 .71 -.80 .37 -1.64 .20 -.15 .25 -.68 .54 .00 .20 -.52 .48 Association with HATE (path b) .66 .10 .41 .91 .01 .06 -.13 .17 -.65 .11 -.95 -.39 -.80 .12 -1.12 -.51

Indirect effect at low GRP (paths aL x b) .46 .12 .21 .79 .00 .01 -.04 .04 .17 .12 -.11 .49 .39 .13 .11 .75

Indirect effect at high GRP (paths aH x b) .13 .15 -.23 .53 -.01 .05 -.17 .14 .10 .17 -.32 .54 .00 .16 -.42 .42

Table 12

Summary of joint significance tests for the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) and support to ban facing coverings in the public sector (FACE) through the VATR-CDR Model (valuing cultural diversity (VAL), accepting cultural diversity (ACC), tolerating cultural diversity (TOL), rejecting cultural diversity (REJ)), at low and high levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (GRP), with 98.7% confidence intervals.

VAL ACC TOL REJ 98.7% CI 98.7% CI 98.7% CI 98.7% CI b SE LL UL b SE LL UL b SE LL UL b SE LL UL

Association with DIV at low GRP (path aL) .70 .14 .38 1.08 -.04 .20 -.53 .45 -.26 .17 -.75 .08 -.49 .14 -.86 -.17

Association with DIV at high GRP (path aH) .20 .22 -.38 .70 -.80 .36 -1.63 .14 -.15 .26 -.68 .53 .00 .20 -.50 .48 Association with FACE (path b) -1.06 .13 -1.38 -.75 -.01 .09 -.26 .22 1.10 .15 .74 1.48 1.22 .17 .82 1.67

Indirect effect at low GRP (paths aL x b) -.74 .18 -1.22 -.35 .00 .02 -.06 .06 -.29 .19 -.80 .18 -.60 .19 -1.12 -.17

Indirect effect at high GRP (paths aH x b) -.21 .24 -.83 .37 .01 .08 -.22 .24 -.17 .29 -.92 .56 .00 .25 -.63 .63

aL b aL b VAL ACC β = .34*** β = -.57*** β = -.01 β = .00

aH aH β = .10 DIV β = -.26 RAC DIV RAC

(a) Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian (b) Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on racism (RAC) through valuing cultural identity (DIV) on racism (RAC) through accepting cultural diversity (VAL) at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification diversity (ACC) at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup

a b aL b L TOL REJ β = -.15 β = .52*** β = -.28*** β = .54***

aH aH β = -.08 β = .00 DIV RAC DIV RAC

(c) Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian (d) Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on racism (RAC) through tolerating cultural identity (DIV) on racism (RAC) through rejecting cultural diversity (TOL) at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification diversity (REJ) at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup.

Note: A Bonferroni adjustment was calculated revealing statistical significance can be determined at p = .013; *p < .013, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Figure 3. Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on racism (RAC) through the VATR-CDR Model at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. 73

aL b aL b β = .34*** VAL β = .24*** ACC β = -.01 β = -.07

aH a H β = .10 β = -.26 DIV EVL DIV EVL

(a) Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian (b) Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on a favourable minority evaluation (EVL) identity (DIV) on a favourable minority evaluation (EVL) through valuing cultural diversity (VAL) at low (aL) and high through accepting cultural diversity (ACC) at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. ingroup.

a b aL L TOL b β = -.15 β = -.20*** β = -.28*** REJ β = -.21***

aH a H β = -.08 β = .00 DIV EVL DIV EVL

(c) Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian (d) Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on a favourable minority evaluation (EVL) identity (DIV) on a favourable minority evaluation (EVL) through tolerating cultural diversity (TOL) at low (aL) and high through rejecting cultural diversity (REJ) at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. ingroup. Note: A Bonferroni adjustment was calculated revealing statistical significance can be determined at p = .013; *p < .013, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Figure 4. Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on a favourable minority evaluation (EVL) through the VATR-CDR Model at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. 74

aL b aL b VAL β = -.01 ACC β = .34*** β = .38*** β = .01

aH aH β = .10 β = -.26 DIV HATE DIV HATE

(a) Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian (b) Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on support for anti-hate crime legislation (HATE) identity (DIV) on support for anti-hate crime legislation (HATE) through valuing cultural diversity (VAL) at low (aL) and high through accepting cultural diversity (ACC) at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. ingroup

aL b aL b TOL REJ β = -.15 β = -.33*** β = -.28*** β = -.40***

aH aH β = -.08 β = .00 DIV HATE DIV HATE

(c) Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian (d) Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on support for anti-hate crime legislation (HATE) identity (DIV) on support for anti-hate crime legislation (HATE) through tolerating cultural diversity (TOL) at low (aL) and high through rejecting cultural diversity (REJ) at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. ingroup.

Note: A Bonferroni adjustment was calculated revealing statistical significance can be determined at p = .013; *p < .013, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Figure 5. Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on support for anti-hate crime legislation (HATE) through the VATR-CDR Model at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. 75

aL aL b b β = .34*** VAL β = -.01 ACC β = -.41*** β = -.01

aH aH β = .10 β = -.26 DIV FACE DIV FACE

(a) Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian (b) Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on support for anti-hate crime legislation (FACE) identity (DIV) on support to ban face coverings in the public through valuing cultural diversity (VAL) at low (aL) and high sector (FACE) through accepting cultural diversity (ACC) at low (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally ingroup. diverse Canadian ingroup.

aL b aL b β = -.15 TOL β = .37*** β = -.28*** REJ β = .41***

a H a β = -.08 H β = .00 DIV FACE DIV FACE

(c) Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian (d) Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on support to ban face coverings in the public identity (DIV) on support to ban face coverings in the public sector (FACE) through tolerating cultural diversity (TOL) at low sector (FACE) through rejecting cultural diversity (REJ) at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. diverse Canadian ingroup.

Note: A Bonferroni adjustment was calculated revealing statistical significance can be determined at p = .013; *p < .013, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Figure 6. Moderated mediation of a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) on support to ban face coverings in the public sector (FACE) through the VATR-CDR Model at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup.

4.3.3.1 Racism

4.3.3.1.1 Valuing cultural diversity as a mediator

The regression coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and valuing cultural diversity at low identification with a culturally diverse

Canadian ingroup (path aL) fell within a positive confidence interval, b = .70, SE = .14, p < .001,

98.7% CI [.38, 1.08], F(3, 366) = 76.46, p < .001, R2 = .39, with the regression model reflecting a large effect size, f2 = .64, suggesting a positive association when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is low. However, the regression coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and valuing cultural diversity at high identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (path aH) fell within a confidence interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, b = .20, SE = .22, p = .354,

98.7% CI [-.38, .70], F(3, 366) = 76.46, p < .001, R2 = .39, with the regression model reflecting a large effect size, f2 = .64, suggesting that when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is high a culturally diverse Canadian identity and valuing cultural diversity are not associated. Additionally, the regression coefficient representing the association between valuing cultural diversity and racism (path b) fell within a negative confidence interval. b = -.34, SE =

.03, p < .001, 98.7% CI [-.41, -.27], F(1, 368) = 177.96, p < .001, R2 = .33, with the regression model reflecting a large effect size, f2 = .49, suggesting a negative association.

Paths aL and b being jointly statistically significant suggest an indirect effect of a culturally diverse Canadian identity on racism through valuing cultural diversity at low identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. The indirect effect was further supported by the coefficient representing the indirect effect (path aL x path b) falling within a negative confidence interval, b = -.24, SE = .05, 98.7% CI [-.38, -.12]. However, paths aH and b 77 not being jointly statistically significant suggest the lack of an indirect effect of a culturally diverse Canadian identity on racism through valuing cultural diversity at high identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. The lack of an indirect effect was further supported by the coefficient representing the indirect effect (path aH x path b) falling within a confidence interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, b = -.07, SE = .08, 98.7% CI [-.26, .12].

As can be seen in Figure 3a, the moderated mediation suggests that when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is low a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be negatively associated with racism by way of an increase in valuing cultural diversity; however, valuing cultural diversity does not mediate the negative association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and racism when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is high, supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4.

4.3.3.1.2 Accepting cultural diversity as a mediator

As can be seen in Table 913, the regression coefficients representing the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and accepting cultural diversity at low identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (path aL) and high identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (path aH) fell within confidence intervals that were neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, suggesting that a culturally diverse Canadian identity is not associated with accepting cultural diversity at any level of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. Additionally, the regression coefficient representing the association between accepting cultural diversity and racism (path b) also fell within a confidence interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, suggesting that accepting cultural

13 Non-statistically significant results of the joint significance tests in Study 3 are not being reported in-text for the sake of brevity. 78 diversity and racism are not associated. (See Table 13 in Appendix R for a summary of the regression model statistics.) As can be seen in Figure 3b, accepting cultural diversity did not mediate the negative association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and racism at either level of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup, providing no support for

Hypotheses 3 and 4.

4.3.3.1.3 Tolerating cultural diversity as a mediator

As can be seen in Table 9, the regression coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and tolerating cultural diversity at low identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (path aL) and high identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (path aH) fell within confidence intervals that were neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, suggesting that a culturally diverse Canadian identity is not associated with tolerating cultural diversity at any level of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (see Table 13 in Appendix R for a summary of the regression model statistics). However, the regression coefficient representing the association between tolerating cultural diversity and racism (path b) fell within a positive confidence interval, b = .36, SE = .03, p < .001, 98.7% CI [.27, .44], F(1, 365) = 134.39, p < .001, R2 = .27, with the regression model reflecting a large effect size, f2 = .37, suggesting a positive association. As can be seen in Figure

3c, tolerating cultural diversity did not mediate the negative association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and racism at either level of identification with a culturally diverse

Canadian ingroup, providing no support for Hypotheses 3 and 4.

4.3.3.1.4 Rejecting cultural diversity as a mediator

The regression coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and rejecting cultural diversity at low identification with a culturally diverse 79

Canadian ingroup (path aL) fell within a negative confidence interval, b = -.49, SE = .14, p < .01,

98.7% CI [-.86, -.17], F(3, 370) = 40.15, p < .001, R2 = .25, with the regression model reflecting a large effect size, f2 = .33, suggesting a negative association. However, the regression coefficient representing the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and rejecting cultural diversity at high identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (path aH) fell within a confidence interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, b =

.00, SE = .20, p = .986, 98.7% CI [-.50, .48], F(3, 370) = 40.15, p < .001, R2 = .25, with the regression model reflecting a large effect size, f2 = .33, suggesting that when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is high a culturally diverse Canadian identity and rejecting cultural diversity are not associated. Additionally, the regression coefficient representing the association between rejecting cultural diversity and racism (path b) fell within a positive confidence interval, b = .37, SE = .04, p < .001, 98.7% CI [.28, .47], F(1, 372) = 150.77, p <

.001, R2 = .29, with the regression model reflecting a large effect size, f2 = .41, suggesting a positive association.

Paths aL and b being jointly statistically significant suggest an indirect effect of a culturally diverse Canadian identity on racism through rejecting cultural diversity at low identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. The indirect effect was further supported by the coefficient representing the indirect effect (path aL x path b) falling within a negative confidence interval, b = -.18, SE = .06, 98.7% CI [-.33, -.05]. However, paths aH and b not being jointly statistically significant suggest the lack of an indirect effect of a culturally diverse Canadian identity on racism through rejecting cultural diversity at high identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. The lack of an indirect effect was further supported by the coefficient representing the indirect effect (path aH x path b) falling within a confidence 80 interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, b = .00, SE = .07, 98.7% CI [-

.19, .19]. As can be seen in Figure 3d, the moderated mediation suggests that when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is low a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be negatively associated with racism by way of a decrease in rejecting cultural diversity; however, rejecting cultural diversity does not mediate the negative association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and racism when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is high, supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4.

4.3.3.2 A Favourable Minority Evaluation

4.3.3.2.1 Valuing cultural diversity as a mediator

As with racism, the joint significance test for a favourable minority evaluation suggested a positive association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and valuing cultural diversity at low identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (path aL), but not at high identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (path aH) (see Table 14 in

Appendix R for a summary of the regression model statistics14). Additionally, the regression coefficient representing the association between valuing cultural diversity and a favourable minority evaluation (path b) fell within a positive confidence interval, b = 2.50, SE = .63, p <

.001, 98.7% CI [.96, 4.09], F(1, 305) = 18.14, p < .001, R2 = .06, with the regression model reflecting a small effect size, f2 = .06, suggesting a positive association.

As with racism, paths aL and b being jointly statistically significant but paths aH and b not being jointly statistically significant suggested an indirect effect of a culturally diverse

Canadian identity on a favourable minority evaluation through valuing cultural diversity at low

14 Results of the joint significance tests in Study 3 where the patterns of results are repeated over the analyses for each outcome variable are not being reported in-text for the sake of brevity. 81 identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup but not at high identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (see Table 10 for the joint significance test statistics). As can be seen in Figure 4a, the moderated mediation suggests that when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is low a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be positively associated with a favourable minority evaluation by way of an increase in valuing cultural diversity; however, valuing cultural diversity does not mediate the positive association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and a favourable minority evaluation when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is high, supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4.

4.3.3.2.2 Accepting cultural diversity as a mediator

As with racism, the joint significance test for a favourable minority evaluation suggested no association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and accepting cultural diversity at either level of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. Additionally, the regression coefficient representing the association between accepting cultural diversity and a favourable minority evaluation (path b) fell within a confidence interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, suggesting that accepting cultural diversity and a favourable minority evaluation are not associated. (See Table 14 in Appendix R for a summary of the regression model statistics, and see Table 10 for the joint significance test statistics.) As can be seen in Figure 4b, accepting cultural diversity did not mediate the positive association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and a favourable minority evaluation at either level of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup, providing no support for Hypotheses 3 and 4. 82

4.3.3.2.3 Tolerating cultural diversity as a mediator

As with racism, the joint significance test for a favourable minority evaluation suggested no association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and tolerating cultural diversity at either level of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (see Table 14 in Appendix R for a summary of the regression model statistics, and see Table 10 for the joint significance test statistics). However, the regression coefficient representing the association between tolerating cultural diversity and a favourable minority evaluation (path b) fell within a negative confidence interval, b = -2.42, SE = .68, p < .01, 98.7% CI [-4.24, -.81], F(1, 302) =

12.58, p < .001, R2 = .04, with the regression model reflecting a small effect size, f2 = .04, suggesting a negative association. As can be seen in Figure 4c, tolerating cultural diversity did not mediate the positive association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and a favourable minority evaluation at either level of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup, providing no support for Hypotheses 3 and 4.

4.3.3.2.4 Rejecting cultural diversity as a mediator

As with racism, the joint significance test for a favourable minority evaluation suggested a negative association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and rejecting cultural diversity at low identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (path aL), but not at high identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (path aH) (see Table 14 in

Appendix R for a summary of the regression model statistics). Additionally, the regression coefficient representing the association between rejecting cultural diversity and a favourable minority evaluation (path b) fell within a negative confidence interval, b = -2.53, SE = .73, p <

.01, 98.7% CI [-4.46, -.84], F(1, 309) = 14.13, p < .001, R2 = .04, with the regression model reflecting a small effect size, f2 = .04, suggesting a negative association. 83

As with racism, paths aL and b being jointly statistically significant but paths aH and b not being jointly statistically significant suggested an indirect effect of a culturally diverse Canadian identity on a favourable minority evaluation through rejecting cultural diversity at low identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup but not at high identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (see Table 10 for the joint significance test statistics). As can be seen in Figure 4d, the moderated mediation suggests that when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is low a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be positively associated with a favourable minority evaluation by way of a decrease in rejecting cultural diversity; however, rejecting cultural diversity does not mediate the positive association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and a favourable minority evaluation when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is high, supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4.

4.3.3.3 Support for anti-hate crime legislation

4.3.3.3.1 Valuing cultural diversity as a mediator

As with racism and a favourable minority evaluation, the joint significance test for support for anti-hate crime legislation suggested a positive association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and valuing cultural diversity at low identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (path aL), but not at high identification with a culturally diverse

Canadian ingroup (path aH) (see Table 15 in Appendix R for a summary of the regression model statistics). Additionally, the regression coefficient representing the association between valuing cultural diversity and support for anti-hate crime legislation (path b) fell within a positive confidence interval, b = .66, SE = .10, p < .001, 98.7% CI [.41, .91], F(1, 364) = 61.84, p < .001,

R2 = .15, with the regression model reflecting a small to medium size, f2 = .18, suggesting a positive association. 84

As with racism and a favourable minority evaluation, paths aL and b being jointly statistically significant but paths aH and b not being jointly statistically significant suggested an indirect effect of a culturally diverse Canadian identity on support for anti-hate crime legislation through valuing cultural diversity at low identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup but not at high identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (see Table 11 for the joint significance test statistics). As can be seen in Figure 5a, the moderated mediation suggests that when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is low a culturally diverse Canadian may be positively associated with support for anti-hate crime legislation by way of an increase in valuing cultural diversity; however, valuing cultural diversity does not mediate the positive association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and support for anti-hate crime legislation when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is high, supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4.

4.3.3.3.2 Accepting cultural diversity as a mediator

As with racism and a favourable minority evaluation, the joint significance test for support for anti-hate crime legislation suggested no association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and accepting cultural diversity at either level of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. Additionally, the regression coefficient representing the association between accepting cultural diversity and support for anti-hate crime legislation (path b) fell within a confidence interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, suggesting that accepting cultural diversity and support for anti-hate crime legislation are not associated. (See Table 15 in Appendix R for a summary of the regression model statistics, and see Table 11 for the joint significance test statistics.) As can be seen in Figure 5b, accepting cultural diversity did not mediate the positive association between a culturally diverse Canadian 85 identity and support for anti-hate crime legislation at either level of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup, providing no support for Hypotheses 3 and 4.

4.3.3.3.3 Tolerating cultural diversity as a mediator

As with racism and a favourable minority evaluation, the joint significance test for support for anti-hate crime legislation suggested no association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and tolerating cultural diversity at either level of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (see Table 15 in Appendix R for a summary of the regression model statistics, and see Table 11 for the joint significance test statistics). However, the regression coefficient representing the association between tolerating cultural diversity and support for anti-hate crime legislation (path b) fell within a negative confidence interval, b = -

.65, SE = .11, p < .001, 98.7% CI [-.95, -.39], F(1, 361) = 43.45, p < .001, R2 = .12, with the regression model reflecting a small to medium effect size, f2 = .14, suggesting a negative association. As can be seen in Figure 5c, tolerating cultural diversity did not mediate the positive association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and support for anti-hate crime legislation at either level of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup, providing no support for Hypotheses 3 and 4.

4.3.3.3.4 Rejecting cultural diversity as a mediator

As with racism and a favourable minority evaluation, the joint significance test for support for anti-hate crime legislation suggested a negative association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and rejecting cultural diversity at low identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (path aL), but not at high identification with a culturally diverse

Canadian ingroup (path aH) (see Table 15 in Appendix R for a summary of the regression model statistics). Additionally, the regression coefficient representing the association between rejecting 86 cultural diversity and support for anti-hate crime legislation (path b) fell within a negative confidence interval, b = -.80, SE = .12, p < .001, 98.7% CI [-1.12, -.51], F(1, 368) = 70.95, p <

.001, R2 = .16, with the regression model reflecting a medium effect size, f2 = .19, suggesting a negative association.

Canadian ingroup but not at high identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (see

Table 11 for the joint significance test statistics). As can be seen in Figure 5d, the moderated mediation suggests that when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is low a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be positively associated with support for anti-hate crime legislation by way of a decrease in rejecting cultural diversity; however, rejecting cultural diversity does not mediate the positive association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and support for anti-hate crime legislation when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is high, supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4.

4.3.3.4 Support to ban face coverings in the public sector

4.3.3.4.1 Valuing cultural diversity as a mediator

Appendix R for a summary of the regression model statistics). Additionally, the regression coefficient representing the association between valuing cultural diversity and support to ban face coverings in the public sector (path b) fell within a negative confidence interval, b = -1.06,

SE = .13, p < .001, 98.7% CI [-1.38, -.75], F(1, 365) = 72.19, p < .001, R2 = .17, with the regression model reflecting a medium effect size, f2 = .20, suggesting a negative association.

As with racism, a favourable minority evaluation, and support for anti-hate crime legislation, paths aL and b being jointly statistically significant but paths aH and b not being jointly statistically significant suggested an indirect effect of a culturally diverse Canadian identity on support to ban face coverings in the public sector through valuing cultural diversity at low identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup but not at high identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (see Table 12 for the joint significance test statistics). As can be seen in Figure 6a, the moderated mediation suggests that when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is low a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be negatively associated with support to ban face coverings in the public sector by way of an increase in valuing cultural diversity; however, valuing cultural diversity does not mediate the negative association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and support to ban face coverings in the public sector when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is high, supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4.

4.3.3.4.2 Accepting cultural diversity as a mediator

As with racism, a favourable minority evaluation, and support for anti-hate crime legislation, the joint significance test for support to ban face coverings in the public sector suggested no association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and accepting cultural diversity at either level of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup. Additionally, 88 the regression coefficient representing the association between accepting cultural diversity and support to ban face coverings in the public sector (path b) fell within a confidence interval that was neither positive or negative, crossing over zero, suggesting that accepting cultural diversity and support to ban face coverings in the public sector are not associated. (See Table 16 in

Appendix R for a summary of the regression model statistics, and see Table 12 for the joint significance test statistics.) As can be seen in Figure 6b, accepting cultural diversity did not mediate the negative association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and support to ban face coverings in the public sector at either level of identification with a culturally diverse

Canadian ingroup, providing no support for Hypotheses 3 and 4.

4.3.3.4.3 Tolerating cultural diversity as a mediator

As with racism, a favourable minority evaluation, and support for anti-hate crime legislation, the joint significance test for support to ban face coverings in the public sector suggested no association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and tolerating cultural diversity at either level of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (see Table 16 in Appendix R for a summary of the regression model statistics, and see Table 12 for the joint significance test statistics). However, the regression coefficient representing the association between tolerating cultural diversity and support to ban face coverings in the public sector (path b) fell within a positive confidence interval, b = 1.10, SE = .15, p < .001, 98.7% CI [.74, 1.48],

F(1, 362) = 55.76, p < .001, R2 = .13, with the regression model reflecting a small to medium effect size, f2 = .15, suggesting a positive association. As can be seen in Figure 6c, tolerating cultural diversity did not mediate the negative association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and support to ban face coverings in the public sector at either level of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup, providing no support for Hypotheses 3 and 4. 89

4.3.3.4.4 Rejecting cultural diversity as a mediator

Appendix R for a summary of the regression model statistics). Additionally, the regression coefficient representing the association between rejecting cultural diversity and support to ban face coverings in the public sector (path b) fell within a positive confidence interval, b = 1.22, SE

= .17, p < .001, 98.7% CI [.82, 1.67], F(1, 369) = 72.41, p < .001, R2 = .16, with the regression model reflecting a medium effect size, f2 = .19, suggesting a positive association.

As with racism, a favourable minority evaluation, and support for anti-hate crime legislation paths aL and b being jointly statistically significant but paths aH and b not being jointly statistically significant suggested an indirect effect of a culturally diverse Canadian identity on a support to ban face coverings in the public sector through rejecting cultural diversity at low identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup but not at high identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (see Table 12 for the joint significance test statistics). As can be seen in Figure 6d, the moderated mediation suggests that when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is low a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be negatively associated with support to ban face coverings in the public sector by way of a decrease in rejecting cultural diversity; however, rejecting cultural diversity does not mediate the negative association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and support to 90 ban face coverings in the public sector when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is high, supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4.

4.4 Discussion

The aim of Study 3 was to examine the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity, the VATR-CDR Model, intergroup relations, and attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation. Additionally, Study 3 aimed to examine whether identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup impacts those associations. Results of Study 3 suggest that a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be associated with positive intergroup relations and support for pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation. The results also suggest that a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be positively associated with valuing cultural diversity and negatively associated with rejecting cultural diversity, but may not be associated with accepting or tolerating cultural diversity.

The results of Study 3 also suggest that valuing cultural diversity may be associated with positive intergroup relations and more supportive attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation, and that rejecting cultural diversity may be associated with less positive intergroup relations and less supportive attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation. Results also suggest that tolerating cultural diversity may also be associated with less positive intergroup relations and less supportive attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation, and that accepting cultural diversity may not be associated with intergroup relations and attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation at all.

These results provide support for the predictions of the VATR-CDR Model.

Additionally, the results of Study 3 suggest that the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations, and support for pro-cultural diversity 91 policies and legislation may be mediated by some responses that comprise the VATR-CDR

Model. Specifically, the results suggest that the association between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations, and support for pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation may occur by way of an increase in valuing cultural diversity and a decrease in rejecting cultural diversity, in particular when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is low but not when such identification is high.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

5.1 Summary

The aim of the present studies was to examine whether a culturally diverse Canadian identity can be assessed, and the association between such an identity and positive intergroup relations, and attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation that contribute toward attaining equality. The present studies also aimed to examine the predictions of the

VATR-CDR Model, its association with attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation, and whether the model mediates the associations between a culturally diverse

Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations, and attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation. Finally, the present studies aimed to examine the moderating role of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup on the associations between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations, and attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation being mediated by the VATR-CDR Model.

The results suggest that a culturally diverse Canadian identity can be assessed, providing novel empirical evidence supporting the perceived culturally diverse nature of the Canadian identity. Although cultural diversity has been identified as a defining feature of the Canadian identity (Guimond et al., 2013; Kymlicka, 2012; Lalonde, 2002; Safdar, 2017) and the Canadian 92 identity has been acknowledged as being a culturally diverse identity that is inclusive and representative of various cultural groups (e.g., Amiot et al., 2007; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000;

Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999) the operationalization of the Canadian identity in such a manner has not been examined. Furthermore, the association between understanding the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse and positive intergroup relations has not been examined. As such, results of the present studies also provide novel insight suggesting an association between the perceived culturally diverse nature of the Canadian identity, and positive intergroup relations, and support for pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation.

Results also provided support for the predictions of the VATR-CDR Model, suggesting that valuing cultural diversity may be associated with positive intergroup relations and pro- cultural diversity policies and legislation, whereas rejecting and tolerating cultural diversity may be associated with less positive intergroup relations and anti-cultural diversity policies and legislation. Additionally, the results suggest that accepting cultural diversity may not be associated with intergroup relations, and attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation. These results provide support for the utility of the VATR-CDR model in shaping intergroup relations, and attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation. In line with results of Hjerm and colleagues’ (2019) recent study aiming to unpack the confounding of tolerance and a lack of prejudice, the results of the present study suggest valuing may be more conducive to positive intergroup relations and group equality than tolerating and/or accepting cultural diversity are, responses which in past research have been assumed to be synonymous with positive intergroup relations.

Results also suggested that a culturally diverse Canadian identity may be associated with the VATR-CDR Model. More specifically, such an identity appeared to be positively associated 93 with valuing cultural diversity, and negatively associated with tolerating and rejecting cultural diversity, but did not appear to be associated with accepting cultural diversity. These results provide novel insight suggesting that the perceived culturally diverse nature of the Canadian identity may help to elicit responses to cultural diversity that are conducive to positive intergroup relations and support for pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation, and inhibit responses that may hinder positive intergroup relations and support for pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation. That notion was further supported by some responses that comprise the VATR-CDR

Model mediating the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations, and attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation. More specifically, the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity, and positive intergroup relations and pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation appeared to occurred by an increase in valuing cultural diversity and a decrease in rejecting cultural diversity.

Counterintuitively, the results suggested that the mediating effect of some responses that comprise the VATR-CDR Model on the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations, and attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation is more likely to occur for people who identify less with a culturally diverse

Canadian ingroup but less likely to occur for those who identify more with a culturally diverse

Canadian ingroup. More specifically, when such identification is low, the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity, and positive intergroup relations and pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation may occur by an increase in valuing cultural diversity and a decrease in rejecting cultural diversity. That the mediating roles of valuing and rejecting cultural diversity were present when identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup was low but not when it was high may seem counterintuitive. One might assume that it would be when people 94 identify more strongly with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup that their valuing of cultural diversity may increase and their rejection of cultural diversity may decrease as a result of understanding the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse. However, for those who identify more strongly with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup, there may be a ceiling effect for the mediation because these individuals would already be more inclined to value cultural diversity and to not reject cultural diversity. As such, for these individuals, understanding the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse may not add to their inclinations to value cultural diversity and to not reject cultural diversity. Alternatively, those who identify less with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup may increase valuing cultural diversity and decrease rejecting cultural diversity by understanding the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse. These results provide novel insight into how people who do not identify with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup may respond more positively to cultural diversity and, in turn, have more positive attitudes toward culturally diverse others and support for pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation that contribute toward attaining group equality.

It should be noted that the construct of a culturally diverse Canadian identity, the predictor variable in the present studies, and identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup, the moderator variable in Study 3, are conceptually similar. To some extent both represent self-categorizing as a member of a common social ingroup of diverse Canadians. The correlation between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup in Study 3 was high supporting the conceptual similarity of the two measures, indicating a possible issue of multicollinearity. In particular, the mediating role of the

VATR-CDR Model at higher identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup but not at lower identification could be because such high identification and a culturally diverse Canadian 95 identity are accounting for the same variance in predicting the VATR-CDR Model. However, the construct of a culturally diverse Canadian identity was theoretically proposed as the predictor variable. Manipulating a culturally diverse Canadian identity rather than measuring for it may have helped to address this issue.

It should also be noted that the mediating roles of some of the responses that comprise the

VATR-CDR Model on the associations between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and positive intergroup relations differed between Study 2 and Study 3. In Study 2 valuing, tolerating, and rejecting cultural diversity mediated the associations; however, in Study 3 only valuing and rejecting cultural diversity mediated the associations. Accounting for individual level identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup on the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity and tolerating cultural diversity in Study 3 resulted in the mediating role of tolerating cultural diversity found in Study 2 disappearing. It appears as though when individual level differences in identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is considered, understanding the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse may not be associated with tolerating cultural diversity. Such an outcome suggests that individual level differences in identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup is a better predictor of tolerance toward cultural diversity than understanding the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse, wherein such identification and tolerating cultural diversity may be negatively associated. That the mediating role of tolerating cultural diversity changed from Study 2 to Study

3 as a result of accounting for identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup displays the importance of accounting for the interaction between individual level variables and societal level constructs related to cultural diversity when examining how intergroup relations can be improved (Ramos et al., 2016). However, the conceptual similarity between the construct of a 96 culturally diverse Canadian identity and identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup, and a possible issue of multicollinearity, may also be a factor for the mediating role of tolerating cultural diversity changing from Study 2 to Study 3.

Additionally, it should be noted that all of the variables examined in the present studies are cognitive constructs, rather than observable variables, whose associations may be confounded, limiting an understanding of the direction of associations between these variables.

Given that the study of psychology inherently focuses on cognitive constructs and processes such confounding remains a weakness of scientific psychological research. However, study design and statistical analyses can help to address such confounding, as can theory. For instance, the associations between a culturally diverse Canadian identity as a predictor variable, and positive intergroup relations and group equality as outcome variables in the present studies were supported by mediation analyses that support suggesting a culturally diverse Canadian identity is associated with positive intergroup relations and group equality by way of some responses that comprise the VATR-CDR Model.

Furthermore, there is extensive support for the notion that collective social identities are the impetus of cognitive processes and behaviours related to intergroup relations. Indeed, the long-standing and extensively supported social identity approaches to intergroup behaviour, combining both Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and its extension, Self-

Categorization Theory (Turner et al., 1987), support that social identities derived from the perceptions of social groups motivates thoughts and behaviour related to intergroup relations, rather than intergroup relations influencing the formation of social identities (see Taylor &

Moghaddam, 1994; Stangor, 2004). Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and the body of research supporting it demonstrates that social identities derived from group membership 97 guide perception of the world and memory processes (e.g., Hackel, et al., 2014; Van Bavel &

Cunningham, 2012). People’s social identities guide what they attend to and how they perceive their environment. For example, a South Asian Canadian who sees herself as a member of the group “South Asian” is more likely to notice and to view positively a news report of Premier

Trudeau attending an event within the South Asian community than is someone who does not see herself as a member of the group “South Asian” and who does not derive a sense of identity from it. Therefore, the suggestion that a culturally diverse Canadian identity may predict positive intergroup relations and group equality is theoretically supported by widely-held social identity approaches to intergroup behaviour in the field of social psychology.

5.2 Implications

Results of the present studies suggest that understanding the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse, as is intended by Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy, may be conducive to positive intergroup relations, and support for pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation. Additionally, the results suggest that such an understanding of the Canadian identity may help to elicit valuing cultural diversity, and supress tolerating and rejecting cultural diversity. Moreover, results suggest that understanding the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse may be conducive to positive intergroup relations, and support for pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation, by way of an increase in valuing cultural diversity and a decrease in rejecting cultural diversity for those who do not identify with a culturally diverse

Canadian ingroup. These results provide novel insight into the effectiveness of the identity- focused psychosocial process built into Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy on achieving the policy’s goals of fostering positive intergroup relations and group equality, which complements existing research explaining how the policy is associated with those goals. For instance, in a 98 cross-national study Guimond and colleagues (2013) have found evidence suggesting that in the

Canadian context wherein a pro-cultural diversity policy has been adopted, pro-cultural diversity norms are higher, and have a direct effect on people’s personal pro-cultural diversity attitudes, attitudes then have a direct effect on decreasing prejudice. In line with that research, the results of the present studies suggest that Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy may be associated with positive intergroup relations and group equality by the Canadian identity being understood as being inherently culturally diverse. Accordingly, efforts and resources to implement that aspect of the policy that focuses on the understanding of the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse would be fruitful.

Promoting the Canadian identity to be understood as being inherently culturally diverse, as is intended by Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy in order to help foster positive intergroup relations and group equality, can be done under some of the existing programs of the policy. For instance, Program III of the policy titled “Ethnic Histories” was developed to write and distribute the historical contributions of different cultural groups in Canada so that those contributions are recognized as being valuable. Under that program, different cultural groups and their historical contributions can be portrayed as being an inherent part of the Canadian identity, aligning with the policy’s statement that “… cultural pluralism is the very essence of Canadian identity”

(Government of Canada, 1971, p. 8580). Such a writing and message can then be advertised through various media sources including television, radio, and social media, as well as being incorporated into public statements made by government officials (e.g., in the Prime Minister’s annual Multiculturalism Day statements). Such a message can also be delivered to Canadians by way of the multiculturalism program undertaken by the National Film Board under Program VI of the policy titled “Programs of the Federal Cultural Agencies” which aimed to produce films 99 documenting the historical contributions of different cultural groups. Disseminating the message that the Canadian identity be understood as being inherently culturally diverse under the implementation of Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy could therefore help foster positive intergroup relations and group equality.

Results of the present studies also suggest that the widely-held assumption that tolerating and/or accepting cultural diversity (or multiculturalism more broadly) is synonymous with positive intergroup relations (Berry, 1984, 2001; 2006, 2013; Berry & Kalin, 1995; Berry et al.,

1977) may require further examination. Instead, results provided support for the predictions of the VATR-CDR model suggesting that tolerating cultural diversity may be associated with less positive intergroup relations, and with support for anti-cultural diversity policies and legislation that hinders equality. Results also suggest that accepting cultural diversity may not contribute to either positive or poor intergroup relations, or to attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation. Moreover, results of the present studies suggest that valuing cultural diversity may instead be more conducive to positive intergroup relations, and support for pro- cultural diversity policies and legislation that contribute toward attaining equality. Canada’s

Multiculturalism Policy may, therefore, benefit from the utility of the VATR-CDR Model by incorporating promoting valuing cultural diversity into how the policy is implemented.

Promoting valuing cultural diversity can be incorporated into the implementation of

Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy by way of public discourse. The way that cultural diversity is spoken about by government officials, in policy and legislation, and the media can influence public perceptions about the appropriate manner in which to respond to cultural diversity (e.g.,

Gaucher et al., 2018). If such discourse focuses on the tolerance and/or acceptance of cultural diversity Canadians may believe the appropriate response to cultural diversity is tolerance and/or 100 acceptance. Alternatively, if such discourse focuses on valuing cultural diversity Canadians may believe the appropriate response to cultural diversity is valuing it. The implementation of

Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy can include public discourse surrounding valuing cultural diversity by way of government officials’ speaking engagements, the phrasing of official documentation, and through media advertising campaigns. Such forums could include brief explanations of the value of cultural diversity to Canadian society, such as fostering perspective taking, more complex thinking, creativity, and more efficient problem-solving, which can benefit society broadly (Galinksy et al., 2015; Kirmayer, 2019; Phillips et al, 2014). Canada’s

Multiculturalism Policy can, therefore, be implemented to change public discourse positioning cultural diversity as something to be valued, rather than tolerated or accepted, and, in turn, help foster positive intergroup relations and group equality.

That Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy can be implemented to include disseminating the message that the Canadian identity be understood as being inherently culturally diverse and the value of cultural diversity to society broadly by way of various media sources and public discourse is both feasible and encouraging. Through these avenues Canadians who may not identify with cultural diverse others on an individual level, but who can conceptually understand the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse and who can see the value in cultural diversity may be more likely to evaluate and treat culturally diverse others positively, and to support pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation that contribute toward attaining equality.

The results of the present study also have practical implications for other cultural diversity related policies and legislation, in addition to Canada’ s Multiculturalism Policy. For instance, attitudes toward anti-hate crime legislation was examined as an outcome variable in

Study 3. The increasing rate of race-motivated hate crimes in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2020) 101 speaks to the need for policies and legislation to protect targets of such crimes. However, in

Canada hate-motivated crimes are in and of themselves not chargeable offences under the

Canadian Criminal Code (1985). Rather, a judge may impose a harsher sentence if a crime was motivated by hate. However, public support to enact anti-hate crime legislation could be the inception of legislation criminalizing such acts in order to diminish race-motivated hate crimes.

Additionally, support to ban face coverings in the public sector was also examined as an outcome variable in Study 3. Quebec recently passed Bill 21 (2019) which bans public sector employees from wearing any religious symbols while at work. Such a ban prevents those for whom wearing religious symbols is important to their sense of self (e.g., Muslim women wearing the hijab) from equal access to careers they aspire to have. However, public support has resulted in legal action to suspend Bill 21 (2019), with those efforts ongoing. Therefore, public support for policies or legislation that contribute toward attaining equality, or opposition toward those that perpetuate discrimination can impact whether such policies and legislation are adopted or enacted, or repealed. The results of the present studies suggest that understanding the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse and valuing cultural diversity could contribute toward such public support.

5.3 Limitations and Future Research Direction

The construct of a culturally diverse Canadian identity and the measure of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup are conceptually similar and were highly correlated in

Study 3, which may indicate issues of multicollinearity suggesting the results of the moderated mediations in Study should be interpreted with caution. In order to tease these two constructs apart, future studies should manipulate a culturally diverse Canadian identity in an experimental design rather than measuring for it. 102

As is generally the case for newly proposed constructs, the psychometric properties of the researcher generated measures in the present studies require further examination. The results of the present studies should be replicated using different samples, including community samples, in order to further assess the reliability and validity of a culturally diverse Canadian identity and the VATR-CDR Model. Similarly, the psychometric properties of the measures of support for anti-hate crime legislation and support to ban face coverings in the public sector require further examination and should also be assessed using different samples. Such further examination is particularly relevant to the measure of support to ban face coverings in the public sector given that the resulting measure was comprised of only two items.

The construct of a culturally diverse Canadian identity and the VATR-CDR Model could also be assessed in other ways and future studies should be conducted using alternative methods of assessing them. For instance, focus groups discussing the perceived culturally diverse nature of the Canadian identity could be conducted to provide additional information about how such an identity is understood and to generate additional items to measure it as a construct. In regards to the VATR-CDR Model, future studies should attempt to distinguish between these different responses to cultural diversity using other methods such as generating items to measure them as distinct constructs, and the psychometric properties of those measures assessed for reliability and validity over different samples.

Alternate ways of assessing the perceived culturally diverse nature of the Canadian identity and responses that comprise the VATR-CDR Model should also be used to further examine their association with intergroup relations, and other related outcomes such as attitudes toward cultural diversity related policies and legislation. Doing so would provide further support for the associations found in the present studies. Additionally, future studies using the methods 103 of assessing the perceived culturally diverse nature of the Canadian identity and responses that comprise the VATR-CDR Model used in the present studies, and alternate ways to assess them should be included in study designs other than a cross-sectional study design to examine their causal associations with intergroup relations, and other related outcomes. Longitudinal and/or experimental study designs could allow for causal conclusions between these variables to be drawn, which is particularly important given that the focus of psychological research is inherently on cognitive constructs and processes which can confound the associations between variables, limiting causal conclusions to be drawn. For instance, future studies could examine whether randomly assigning participants to an experimental condition manipulating understanding the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse is associated with positive intergroup relations and support for group equality as compared to a control condition, and whether the outcomes persist over different time points. Future studies could also examine the valence of intergroup relations and group equality across experimental conditions manipulating each of the responses that comprise the VATR-CDR Model and a control condition, and whether those outcomes persist over different time points.

Additionally, in order to help address the limitations that are inherently present in psychological research as a result of studying cognitive constructs and processes, future studies should assess the associations between a culturally diverse Canadian identity, identification with culturally diverse others, and the VATR-CDR Model, and observable outcome variables. One such observable outcome may be whether or not participants sign a petition in support of pro- cultural diversity policies and legislation, rather than measuring their support for such policies and legislation. Such an examination would support the notion that cognitive constructs related to cultural diversity can influence intergroup behaviour. 104

In this thesis I examined whether the Canadian identity could be understood as being inherently culturally diverse, its association with positive intergroup relations and group equality, the predictions of the VATR-CDR Model, and the role of identification with a culturally diverse

Canadian ingroup using samples of majority White participants. Future studies should be conducted to replicate the present studies using participants from different minority cultural groups. Doing so would allow for an examination of the association between understanding the

Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse and the VATR-CDR Model, and intergroup relations and support for equality among various visible minority groups. Such an examination would provide a more complete picture of how positive intergroup relations and group equality may be achieved in Canada.

5.4 Conclusion

In this thesis I have provided novel empirical evidence suggesting that the qualitatively unique feature of the Canadian identity, being the perception that it is culturally diverse, can be assessed. I have also provided novel empirical evidence suggesting that understanding the

Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse is associated with positive intergroup relations, and with support for pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation that can contribute toward attaining equality. Additionally, I have provided novel empirical evidence suggesting that valuing cultural diversity may be more conducive to positive intergroup relations and group equality than tolerating or accepting cultural diversity. Furthermore, I have provided novel empirical evidence suggesting that Canadians who do not identify with culturally diverse others may respond to cultural diversity more positively by understanding the Canadian identity as being inherently culturally diverse and may, in turn, engage in positive intergroup relations, and support pro-cultural diversity policies and legislation. Taken together, these results provide novel 105 insight into the effectiveness of the identity-focused psychosocial process built into Canada’s

Multiculturalism Policy in achieving its goals that complements existing research explaining how pro-cultural diversity policies may be associated with positive intergroup relations and group equality.

106

REFERENCES

Amiot, C. E., de la Sablonnière, R., Terry, D. J., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Integration of social

identities in the self: Toward a cognitive-developmental model. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 11, 364-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307304091

An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State, SQ, c 12 (2019)

Angus Reid Group (1991). Multiculturalism and Canadians: Attitude Study 1991 National

Survey Report. Submitted to Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada.

Antonio, A. L., Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., Kenny, D. A., Levin, S., & Milem, J. F. (2004). Effects

of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students. Psychological Science, 15, 507-

510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00710.x

Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). Amos 23.0 User's Guide. Chicago: IBM SPSS.

Banting, K. & Kymlicka, W. (2003). Do multiculturalism policies erode the welfare state?

Luxemburg Income Study Working Paper Series, No. 366. Retrieved from

https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/95602

Beaton, A. M., Monger, T., Leblanc, D., Bourque, J., Levi, Y., Joseph, D. J., Richard, J.,

Bourque, P., & Chouinard, O. (2012). Crossing the divide: The common in-group identity

model and intergroup affinity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 365-

376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.12.003

Berry, J. W. (1984). Multicultural policy in Canada: A social psychological analysis. Canadian

Journal of Behavioural Science, 16, 353-370. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080859

Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 615-631.

https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00231

Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 29, 697-712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013 107

Berry, J. W. (2006). Mutual attitudes among immigrants and ethnocultural groups in Canada.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 719-734.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.06.004

Berry, J. W. (2013). Research on multiculturalism in Canada. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 37, 663–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.09.005

Berry, J. W. & Hou, F. (2016). Immigrant acculturation and wellbeing in Canada. Canadians

Psychology, 57, 254-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cap0000064

Berry J. W. & Kalin, R. (1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: An overview of the

1991 national survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 27, 301-320.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0008-400X.27.3.301

Berry, J. W., Kalin, R., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Multiculturalism and Ethnic Attitudes in

Canada. Ottawa, ON: Supply and Services Canada.

Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation,

identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 303-332.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00256.x

Berry, J. W. & Sabatier, C. (2011). The acculturation and adaptation of second-generation

immigrant youth in Toronto and Montreal. In S. S. Chuang & R. P. Moreno (Ed), (2011),

Immigrant Children: Change, Adaptation, and Cultural Transformation (pp. 125-148).

Lanham: Lexington.

Bhatt, G., Tonks, R. G., & Berry, J. W. (2013). Culture in the history of psychology in Canada.

Canadian Psychology, 54, 115-123. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032645 108

Birman, D. (1994). Acculturation and human diversity in a multicultural society. In E. J.

Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Ed), (1994), Human Diversity: Perspective on People

in Context (pp. 261-284). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senécal. S. (1997). Towards an interactive

acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of

Psychology, 32, 369-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075997400629

Boyd, M. & Vickers, M. (2000). 100 years of immigration in Canada. Canadian Social Trends,

58, 2-12. Retrieved from

http://history404.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/49707647/100%20years%20of%20immigrati

on%20in%20Canada.pdf

Cameron, J. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self & Identity, 3, 239-262.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000047

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, being Schedule B to

the Canada Act 1982 (UK), c. 11 (1982)

Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., c. H-6 (1985).

Canadian Multiculturalism Act, R.S.C., c. 24 (4th Supp.) (1988).

Chia, A. L. & Costigan, C. L. (2006). A person-centred approach to identifying acculturation

groups among Chinese Canadians. International Journal of Psychology, 41, 397-412.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590500412227

Costigan, C., Lehr, S, & Miao, S, (2016). Beyond economics: Broadening perspectives on

immigration to Canada. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 48, 19-44.

https://doi.org/10.1353/ces.2016.0006

Criminal Code, R.S.C., c. C-46 (1985) 109

Dench, J. (2000). A hundred years of immigration to Canada. Montreal: Canadian Council for

Refugees. Retrieved from http://ccrweb.ca/en/hundred-years-immigration-canada-1900-

1999

Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J. & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D-W., Oishi, S. & Biswas-Diener, R.

(2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and

negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97, 143-156.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Ufkes, E. G., Saguy, T., & Pearson, A. R. (2016). Included but

invisible? Subtle bias, common identity and the darker side of “we”. Social Issues and

Policy Review, 10, 6-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12017

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Validzic, A., Matoka, K., Johnson, B., & Frazier, S. (1997).

Extending the benefits of recategorization: Evaluations, self-disclosure, and helping.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 401-420.

https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1997.1327

Employment Equity Act, S.C., c.44 (1995).

Environics Institute for Survey Research (2019). Race Relations in Canada 2019: A survey of

Canadian Public Opinion and Experience. Retrieved from https://www.crrf-

fcrr.ca/images/Race_Relations_in_Canada_2019_Survey_-

_FINAL_REPORT_ENGLISH.pdf 110

Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (2001). The immigration

dilemma: The role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national

identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 389-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00220

Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M., & Semenya, A. H. (2005). Attitudes toward

immigrants and immigration: The role of national and international identities. In D.

Abrams, M. A. Hogg & J. M. Marques (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Inclusion and

Exclusion (pp. 317-337). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Esses, V. M., Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Values, stereotypes, and emotions as

determinants of intergroup attitudes. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect,

Cognition and Stereotyping: Interactive Processes in Group Perception (pp. 137-166).

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Esses, V. M., Hodson, G., & Dovidio, J. F. (2003). Public attitudes toward immigrants and

immigration: Determinants and policy implications. In C. M. Beach, A. G. Green & J. G.

Reitz (Eds.), Canadian Immigration Policy for the 21st Century (pp. 507-535). Kingston,

ON: John Deutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy, Queen’s University.

Esses, V. M., Wagner, U., Wolf, C., Preiser, M., & Wilbur, C. J., (2006). Perceptions of national

identity and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration in Canada and Germany.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 653-669.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.07.002

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The

common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias.

European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1-26.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000004 111

Gaertner, S., Guerra, R., Rebelo, M., Dovidio, J., Hehman, E., & Deegan, M. (2016). The

common ingroup identity model and the development of a functional perspective: A

cross-national collaboration. In J. Vala, S., Waldzus, & M. M. Calheiros (Eds.), The

Social Developmental Construction of Violence and Intergroup Conflict (pp. 105–120).

Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42727-0

Galinksy, A. D., Todd, A. R., Homan, A. C., Phillips, K. W., Apfelbaum, E. P., Sasaki, S. J.,

Richeson, J. A., Olayon, J. B., & Maddux, W. W. (2015). Maximizing the gains and

minimizing the pains of diversity: A policy perspective. Perspectives on Psychological

Science, 10, 742-748. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615598513

Gaucher, D., Friesen, J. P., Neufeld, K. H. S., & Esses, V. M. (2018). Changes in the Positivity

of Migrant Stereotype Content: How System-Sanctioned Pro-Migrant Ideology Can

Affect Public Opinions of Migrants. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9,

223-233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617746463

Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha

reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in

Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. Retrieved from

http://hdl.handle.net/1805/344

Government of Canada. (1971). Multiculturalism policy statement to the house of commons.

Ottawa: Hansard. Retrieved from

http://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2803_08/1?r=0&s=1 112

Government of Canada. (2018). Action Plan for Official Languages – 2018-2023: Investing in

Our Future. Retrieved from

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/pch/documents/services/official-languages-

bilingualism/official-languages-action-plan/action-plan.pdf

Government of Canada. (2020). Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage - Local

Festivals. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-

heritage/services/funding/building-communities/festivals.html

Guimond, S., Crisp, R. J., De Oliveira, P., Kamiejski, R., Kteily, N., Kuepper, B., Lalonde, R.

N., Levin, S., Pratto, F., Tougas, F., Sidanius, J., & Zick, A. (2013). Diversity policy,

social dominance, and intergroup relations: Predicting prejudice in changing social and

political contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 941-958.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032069

Hackel, L. M., Looser, C. E., & Van Bavel, J. (2014). Group membership alters the threshold for

mind perception: The role of social identity, collective identification, and intergroup

threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 15-23.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.12.001

Hjerm, M., Eger, M. A., Bohman, A., & Connolly, F. F. (2019). A new approach to the study of

tolerance: Conceptualizing and measuring acceptance, respect, and appreciation of

difference. Social Indicators Research, 147, 897-919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-

019-02176-y

Hogg, M. A. (2003). Intergroup relations. In J. DeLamater (Ed), Handbooks of Sociology and

Social Research. Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 479-501). New York, NY: Kluwer

Academic/Plenum Publishers. 113

Hong, Y. Y. (2009). A dynamic constructivist approach to culture: Moving from describing

culture to explaining culture. In R. S. Wyer Jr., C. Chiu, & Y. Hong (Eds.),

Understanding Culture: Theory, Research and Application (pp. 3-23). New York, NY:

Psychology Press.

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for

determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53-60.

Retrieved from http://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/6596/1/JC-Structural-Equation.pdf

Hornsey, M. J. & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of

subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143-156.

https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_03

Kirmayer, L. J. (2019). The politics of diversity: Pluralism, Multiculturalism and Mental Health.

Transcultural Psychiatry, 56, 1119-1138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461519888608

Kymlicka, W. (1998). Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in Canada.

Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.

Kymlicka, W. (2010). The rise and fall of multiculturalism. International Social Science Journal,

61, 97-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01750.x

Kymlicka, W. (2012). Multiculturalism: Success, failure, and the future. Washington, DC:

Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/TCM-multiculturalism-success-

failureMcConahay, J. B. (1989). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism

scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism

(pp. 91-125). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 114

LaFramboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism:

Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395-412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-

2909.114.3.395

Lalonde, R. N. (2002). Testing the social identity-intergroup differentiation hypothesis: ‘We’re

not American eh!’ British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 611-630.

https://doi.org/10.1348/014466602321149902

Lovibond, S. H. & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (2nd

ed.) Sydney: Psychology Foundation.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A

comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.

Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83

Mummendey, A. & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup

relations. Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review,

3, 158-174. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_4

National Sports of Canada Act, S.C., c. 16 (1994).

Official Languages Act, R.S.C., c. 31 (4th Supp.) (1985).

Outten, H. R., Schmitt, M. T., Miller, D. A., & Garcia, A. L. (2012). Feeling threatened about the

future: Whites’ emotional reactions to anticipated ethnic demographic changes.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 14-25.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211418531

Phillips, K. W., Medin, D., Lee, C. D., Bang, M., Bishop, S., & Lee, D. N. (2014). How diversity

works. Scientific American, 311, 42-47. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-

diversity-makes-us-smarter/ 115

Phinney, J. S. & Devich-Navarro, M. (1997). Variations in bicultural identiﬁcation among

African American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 7, 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0701_2

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general

population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.

https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306

Ramos, M. R., Hewstone, M., Barreto, M., & Branscombe, N. R. (2016). The opportunities and

challenges of diversity: Explaining its impact on individuals and groups. European

Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 793–806. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2261

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Rosenthal, L. & Levy, S. R. (2010). The colorblind, multicultural, and polycultural ideological

approaches to improving intergroup attitudes and relations. Social Issues and Policy

Review, 4, 215-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01022.x

Rosenthal, L. & Levy, S. R. (2012). The relation between polyculturalism and intergroup

attitudes among racially and ethnically diverse adults. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic

Minority Psychology, 18, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026490

Royal Commission of Bilingualism and Biculturalism (1970). Report of the Royal Commission

of Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Book IV: The Cultural Contribution of the Other

Ethnic Groups. Retrieved from http://publications.gc.ca/pub?id=9.699865&sl=0

Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or

bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, self-identity, 116

and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 49-65.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.1.49

Safdar, S. (2017). A psychological discussion of Canadian multiculturalism. International and

Cross-Cultural Section Invited Address, Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) 78th

Annual Convention, Toronto, Canada (June 9).

Safdar, S., Calvez, S., & Lewis, J. R. (2012). Multi-group analysis of the MIDA model:

Acculturation of Indian and Russian Immigrants to Canada. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 36, 200-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.11.006

Safdar, S., Gui, Y., Annis, R. C., Gibson, R., & Berry, J. W. (2017). Intercultural relations in

Canada. In J. W. Berry (Ed.), Mutual Intercultural Relations (pp. 353-374). Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Simpson, S. (2019). Racism. Retrieved from

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-

05/ipsos_global_news_-_racism_-_2019.pdf

Smith, A. & Lalonde, R. N. (2003). “Racelessness” in a Canadian context? Exploring the link

between black students’ identity achievement, and mental health. Journal of Black

Psychology, 29, 142-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798403029002002

Sommers, S. R. (2006). On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying multiple

effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 90, 597-612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.597

Stangor, C. (2004). Social Groups in Action and Interaction. New York, NY: Psychology Press/

Taylor & Francis Group. 117

Statistics Canada (2016). Immigration and Ethnocultural Diversity: Key Results from the 2016

Census. Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-

quotidien/171025/dq171025b-eng.pdf?st=MYmM37HJ

Statistics Canada (2020). Police-Reported Hate Crime in Canada, 2018. Retrieved from

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/85-002-x/2019001/article/00013-

eng.pdf?st=uzJnuAb3

Stroink, M. L. & Lalonde, R. N. (2009). Bicultural identity conflict in second-generation Asian

Canadians. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 44-65.

https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.149.1.44-65

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin &

S. Worchel (Eds.). The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33-48). Monterey,

CA: Brooks/Cole.

Taylor, D, M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1994). Theories of Intergroup Relations: International

Social Psychological Perspectives (2nd Ed.). Westpoer, CT: Praeger

Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.

Tofighi, D. & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis

confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 692-700.

https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0076-x

Turner, J. C. (1991). Social Influence. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).

Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil

Blackwell. 118

Urbiola, A., Willis, G. B., Ruiz-Romero, J., Moya, M., & Esses, V. (2017). Valuing diversity in

Spain and Canada: The role of multicultural ideology in intergroup attitudes and

intentions to reduce inequalities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 56, 25-

38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.10.006

Van Bavel, J. J., & Cunningham, W. A. (2012). A Social identity approach to person memory:

Group membership, collective identification, and social role shape attention and memory.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1566-1578.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212455829

Vaswani, M., Alviar, L., & Giguère, B. (2019). Can cultural identity clarity protect the well-

being of Latino/a Canadians from the negative impact of race-based rejection sensitivity?

Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000302

Vaswani, M., Safdar, S., Newby-Clark, I. R., & Giguère, B. (2020). Canadian identity attenuates

the negative impact of familial rejection on psychological distress [Manuscript in

preparation]. Department of Psychology, University of Guelph.

Verkuyten, M. & Yogeeswaran, K. (2017). The social psychology of intergroup toleration: A

roadmap for theory and research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21, 72-96.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316640974

Verkuyten, M., Yogeeswaran, K., & Adelman, L. (2019). Intergroup toleration and its

implication for culturally diverse societies. Social Issues and Policy Review, 13, 5-35.

https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12051

Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Ravert, R. D., Williams, M. K., Agocha, V.

B., Kim, S. Y. & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). The questionnaire for eudaimonic well-being: 119

Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. The

Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 41-61. The questionnaire for eudaimonic well-being:

Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity

120

Appendix A

Reflection on Research Journey

My dissertation is what was supposed to be a parallel research project to my originally planned dissertation. My original proposal aimed to assess whether minority Canadians identify as Canadian in a manner that aligns with the intent of Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy, and to examine the association of such identification with intergroup relations and well-being. In my proposal I suggested that minority Canadians could identify with their distinct heritage cultural subgroup within a broader inclusive culturally diverse superordinate Canadian identity (i.e., nested Canadian bicultural identities). Such an identity would achieve the policy’s dual goal of maintaining cultural diversity and achieving national unity. I also suggested that such identification would be associated with positive well-being for minority Canadians. I ran the first study of my original proposal using a sample of South Asian Canadians (N = 258).

Unfortunately, the key construct of the proposal, nested Canadian bicultural identities, was not supported. In order to further examine the proposed construct, I ran focus groups with bicultural individuals (N = 55) to explore whether they identified with their two cultures in the proposed nested manner. The results of those focus groups also did not support the key construct of the original proposal.

My parallel research program, which then became the current dissertation, assessed whether majority Canadians identify as Canadian in a manner that aligns with the intent of

Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy, and examined the association of such identification with positive intergroup relations and attitudes toward cultural diversity related policy and legislation that contribute toward attaining group equality. The research presented in my dissertation indicates that for majority Canadians, identification can take the form of identifying with the 121

Canadian identity perceived as being culturally diverse to achieve the policy’s goal of fostering positive intergroup relations and group equality. Both my original proposal and my current dissertation address the idea of Canadians identifying with the Canadian identity perceived as being culturally diverse Canadian identity as intended by Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy; the proposal focused on the perspective of minority Canadians and my dissertation focused on the perspective of majority Canadians.

Both lines of research are grounded in the notion that Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy intends for the Canadian identity to be understood as an inherently culturally diverse identity that represents and includes Canadians of all cultural backgrounds. Both lines of research also rely on the same psychological process to explain the association between identifying as Canadians as intended by the policy and well-being, and intergroup relations and group equality, for my original proposal and my current dissertation respectively. That process is an identity-focused psychosocial process built into the policy that explains how a collective culturally diverse identity that represents and includes Canadians of all cultural backgrounds allows Canadians to self-categorize as members of a common social ingroup, as “we”, rather than members of different social outgroups, as “them”. My original proposal theorized that such self- categorization would contribute toward achieving the policy’s dual goal of maintaining cultural diversity and achieving national unity, and would be associated with positive well-being for minority Canadians. My current dissertation theorized that such self-categorization would be associated with the policy’s goal of fostering positive intergroup relations and group equality from the perspective of majority Canadians. As such, both my original proposal and my current dissertation are grounded in Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy’s intent for the Canadian identity 122 to be understood as inherently culturally diverse, and both examine the impact of the identify- focused psychosocial process built into the policy on achieving its goals.

The evolution of my program of work from its originally proposed path to the current one, therefore, occurred because the central construct from my proposal, nested Canadian bicultural identities, was not supported. Fortunately, my parallel program of research on whether majority Canadians understood the Canadian identity as inherently culturally diverse as intended by Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy proved to be more fruitful. The results of the first and second studies of that line of research supported the counterpart to the construct in my original proposal. Therefore, I decided to pursue this line of examination for my dissertation. It is still my intent, however, to continue a program of work that focuses on the influence of Canada’s

Multiculturalism Policy on how Canadians of various origins understand their identity as a

Canadian. 123

Appendix B

Measure of Understanding the Canadian Identity as Culturally Diverse

Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Moderately Slightly Disagree Neutral Slightly Agree Agree Moderately Agree Strongly

The Canadian identity includes many different cultures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Celebrating cultural diversity is part of being Canadian. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Canadians are people of many different cultural 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 backgrounds.

Even though Canadians have different cultural 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 backgrounds, we are all united as Canadians.

Canadians from all cultural backgrounds are equally 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Canadian.

124

Appendix C

Measure of Racism Toward Visible Minorities

Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Moderately Slightly Disagree Neutral Slightly Agree Agree Moderately Agree Strongly

Discrimination against visible minorities is no longer a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 problem in Canada.

It is easy to understand the anger of visible minorities in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Canada.

Visible minorities are getting too demanding in their 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 push for equal rights.

Visible minorities should not push themselves where 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 they are not wanted.

Over the past few years, visible minorities have gotten 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 more economically than they deserve.

Over the past few years, the government and news media have shown more respect to visible minorities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 than they deserve.

125

Appendix D

Measure of a Favourable Evaluation of a Typical Visible Minority Group Member

Please slide the curser right or left to indicate your overall evaluation of a typical visible minority.

126

Appendix E

Measure of VATR-CDR Model: Valuing Cultural Diversity

“I like how culturally diverse Canada is. I see value in the differences between my culture and other cultures in Canada.

I enjoy being around Canadians that come from cultures that are different than my own. I like hearing Canadians speaking in languages other than English. I also like seeing Canadians wearing different ethnic clothing.

Cultural diversity is beneficial to Canadian society. It results in Canadians valuing their cultural differences and strengthening the country. Cultural diversity brings with it different life experiences, ways of thinking, and perspectives. Canadians that come from different cultural backgrounds can learn from one another and get along well.

Overall, I value Canada’s cultural diversity.”

How much does this description describe how you feel about cultural diversity in Canada?

Not Very

At All Much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

127

Appendix F

Measure of VATR-CDR Model: Accepting Cultural Diversity

“I have come to terms with the fact that Canada is so culturally diverse. I have also come to accept the differences between my culture and other cultures in Canada.

I have become comfortable being around Canadians that come from cultures that are different than my own. I have come to accept that in Canada I will hear Canadians speaking in languages other than English. I have also come to accept seeing Canadians wearing different ethnic clothing.

Cultural diversity can exist within Canadian society. Canadians have accepted that they have cultural differences. Canadians that come from different cultural backgrounds can agree to disagree over their cultural differences and learn to get along.

Overall, I have come to accept Canada’s cultural diversity.”

How much does this description describe how you feel about cultural diversity in Canada?

Not Very

At All Much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

128

Appendix G

Measure of VATR-CDR Model: Tolerating Cultural Diversity

“I hold back from letting people know that I don’t like how culturally diverse Canada is. I also hold back from letting people know that I don’t approve of the differences between my culture and other cultures in Canada.

I am uncomfortable being around Canadians that come from cultures that are different than my own. It bothers me when I hear Canadians speaking in languages other than English and when I see Canadians wearing different ethnic clothing.

Cultural diversity is harmful to Canadian society. It results in Canadians being too different from each other. Canadians that come from different cultural backgrounds have a hard time understanding each other making it difficult for them to get along.

Overall, I just have to deal with Canada’s cultural diversity.”

How much does this description describe how you feel about cultural diversity in Canada?

Not Very

At All Much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

129

Appendix H

Measure of VATR-CDR Model: Rejecting Cultural Diversity

“I don’t like how culturally diverse Canada is. I also don’t approve of the differences between my culture and other cultures in Canada.

I avoid being around Canadians that come from cultures that are different than my own. I get angry when I hear Canadians speaking in languages other than English and when I see Canadians wearing different ethnic clothing.

Cultural diversity is detrimental to Canadian society. It divides Canadians and weakens the country. Cultural diversity brings with it conflicting views making it impossible for Canadians from different cultural backgrounds to get along.

Overall, I don’t put up with Canada’s cultural diversity.”

How much does this description describe how you feel about cultural diversity in Canada?

Not Very

At All Much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

130

Appendix I

Measure of Canadian Identification

Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Moderately Slightly Disagree Neutral Slightly Agree Agree Moderately Agree Strongly

I have a lot in common with other Canadians. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I feel strong ties to other Canadians. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I find it difficult to form a bond with other Canadians. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I don't feel a sense of being "connected" with other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Canadians.

I often think about the fact that I am Canadian. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Overall, being a Canadian has very little to do with how 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel about myself.

In general, being a Canadian is an important part of my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 self-image.

The fact that I am a Canadian rarely enters my mind. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

In general, I'm glad to be a Canadian. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I often regret that I am a Canadian. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I don't feel good about being a Canadian. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Generally, I feel good when I think about myself as a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Canadian.

131

Appendix J

Measure of Canadianism

Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Moderately Slightly Disagree Neutral Slightly Agree Agree Moderately Agree Strongly

I am proud to be a Canadian citizen. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

There are many values which are shared by most 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Canadians.

Shared values are important in binding people together 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 in a nation.

Shared values are more important than differences in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 skin colour in binding people together as a nation.

Shared values are important than differences in language 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 in binding people together as a nation.

More should be done to emphasize the values that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Canadians do share.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms sets out many 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 values which are shared by Canadians.

More should be done to make Canadians feel proud to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 be Canadian citizens.

132

Appendix K

Measure of Endorsing an Assimilation Orientation

Agree

Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Moderately Slightly Disagree Neutral Slightly Agree Agree Moderately Strongly

I feel that visible minorities should adapt to Canadian 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 cultural traditions and not maintain those of their own.

I would rather marry a mainstream Canadian than a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 visible minority.

I prefer to have only mainstream Canadian friends. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I prefer social activities which involve mainstream 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Canadians only.

133

Appendix L

Measure of Depression

Did at all not apply to me to some Applied to me of or time some the degree, to a Applied to me or a considerable degree, the time good of part much, very Applied to me of time most the or

Over the past week …

I couldn’t seem to experience any positive 0 1 2 3 feeling at all.

I found it difficult to work up the initiative to do 0 1 2 3 things.

I felt that I had nothing to look forward to. 0 1 2 3

I felt down-hearted and blue. 0 1 2 3

I was unable to become enthusiastic about 0 1 2 3 anything.

I felt I wasn’t worth much as a person. 0 1 2 3

I felt that life was meaningless. 0 1 2 3

134

Appendix M

Measure of Anxiety

Did at all not apply to me to some Applied to me of or time some the degree, to a Applied to me or a considerable degree, the time good of part much, very Applied to me of time most the or

Over the past week …

I was aware of dryness of my mouth. 0 1 2 3

I experienced breathing difficulty (e.g., excessively rapid breathing, breathlessness in the 0 1 2 3 absence of physical exertion).

I experienced trembling (e.g., in the hands). 0 1 2 3

I was worried about situations in which I might 0 1 2 3 panic and make a fool of myself.

I felt I was close to panic. 0 1 2 3

I was aware of the action of my heart in the absence of physical exertion (e.g., sense of heart 0 1 2 3 rate increase, heart missing a beat).

I felt scared without any good reason. 0 1 2 3

135

Appendix N

Measure of Stress

Did at all not apply to me to some Applied to me of or time some the degree, to a Applied to me or a considerable degree, the time good of part much, very Applied to me of time most the or

Over the past week …

I found it hard to wind down. 0 1 2 3

I tended to over-react to situations. 0 1 2 3

I felt that I was using a lot of nervous energy. 0 1 2 3

I found myself getting agitated. 0 1 2 3

I found it difficult to relax. 0 1 2 3

I was intolerant of anything that kept me from 0 1 2 3 getting on with what I was doing.

I felt that I was rather touchy. 0 1 2 3

136

Appendix O

Measure of Identification with a Culturally Diverse Canadian Ingroup

Disagree

Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Moderately Slightly Neutral Slightly Agree Agree Moderately Agree Strongly

I have a lot in common with Canadians from different 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 cultures.

I feel strong ties to Canadians from different cultures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I find it difficult to form a bond with Canadians from 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 different cultures.

I don’t feel a sense of being “connected” with Canadians 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 from different cultures.

In general, I’m glad to be a member of a culturally 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 diverse group of Canadians.

I often regret that I am a member of a culturally diverse 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 group of Canadians.

I don’t feel good about being a member of a culturally 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 diverse group of Canadians.

Generally, I feel good when I think about myself as a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 member of a culturally diverse group of Canadians.

When I think about being Canadian I often think about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the fact that I am a member of a culturally diverse group.

Overall, being a member of a culturally diverse group has very little to do with how I feel about myself as a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Canadian.

In general, being a member of a culturally diverse group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 is an important part of my self-image as a Canadian. 137

When I think about being Canadian the fact that I am a member of a culturally diverse group rarely enters my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 mind.

138

Appendix P

Measure of Support for Anti-Hate Crime Legislation

1. Committing hate crimes targeting different cultural groups should be a criminal offence.

2. Committing hate crimes targeting different religious groups should be a criminal offence.

3. It should be a crime to spread hate toward different cultural groups.

4. It should be a crime to spread hate toward different religious groups.

139

Appendix Q

Measure of Support to Ban Face Coverings in the Public Sector

1. Public service employees should be required to have their faces uncovered while at work.

2. People who have their faces covered should not be able to receive public services.

140

Appendix R

Summaries of Regression Model Statistics for Study 3 Moderated Mediations

Table 13

Summary of regression models of joint significance tests for the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) and racism (RAC) through the VATR-CDR Model, at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (GRP).

F df p R2 f2 Valuing cultural diversity as mediator Association with DIV 76.46 3, 366 .000 .39 .64 at low GRP (path aL) Association with DIV 76.46 3, 366 .000 .39 .64 at high GRP (path aH) Association with RAC 177.96 1,368 .000 .33 .4*9 (path b) Accepting cultural diversity as mediator Association with DIV 2.42 3,366 .065 .02 .02 at low GRP (path aL) Association with DIV 2.42 3,366 .065 .02 .02 at high GRP (path aH) Association with RAC .01 1,368 .939 .00 .00 (path b) Tolerating cultural diversity as mediator Association with DIV 26.95 3,363 .000 .18 .22 at low GRP (path aL) Association with DIV 26.95 3,363 .000 .18 .22 at high GRP (path aH) Association with RAC 134.39 1,365 .000 .27 .37 (path b) Rejecting cultural diversity as a mediator Association with DIV 40.15 3,370 .000 .25 .33 at low GRP (path aL) Association with DIV 40.15 3,370 .000 .25 .33 at high GRP (path aH) Association with RAC 150.77 1,372 .000 .29 .41 (path b) 141

Table 14

Summary of regression models of joint significance tests for the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) and a favourable minority evaluation (EVL) through the VATR- CDR Model, at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (GRP).

F df p R2 f2 Valuing cultural diversity as a mediator Association with DIV 76.46 3, 366 .000 .39 .64 at low GRP (path aL) Association with DIV 76.46 3, 366 .000 .39 .64 at high GRP (path aH) Association with EVL 18.14 1, 305 .000 .06 .06 (path b) Accepting cultural diversity as a mediator Association with DIV 2.42 3,366 .065 .02 .02 at low GRP (path aL) Association with DIV 2.42 3,366 .065 .02 .02 at high GRP (path aH) Association with EVL 1.68 1, 306 .197 .01 .01 (path b) Tolerating cultural diversity as a mediator Association with DIV 26.95 3,363 .000 .18 .22 at low GRP (path aL) Association with DIV 26.95 3,363 .000 .18 .22 at high GRP (path aH) Association with EVL 12.58 1, 302 .000 .04 .04 (path b) Rejecting cultural diversity as a mediator Association with DIV 40.15 3,370 .000 .25 .33 at low GRP (path aL) Association with DIV 40.15 3,370 .000 .25 .33 at high GRP (path aH) Association with EVL 14.13 1, 309 .000 .04 .04 (path b)

142

Table 15

Summary of regression models of joint significance tests for the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) and support for anti-hate crime legislation (HATE) (EVL) through the VATR-CDR Model, at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (GRP).

F df p R2 f2 Valuing cultural diversity as a mediator Association with DIV 76.46 3, 366 .000 .39 .64 at low GRP (path aL) Association with DIV 76.46 3, 366 .000 .39 .64 at high GRP (path aH) Association with 61.84 1, 364 .000 .15 .18 HATE (path b) Accepting cultural diversity as a mediator Association with DIV 2.42 3,366 .065 .02 .02 at low GRP (path aL) Association with DIV 2.42 3,366 .065 .02 .02 at high GRP (path aH) Association with .03 1, 364 .860 .00 .00 HATE (path b) Tolerating cultural diversity as a mediator Association with DIV 26.95 3,363 .000 .18 .22 at low GRP (path aL) Association with DIV 26.95 3,363 .000 .18 .22 at high GRP (path aH) Association with 43.45 1, 361 .000 .12 .14 HATE (path b) Rejecting cultural diversity as a mediator Association with DIV 40.15 3,370 .000 .25 .33 at low GRP (path aL) Association with DIV 40.15 3,370 .000 .25 .33 at high GRP (path aH) Association with 70.95 1, 368 .000 .16 .19 HATE (path b)

143

Table 16

Summary of regression models of joint significance tests for the association between a culturally diverse Canadian identity (DIV) and support to ban face coverings in the public sector (FACE) through the VATR-CDR Model, at low (aL) and high (aH) levels of identification with a culturally diverse Canadian ingroup (GRP).

F df p R2 f2 Valuing cultural diversity as a mediator Association with DIV 76.46 3, 366 .000 .39 .64 at low GRP (path aL) Association with DIV 76.46 3, 366 .000 .39 .64 at high GRP (path aH) Association with 72.19 1, 365 .000 .17 .20 FACE (path b) Accepting cultural diversity as a mediator Association with DIV 2.42 3,366 .065 .02 .02 at low GRP (path aL) Association with DIV 2.42 3,366 .065 .02 .02 at high GRP (path aH) Association with .01 1, 365 .916 .00 .00 FACE (path b) Tolerating cultural diversity as a mediator Association with DIV 26.95 3,363 .000 .18 .22 at low GRP (path aL) Association with DIV 26.95 3,363 .000 .18 .22 at high GRP (path aH) Association with 55.76 1, 362 .000 .13 .15 FACE (path b) Rejecting cultural diversity Association with DIV 40.15 3,370 .000 .25 .33 at low GRP (path aL) Association with DIV 40.15 3,370 .000 .25 .33 at high GRP (path aH) Association with 72.41 1, 369 .000 .16 .19 FACE (path b)