Please note: This is a preprint for an article accepted for publication with PSPB. It may be subject to editing and other changes.

The nature of Islamophobia: A test of a tripartite view in five countries

Fatih Uenal1,2*, Robin Bergh1, Jim Sidanius1, Andreas Zick3, Sasha Kimel4, and Jonas R. Kunst5,6

1 Department of Psychology, Harvard University

2 Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge

3 IKG, University of Bielefeld

4 Department of Psychology, California State University San Marcos

5 Department of Psychology, University of Oslo

6 Center for research on extremism, University of Oslo

*Corresponding author

Please direct correspondence to Dr. Fatih Uenal, Department of Psychology, University of

Cambridge, Old Cavendish Building, Free School Lane, CB2 3RQ, Cambridge, UK, E-mail: [email protected]

Word count: 9999 (Excluding title page, tables and figures)

Conflict of Interest: None

Ethical Approval: This Study partly was approved by Harvard University-Area Committee on the

Use of Human Subject (IRB 16-1810).

Data Sharing: Please contact the PI for data accessibility.

Preregistration: asPredicted #20961 (http://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=6sk9gm)

Acknowledgements: The research was supported, in part, by a post-doctoral stipend from the

Humboldt University Berlin within the Excellence Initiative of the states and the federal government

(German Research Foundation). We also want to thank the reviewers and editor for their helpful comments. Page 1 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Running head: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 1 2 3 Abstract 4 5 6 This article provides an examination of the structure of Islamophobia across cultures. Our novel 7 8 measure – the Tripartite Islamophobia Scale (TIS) – embeds three theoretically and statistically 9 10 grounded subcomponents of Islamophobia: anti-Muslim prejudice, anti-Islamic sentiment, and 11 12 conspiracy beliefs. Across six samples (i.e., India, Poland, Germany, France, and the USA), 13 14 15 preregistered analyses corroborated that these three subcomponents are statistically distinct. 16 17 Measurement invariance analyses indicated full scalar invariance, suggesting that the tripartite 18 19 understanding of IslamophobiaFor is generalizablePeer acrossReview cultural contexts. Further, the 20 21 22 subcomponents were partially dissociated in terms of the intergroup emotions they are predicted 23 24 by as well as the intergroup outcomes they predict (e.g., dehumanization, ethnic persecution). 25 26 For example, intergroup anger and disgust underpin Islamophobic attitudes, over and above the 27 28 29 impact of fear. Finally, our results show that SDO and ingroup identification moderate 30 31 intergroup emotions and Islamophobia. We address both theoretical implications for the nature 32 33 of Islamophobia and practical interventions to reduce it. 34 35 36 37 38 Keywords: Fear, Anger, Disgust, Islamophobia, Measurement-Invariance 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 2 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 2 1 2 3 The nature of Islamophobia: A test of a tripartite view in five countries 4 5 6 A growing number of people in the West view Islam and Muslims negatively (e.g., 7 8 Gallup, 2013). According to a recent survey, 55% of Europe’s population agreed that migration 9 10 from predominantly Muslim countries should be stopped (Goodwin, Rains, & Cutts, 2017). 11 12 Similarly, Muslims are the least favorably viewed, and most dehumanized, religious group in the 13 14 15 USA (Kteily, Bruneau, Waytz, & Cotterill, 2015; PEW, 2017), with outcomes ranging from 16 17 institutional discrimination (e.g., “Muslim Ban”) to hate crimes (e.g., Elahi & Khan, 2017). In 18 19 many parts of the world, MuslimsFor alsoPeer face arbitrary Review detention, forced sterilization, torture, and 20 21 22 ethno-religious “cleansing” (HRW, 2018; UN, 2018). 23 24 Yet, despite the prevalence of Islamophobia – commonly used to refer to negative 25 26 attitudes, emotions, and behaviors towards the Islamic religion and Muslims – no agreed-upon 27 28 29 operationalization of the term exists (e.g., Bleich, 2011, Helbling, 2012; Klug, 2012; Uenal, 30 31 2016a). This absence is reflected in researchers’ use of disparate items and scales (e.g., Imhoff & 32 33 Recker, 2012; Lee, Reid, Short, Gibbons, Yeh, & Campbell, 2013). Moreover, to the best of our 34 35 knowledge, these measurement approaches have not been validated cross-culturally. Crucially, 36 37 38 due to this dearth of cross-cultural validation, the extent to which Islamophobia’s dimensionality 39 40 is generalizable across contexts remains unknown (Bleich, 2011; Küntzl, 2008; Uenal, 2016a; 41 42 but see Kunst, Sam, & Ulleberg, 2013 for perceived Islamophobia). Furthermore, Islamophobia’s 43 44 45 underlying emotional origins, psychological mechanisms, and its consequences remain 46 47 understudied (e.g., Choma, Hodson, & Costello, 2012; Choma, Haji, Hodson, & Hoffarth, 2016; 48 49 Uenal, 2016a, 2016b, 2017c). 50 51 52 In this paper, we propose, and cross-culturally validate, a tripartite view of Islamophobia, 53 54 which differentiates between psychologically distinct components. Importantly, we also address 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 3 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 3 1 2 3 a current debate over whether Islamophobia is primarily fear-based or, instead, whether it is 4 5 6 better explained as socio-functional threat-based psychological reactions of anger and/or disgust 7 8 to a social group, in addition to fear (e.g., Ketelaar, 2015; Neuberg & Schaller, 2016; Park, 9 10 Schaller, & Crandall, 2007; Plutchik, 1980). Finally, we test two individual difference variables 11 12 (social dominance orientation and ingroup identification), which might explain why some 13 14 15 individuals react with fear while others display anger and/or disgust in response to Islam and 16 17 Muslims (e.g., Choma et al., 2016; Matthews & Levin, 2012). Thus, this paper aims to advance 18 19 research on the nature of IslamophobiaFor Peer by addressing Review persistent theoretical and methodological 20 21 22 issues including Islamophobia’s conceptualization, measurement, cross-cultural validity, 23 24 emotional origins, and societal consequences. 25 26 What constitutes Islamophobia? 27 28 29 Most commonly, Islamophobia is defined as negative, fear-based attitudes and behaviors 30 31 towards Islam and its adherents – Muslims (e.g., Bangstadt, 2016; Conway, 1997; Bleich, 2011; 32 33 Halliday, 1999; Klug, 2012). Accordingly, prominent measures of Islamophobia conflate items 34 35 pertaining to both Islam (religious concept) and Muslims (social group; e.g., Imhoff & Recker, 36 37 38 2012; Helbling, 2012; Lee et al., 2013). Yet, we argue that this comes with several interrelated 39 40 caveats. 41 42 Conflating Individuals and Concepts: Theoretical and Methodological Concerns 43 44 45 In the social psychological literature, stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination 46 47 primarily refer to biases towards individuals based on their membership in a group and not 48 49 towards the cultures, religions, institutions, or ideologies that individuals are a part of (e.g., 50 51 52 Allport, 1954; Brown, 2010). In other words, traditional bias measures assess attitudes towards 53 54 members of social groups (e.g., Jews, Atheists), not the abstract concept the group is adhering to 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 4 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 4 1 2 3 (e.g. Judaism, Atheism). Importantly, research suggests that individuals are evaluated more 4 5 6 positively than their larger impersonal representations (sometimes referred to as a person- 7 8 positivity bias; e.g., Sears, 1983). For example, political party leaders (individuals) are more 9 10 positively evaluated than the political institution they are part of (i.e., Nilsson & Ekehammar, 11 12 1987). Indeed, previous research indicates that Muslims are more positively evaluated than their 13 14 15 less personal representations (e.g., Islam; Leibold & Kühnel, 2006). However, whereas modern 16 17 measures of negativity towards Jews and Judaism differentiate between evaluation of its 18 19 members (anti-Semitism)For and its religion Peer (anti-Judaism); Review Bilewicz & Krzeminski, 2010; 20 21 22 Bilewicz, Winiewski, Kofta, & Wójcik, 2013), measures of Islamophobia do not. 23 24 Although it may seem reasonable to assume that individuals holding negative sentiments 25 26 towards the Islamic religion are likely to also be biased against Muslims (Klug, 2012; Miles & 27 28 29 Brown, 2003), this relationship remains understudied (Uenal, 2016a). Furthermore, the 30 31 conflation between Muslims and Islam has also triggered a heated debate about the 32 33 comparability of Islamophobia with other types of prejudices like anti-Semitism (e.g., Bangstad, 34 35 2016; Bleich, 2011; Küntzl, 2008). In order to address this, here, we explicitly examine both 36 37 38 attitudes about Muslims (individuals) and Islam (religious concept). We expect them to be 39 40 statically distinguishable. 41 42 A Secret Islamization of the West: Integrating Islamophobic Conspiracy Beliefs 43 44 45 Another key component of Islamophobia – Islamophobic conspiracy beliefs – also 46 47 remains understudied and has not yet been integrated into current conceptualizations and 48 49 measurements (O’Donnell, 2018; Swami, Barron, Weis, & Furnham, 2017; Uenal, 2016b). The 50 51 52 belief in an Islamic conspiracy or a secret and ongoing “Islamization of the Western world” (e.g., 53 54 Hafez, 2013) shows resemblance to anti-Semitic narratives (e.g., Zia-Ebrahimi, 2018) and is 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 5 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 5 1 2 3 propelled by the idea of a demographic threat (e.g., Schiffer & Wagner, 2011). Some believers 4 5 6 claim that there is a well-orchestrated campaign (e.g., “EURABIA”) to impose Islamic practices 7 8 on the West. Such beliefs can have highly consequential outcomes. Indeed, they inspired the 9 10 Norwegian terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik, to kill 77 people (Fekete, 2012; Uenal, 2016c). 11 12 Belief in conspiracies has been shown to be distinct from stereotypes or prejudices 13 14 15 (Abalakina-Paap, Stephan, Craig, & Gregory, 1999; Moscovici, 1987). They are also uniquely 16 17 associated with negative psychological and behavioral outcomes (Bilewicz & Krzeminski, 2010), 18 19 including political violenceFor (Bartlett Peer & Miller, 2010),Review and they show strong associations with 20 21 22 anxiety, uncertainty, and a perceived lack of control (e.g., van Prooijen & Douglas, 2018; 23 24 Whitson & Galinsky, 2008). Notably, in the context of anti-Semitism, Bilewicz and colleagues 25 26 (2013) showed that conspiracy beliefs predicted discriminatory behavioral intentions, above and 27 28 29 beyond prejudice alone. Based on this, we expect conspiracy beliefs to be statistically distinct 30 31 from anti-Muslim prejudice and anti-Islam sentiment, to uniquely predict discriminatory 32 33 attitudes and behaviors, and to be primarily associated with intergroup fear. 34 35 Emotional Underpinnings of Islamophobia: Who is Afraid of Islam? 36 37 38 Another understudied issue regards Islamophobia’s emotional underpinning. Closely 39 40 resembling concepts like Homophobia and Xenophobia, Islamophobia has been conceptualized 41 42 from a standard social psychological research perspective, which puts fear and uncertainty about 43 44 45 outgroups at the heart of the prejudiced mindset (e.g., Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, & 46 47 Sanford, 1950; Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003; Wilson, 1973). This fear-primacy 48 49 axiom is derived from research on the authoritarian character and the conservative mind more 50 51 52 generally, which posits that political conservatism is embraced as an ideology because of its fear, 53 54 anxiety, and uncertainty reducing qualities (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008; Jost et al., 2003). Indeed, the 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 6 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 6 1 2 3 most frequently cited psychological definitions of Islamophobia hypothesizes that fear is its main 4 5 6 affective component (e.g., Conway, 1997; Lee et al., 2013). Yet, despite these claims, the role of 7 8 fear in Islamophobia has not been systematically explored. 9 10 A socio-functional threat-based perspective on prejudice argues that different social 11 12 groups can elicit different social threat perceptions, which in turn motivate specific attitudinal, 13 14 15 emotional, and behavioral reactions to effectively mitigate perceived threats (e.g., Neuberg & 16 17 Schaller, 2016; Park, Schaller, & Crandall, 2007). For instance, Choma and colleagues (2012, 18 19 2016) have shown that intergroupFor disgustPeer sensitivity Review is a robust predictor of Islamophobia. Given 20 21 22 this, a socio-functional perspective may be better suited to understanding Islamophobia than 23 24 focusing on fear alone. However, no previous studies have systematically analyzed multiple 25 26 negative emotions (i.e., fear, disgust, and anger) concurrently and, thus, the emotional bases of 27 28 29 Islamophobia and its subdimensions remain unclear. 30 31 Fear, Anger & Disgust: The Potential Moderating Role of Social Dominance Orientation 32 33 and Ingroup Identification 34 35 A further understudied question is whether individual differences modulate the emotional 36 37 38 reactions underlying Islamophobia (e.g., Choma et al., 2016; Matthews & Levin, 2012). Previous 39 40 research has shown that group-based emotions can toggle between fear, anger, and/or disgust 41 42 depending on a variety of other factors, including individual differences (for an overview see, 43 44 45 Mackie & Smith, 2015) such as ingroup identification (e.g., Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000) and 46 47 social dominance orientation (i.e., SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). In many 48 49 Western countries, Muslims and Islam are highly salient categories, frequently associated with 50 51 52 negative connotations such as ideological/value conflicts, terrorism as well as with realistic 53 54 threats (e.g., to countries’ welfare systems; Bleich, 2011; Uenal, 2016a). Thus, individuals highly 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 7 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 7 1 2 3 identified with their ingroup and/or high in SDO may be more likely to perceive Muslims and 4 5 6 Islam as threatening, albeit accompanied with differing emotional reactions. 7 8 A significant body of research shows that negative outgroup affect is robustly predicted 9 10 by SDO across various intergroup contexts (e.g., Sidanius, Cotterill, Sheehy-Skeffington, Kteily, 11 12 & Carvacho, 2017). Individuals high in SDO are concerned with the maintenance of social 13 14 15 hierarchies in general and are especially averse to low-status groups (e.g., Sibley & Duckitt, 16 17 2008; Levin & Sidanius, 1999). Importantly, some studies indicate that individuals high in SDO 18 19 react with more anger andFor disgust, ratherPeer than fear, Review towards subordinate outgroups (e.g., 20 21 22 Kossowska et al., 2008; Matthews & Levin, 2012) that are perceived to threaten the existing 23 24 hierarchical order (Thomsen, Green, & Sidanius, 2008). More specifically, for individuals high 25 26 in SDO, when Muslims and Islam are perceived as threating, anger and disgust should be 27 28 29 amplified in order to reinforce boundaries and preserve the hierarchical arrangement of society 30 31 since these emotions are associated with behavioral tendencies which help facilitate actions to 32 33 mitigate potential threats through aggressive means. Thus, anger and disgust are more reflective 34 35 of a high SDO mindset towards threatening outgroups (e.g., Matthews & Levin, 2012; Sibley & 36 37 38 Duckitt, 2008) while, for individuals low in SDO, given their more egalitarian worldview, the 39 40 effects of existing anger and disgust should be buffered. 41 42 Another such variable that might explain individual differences in emotional reactions 43 44 45 towards ethno-religious minorities is ingroup identification. Individuals who are highly identified 46 47 with their ingroup tend to be more concerned about the well-being and distinctiveness of their 48 49 own group and, in turn, more sensitive to ethnic/religious minority groups as potential threats 50 51 52 (e.g., Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006) and more likely to react with negative intergroup affect 53 54 (e.g., Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000). The relationship between ingroup identification and 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 8 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 8 1 2 3 specific emotional reactions seems less clear-cut than with SDO and has been shown to vary in 4 5 6 conjunction with further variables such as perceived collective support (Dumont, Yzerbyt, 7 8 Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003; Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000). Thus, the specific affective 9 10 response might vary independently of the strength of identification. Importantly, however, 11 12 ingroup identification has been primarily linked to increased ingroup preference and love rather 13 14 15 than outgroup derogation and aggression per se (Brewer, 1999; Levin & Sidanius, 1999). Thus, 16 17 Muslims and Islam might trigger protective strategies to increase feelings of ingroup 18 19 distinctiveness and facilitateFor ingroup Peer solidarity. AgainstReview this background, it seems reasonable to 20 21 22 assume that high ingroup identification might primarily moderate feelings of fear and disgust 23 24 towards Islam and Muslims, such that higher fear and disgust might interact with higher ingroup 25 26 identification as a means to signal ingroup distinctiveness and solidarity via outgroup derogation 27 28 29 while, for individuals with low ingroup identification we expect that group-based fear and 30 31 disgust might be less salient due to low group-based concern. 32 33 Overview of Studies 34 35 We had three main goals, which we tested across two studies, the first of which included 36 37 38 five separate samples. First, to the best of our knowledge, there are no cross-national tests of the 39 40 structure of Islamophobia. Thus, our first goal was to fill this research gap by cross-culturally 41 42 validating our novel Islamophobia measure across five different contexts (i.e., USA, India, 43 44 45 Germany, France, Poland). These five contexts were selected because they differ in 46 47 characteristics such as culture, level of economic prosperity, relative size of Muslim population, 48 49 history of conflict, and levels of immigration – all factors that may contribute to different 50 51 52 understandings (i.e., measurement structures) of Islamophobia. Here, particularly analytic 53 54 attention was given to testing the cross-cultural equivalence (or measurement invariance [MI]) of 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 9 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 9 1 2 3 the scale or “whether or not, under different conditions of observing and studying phenomena, 4 5 6 measurement operations yield measures of the same attribute” (Horn & McArdle, 1992, p. 117). 7 8 Next, despite assumptions about fear in particular underlying Islamophobia, to our knowledge, 9 10 this has also not been directly investigated. Thus, our second goal was to test the relationship of 11 12 our measure with the intergroup emotions of fear, anger, and disgust. Given the cross-cultural 13 14 15 nature of the present research, we were able to test whether the same emotions underpin 16 17 Islamophobia across cultures. 18 19 In Study 2, we aimedFor to further Peer investigate Review the relationship between intergroup emotions 20 21 22 and Islamophobia by analyzing the role of two individual difference variables as potential 23 24 moderators of this relationship in the USA We also aimed to further gauge the scale’s 25 26 psychometric qualities by testing its incremental validity. Here, we predicted that the Tripartite 27 28 29 Islamophobia Scale (TIS) would predict negative intergroup outcomes such as dehumanization 30 31 and ethnic persecution above and beyond well-established predictors. Furthermore, based on 32 33 insights gained from research on anti-Semitism (e.g., Bilewicz & Krzeminski, 2010), we 34 35 expected that the sub-components of anti-Muslim prejudice and conspiracy belief would predict 36 37 38 our criterion variables over and above anti-Islam sentiment. 39 40 For each study, the required sample sizes were calculated via power analyses (G*Power, 41 42 Faul et al., 2009) for each statistical analysis individually to meet an 80% chance to observe a 43 44 2 2 45 small to medium effect (f = .04 - f = .05). Detailed power analyses calculations for each 46 47 statistical analysis are included in SOM (S1). All measures, conditions, quality checks, and data 48 49 exclusions are reported in the respective method sections and in the SOM (see Tables S1-S4). 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 10 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 10 1 2 3 Study 1 4 5 6 Methods 7 8 Participants. The present study was pre-registered (see 9 10 http://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=6sk9gm). We aimed to collect 300 participants in each 11 12 country (for power analyses, see S1 in SOM). In the USA (n = 295) and India (n = 293), the data 13 14 15 were collected via Amazon MTurk. In Germany (n = 293), Poland (n = 297), and France (n = 16 17 288), the data were collected via the online participant recruitment service PROLIFIC. All 18 19 samples were drawn betweenFor March Peer and April 2019.Review The sample was 44.9% female and the 20 21 22 average age was 36.4 (SD = 12.24). Detailed descriptive statistics for each country are provided 23 24 in the SOM (Tables S1-S5). 25 26 Instruments. 27 28 29 Tripartite Islamophobia Scale (TIS). Based on a preliminary study (Uenal, 2016c) and a 30 31 review of existing academic and non-academic literature, 25 items were adapted and/or 32 33 developed to measure the three proposed subcomponents of Islamophobia. This item selection 34 35 was subsequently presented and discussed in various research labs in the USA, Germany, 36 37 38 Austria, Poland, and France and with leading academic researchers in Islamophobia studies. This 39 40 led to making further adjustments and selecting 15 items in total. The final items were translated 41 42 into English, Polish, and French from German and back-translated by native speakers and/or 43 44 45 professional translators (see Tables S14-S15 SOM for all translations). As discussed in the 46 47 introduction, the TIS was designed to capture three distinct aspects of beliefs and attitudes about 48 49 Muslims and Islam (see Table S3 SOM). Cronbach’s alphas were satisfactory for each country 50 51 52 and are listed in the SOM (see Table S4). Anti-Muslim prejudice (average α = .91), anti-Islam 53 54 sentiment (average α = .91) Islamophobic conspiracy beliefs (average α = .95), and TIS 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 11 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 11 1 2 3 aggregated scale (average α = .93), were each measured with five items (see Figure 1). These 4 5 6 items were measured on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (definitively false) to 5 (definitively 7 8 true). In addition to the scale, participants completed the following measures assessed on 5-point 9 10 scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), unless otherwise noted. 11 12 Intergroup emotions. The intergroup emotions of fear, anger, and disgust were assessed 13 14 15 with four items each framed toward Muslims and four corresponding items framed towards 16 17 Islam (e.g., “I feel fearful when I think about Muslims [Islam],” “I feel repelled when I think 18 19 about Muslims [Islam],” “IFor feel angry Peer when I think Review about Muslims [Islam]”; Mackie, Devos, & 20 21 22 Smith, 2000). Due to length considerations, for the main analysis, we computed three variables, 23 24 representing Fear of Muslims and Islam (average α = .97), Anger toward Islam and Muslims 25 26 (average α = .97), and Disgust toward Islam and Muslims (average α = .97). Additional analyses 27 28 29 analyzing each emotion relating either to Islam or Muslims individually, showed no overall 30 31 differences and are provided in the SOM (for correlation analysis see: Table S5; for regression 32 33 analyses see: Tables S6-S7). 34 35 Analysis of data. We first ran Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) in each country to 36 37 38 test the proposed tripartite factor structure of Islamophobia. To this end, we tested if a three- 39 40 factor model would fit the data better than a one-factor model, or theoretically justifiable two- 41 42 factor models, in each analyzed country individually as well as in the overall sample. Next, we 43 44 45 conducted multi-group measurement invariance analysis to test whether the proposed Tripartite 46 47 Islamophobia Scale (TIS) showed cross-cultural equivalence. We then proceeded with the 48 49 analysis of the emotional underpinnings of Islamophobia. We tested whether fear, anger, or 50 51 52 disgust would be most predictive of our scale, by running multiple regression analyses and 53 54 relative weights analysis (Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2015). 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 12 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 12 1 2 3 Results 4 5 6 Descriptive statistics. Table 1 shows the mean scores, standard deviations, and inter- 7 8 correlations among the intergroup emotion variables and the Islamophobia subscales for the 9 10 overall aggregate sample. 11 12 13 14 15 Table 1 16 17 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Between all Variables Across Samples. 18 19 For PeerM Review(SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 20 21 1. Tripartite Islamophobia Scale 2.71 1.06 – 22 23 2. Anti-Muslim Prejudice 2.60 1.12 .94** 24 25 3. Anti-Islam Sentiment 3.12 1.13 .90** .77** 26 27 4. Conspiracy Beliefs 2.42 1.19 .93** .83** .72** 28 29 5. Fear Islam & Muslims 2.20 1.19 .76** .72** .66** .72** 30 31 6. Anger Islam & Muslims 2.04 1.13 .81** .79** .70** .74** .79** 32 33 7. Disgust Islam & Muslims 1.86 1.10 .76** .74** .64** .71** .74** .91** 34 35 ** p < .01. 36 37 38 Factorial structure and measurement equivalence. 39 40 Confirmatory factor analysis. All CFAs were calculated using lavaan version 0.5–23 in 41 42 43 R (Rosseel, 2012). A test of normality of the latent variables indicated a non-normal distribution. 44 45 We, therefore, employed the Satorra-Bentler rescaling method for CFA estimation, as suggested 46 47 by Rosseel (2012). 48 49 50 For the overall aggregate sample, the results revealed that the proposed three-factor 51 52 solution yielded good fit to the data, χ2/df = 5.16; CFI = .98; TLI = .98; SRMR = .029; RMSEA 53 54 = .045 with 90% CI [.041 - .050]; and AIC = 54336.215, and indeed better than a one-factor, 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 13 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 13 1 2 3 χ2/df = 18.85; CFI = .93; TLI = .91; SRMR = .48; RMSEA = .096 with 90% CI [.092 - .100]; and 4 5 6 AIC = 55509.398, and all possible two-factor solutions (see SOM Table S9). Next, the three- 7 8 factor model also yielded better results for each country individually (see Tables S8-S9 in the 9 10 SOM). Figure 1 depicts the results of a CFA with the confirmed three-factor structure for the 11 12 overall aggregate sample. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For Peer Review 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Figure 1. The three-factor measurement model of the Tripartite Islamophobia Scale. The numbers are 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 14 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 14 1 2 3 standardized factor loadings as estimated in a configural model with no constraints. The model χ2 of 4 5 719.837 indicates a lack of an absolute fit (p < .001), which is not uncommon for larger sample sizes (N = 6 1466). However, all the other fit measures indicate that the model has a good model fit: χ2 /df = 5.16; CFI 7 8 = .98; TLI = .98; SRMR = .029; and RMSEA = .045 with 90% CI [.041 - .050]. 9 10 11 12 Measurement invariance analysis. Next, we tested whether our Islamophobia measure 13 14 was cross-culturally equivalent by examining measurement invariance (MI) across the five 15 16 17 samples. The primary objective was to ensure that the measurement models conducted under 18 19 different conditions (geography,For population, Peer culture) Review yielded equivalent representations of the 20 21 same construct (Jöreskog, 1971). The process of establishing MI includes six stages of analysis 22 23 in total, of which only the first three steps are reported here due to space limitations (Steenkamp 24 25 26 & Baumgartner, 1998). For further details on additional analysis (i.e., bi-factor model, second- 27 28 order model), see caption of Table 2. By assessing whether factor loadings, intercepts, and 29 30 residual variances are equivalent in a multi-group factor model (i.e., testing whether we measure 31 32 33 the same underlying construct across the different contexts), we aimed to assure that 34 35 comparisons that are made on our Islamophobia measure are valid across groups. If the first three 36 37 levels of invariance – configural (same factor structure), metric (same factor loadings), and 38 39 40 scalar (same intercept loadings) – across groups are met, comparison of the construct and item 41 42 means across countries are justified. For comparison of effects, however, only the first two levels 43 44 of invariance are required. Following Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998), we adopted a 45 46 “bottom-up” test strategy. 47 48 49 Chi-square difference tests are generally recommended to test for MI by comparing 50 51 nested models. However, the χ2 difference test is influenced by sample size, almost always being 52 53 significant in large samples (Chen et al., 2007). Therefore, we adopted a change in CFI between 54 55 56 nested models of ≥ 0.010 in addition to a change in the RMSEA of ≥ 0.015 or a change in SRMR 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 15 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 15 1 2 3 of ≥ 0.030 (for loading invariance) and ≥ 0.010 (for intercept invariance) as an appropriate 4 5 6 criterion indicating a significant decrement in fit between models following Chen et al. (2007). 7 8 However, Chen et al. (2007) suggested primarily using the change in CFI among the three 9 10 indices for nested model comparisons as the other two are also affected by sample size. 11 12 13 14 15 Table 2 16 17 Multiple-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Fit Measures and Differences of the Invariance 18 19 Analysis. For Peer Review 20 21 22 23 24 Model χ2(df) χ2 CFI CFI RMSEA RMSEA SRMR SRMR 25 26 Configural invariance 909.198(410) – .980 – 0.051 – 0.036 – 27 Full metric invariance 989.972(458) 80.77*** .977 0.003 0.051 0.000 0.054 0.018 28 29 Full scalar invariance 1171.276(506) 144.20*** .970 0.010 0.056 0.005 0.058 0.022 30 31 Notes. Robust SEM Model-fit (Satorra-Bentler correction; Mplus Variant). df – degrees of freedom; CFI 32 33 – comparative fit index; delta CFI – difference in CFI from the previous model in the sequence; RMSEA – 34 root mean square error of approximation, SRMR – standardized root mean square residual. 35 36 *** significant at p < 0.01. 37 Additionally, we also tested an alternative approach to the first-order factor measurement invariance 38 39 analysis by also testing a second-order measurement invariance analysis and a bifactor model of our scale 40 as comparisons. The results indicate that the fit of the first-order and second-order solutions fit the data 41 42 equally good and better than the bifactor models. Results can be obtained by contacting the author. 43 44 45 Table 2 shows the results of a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA). The 46 47 48 relative differences in CFI and RMSEA between the three models were below the required 49 50 threshold of CFIdifference ≥ 0.010 and RMSEAdifference ≥ 0.015 (i.e., suggesting that they have 51 52 equivalent fit to the data), indicating configural invariance, full metric invariance, and full scalar 53 54 55 invariance. As a result, group comparison can be made on valid grounds. 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 16 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 16 1 2 3 Emotional underpinnings of Islamophobia. Having established cross-cultural 4 5 6 equivalence at the metric level, the data further enabled us to test whether our Islamophobia 7 8 measure is primarily associated with intergroup fear – as proposed by the most commonly 9 10 referenced definitions (e.g., Conway, 1997; Lee et al., 2013) – or also by the intergroup emotions 11 12 anger and/or disgust, as implicated by a socio-functional perspective (e.g., Neuberg & Schaller, 13 14 15 2016). To this end, we proceeded by testing whether fear, anger, and disgust are uniquely and 16 17 significantly predictive of Islamophobia and to compare the relative strength of each intergroup 18 19 emotion on our criterion variables.For Peer Review 20 21 22 Given the high intercorrelation between the intergroup emotions, we chose not to rely 23 24 solely on standard multiple regression analysis due to known issues in over- and/or 25 26 underestimating the relative effect sizes within settings of multicollinearity (e.g., Tonidandel & 27 28 29 LeBreton, 2015). As an alternative we chose relative weights analysis (Johnson, 2000), which 30 31 remedies multicollinearity issues by creating new sets of predictors, which are orthogonal to the 32 33 original predictors and provide more accurate estimates of the relative strength of each predictor. 34 35 Specifically, we tested and compared the relative weight of each intergroup emotion on the TIS 36 37 38 as a whole as well as on each of its subcomponents following the approach outlined by 39 40 Tonidandel and LeBreton (2015). Comparing these weights within the sample yields estimates 41 42 about which emotion is relatively more important compared to others in explaining our criterion 43 44 45 variables. We also included results from the traditional multiple regression analyses to display 46 47 the direction of the relationships between intergroup emotions and our criterion variables. 48 49 Table 3 displays the results from the hierarchical regression and relative weights 50 51 52 analyses. Due to length considerations, the results for the hierarchical regression analyses are 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 17 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 17 1 2 3 presented in SOM (Tables S10-S11). Importance weights are interpreted as the proportion of 4 5 6 each variance’s contribution to the criterion value (Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2015); therefore, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 For Peer Review 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 18 of 256

Running head: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 18 1 2 3 higher relative weights are associated with a higher portion of a model’s R2. The rescaled importance weights are the percentage of the 4 5 2 2 6 importance weights’ contribution to a model’s R value. Hence, a higher percentage is interpreted as a higher proportion of the total R 7 8 value. We included the beta values for comparison purposes and to assess discrepancies between them and importance weights. 9 10 11 12 Table 3 13 14 15 Multiple Regression and Relative ImportanceFor of Intergroup Peer Emotions Review on Islamophobia and its Subcomponents in the Aggregated 16 17 Sample (N = 1466). 18 19 Country Predictors Tripartite Islamophobia Scale Anti-Islam Sentiment Anti-Muslim Prejudice Conspiracy Beliefs 20 21 ß IW RIW (%) ß IW RIW (%) ß IW RIW (%) ß IW RIW (%) 22 5 Fear Islam & 0.32*** .23* 34.04 0.25*** .18* 34.05 0.26*** .21* 31.93 0.35*** .21* 36.03 23 Countries Muslims 24 (N = 1466) Anger Islam & 25 0.46*** .25* 36.10 0.50*** .20* 37.81 0.49*** .24* 37.34 0.30*** .20* 33.41 26 Muslims 27 Disgust Islam & 28 0.10** .20* 29.86 -0.01 .14* 28.13 0.10** .20* 30.73 0.18*** .18* 30.56 Muslims 29 30 R2 .69 .52 .65 .60 31 IW .69 .52 .65 .60 32 RIW 100 100 100 100 33 34 35 USA Fear Islam & 0.30*** .24* 33.39 0.29*** .19* 33.93 0.21*** .20* 30.84 0.35*** .22* 35.37 36 (n = 295) Muslims 37 Anger Islam & 38 0.60*** .26* 36.90 0.63*** .22* 37.87 0.56*** .25* 37.53 0.48*** .22* 35.32 39 Muslims 40 Disgust Islam & -0.03 .21* 29.71 -0.15 .16* 28.19 0.07 .21* 31.63 0.01 .18* 29.31 41 42 43 44 45 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 19 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 19 1 2 3 Muslims 4 R2 .71 .58 .66 .62 5 6 IW .71 .58 .66 .62 7 RIW 100 100 100 100 8 9 Germany Fear Islam & 10 0.20*** .17* 25.52 0.15*** .13* 23.87 0.14** .15* 22.79 0.25*** .13* 32.11 11 (n = 293) Muslims 12 Anger Islam & 13 0.37*** .25* 37.48 0.37*** .21* 38.67 0.41*** .25* 39.25 0.19*** .14* 33.26 Muslims 14 15 Disgust Islam & For Peer Review 0.34*** .25* 36.99 0.30*** .21* 37.46 0.32*** .24* 37.95 0.27** .14* 34.62 16 Muslims 17 R2 .67 .56 .65 .42 18 19 IW .67 .56 .65 .42 20 RIW 100 100 100 100 21 22 Poland Fear Islam & 23 0.32*** .20* 35.67 0.25*** .12* 36.13 0.30*** .19* 35.26 0.30*** .16* 35.34 24 (n = 297) Muslims 25 Anger Islam & 26 0.45*** .22* 38.10 0.40*** .13* 39.48 0.52*** .21* 40.46 0.29** .16* 34.84 Muslims 27 Disgust Islam & 28 0.06 .15* 26.22 -0.01 .08* 24.39 -0.03 .13* 24.27 0.18* .14* 29.82 29 Muslims 30 R2 .57 .34 .53 .46 31 32 IW .57 .34 .53 .46 33 RIW 100 100 100 100 34 35 France Fear Islam & 36 0.31*** .24* 32.43 0.28*** .18* 34.95 0.24*** .21* 29.40 0.31*** .21* 33.04 37 (n = 289) Muslims 38 Anger Islam & 0.34*** .26* 34.51 0.43*** .19* 36.48 0.28*** .25* 34.45 0.21* .21* 32.84 39 Muslims 40 41 Disgust Islam & 0.28*** .24* 33.06 0.04 .15* 28.56 0.38*** .26* 36.15 0.33*** .22* 34.12 42 43 44 45 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 20 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 20 1 2 3 Muslims 4 R2 .74 .51 .72 .64 5 6 IW .74 .51 .72 .64 7 RIW 100 100 100 100 8 9 India Fear Islam & 10 0.20*** .21* 30.52 0.21* .17* 31.37 0.08 .18 27.72 0.26*** .21* 32.36 11 (n = 292) Muslims 12 Anger Islam & 13 0.61*** .25* 36.93 0.64*** .20* 37.45 0.55*** .24 37.62 0.53*** .23* 35.75 Muslims 14 15 Disgust Islam & For Peer Review 0.04 .22* 32.55 -0.10 .17* 31.18 0.18 .22 34.66 0.04 .20* 31.89 16 Muslims 17 R2 .69 .54 .64 .64 18 19 IW .69 .54 .64 .64 20 RIW 100 100 100 100 21 Notes. IW, Importance Weight; RIW, Rescaled Importance Weight. Importance weights are relative weights which sum to the R2 of the full 22 23 model. Rescaled importance weights are calculated by dividing the importance weight by the R2 of the model. 24 25 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. 26 27 28 In line with our expectations, all three emotions showed unique and significant contributions in explaining our criterion 29 30 31 variables (see Table 3 and Tables S10-S11 in the SOM). More specifically, intergroup anger was predictive of Islamophobia, above 32 33 and beyond fear, in the overall sample as well as in the individual country analyses in terms of explained variance. Intergroup disgust 34 35 was predictive of Islamophobia in the overall sample and for Germany and France in the country-level analyses. For the USA, Poland, 36 37 38 and India, disgust was not predictive of Islamophobia over and above fear and anger. Regarding the subcomponents, again, anger was 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 21 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 21 1 2 3 predictive of each subcomponent of our scale across all five countries. Disgust was predictive of some subcomponents in Germany, 4 5 6 India, France but not in the USA or Poland (see Table 3). 7 8 Taken at face value, the relative weight analyses indicate that anger showed slightly larger and more consistent relative 9 10 importance weights and explained larger proportions of variance for the TIS as a whole (IW = 0.25, p < 0.05; RIW = 36%), for anti- 11 12 Islam sentiment (IW = 0.20, p < 0.05; RIW = 37%), and anti-Muslim prejudice (IW = 0.24 p < 0.05; RIW = 37%), compared to fear 13 14 15 and disgust. On the other hand, fear showedFor larger relativePeer importance Review weight and explained larger proportions of variance in regard to 16 17 conspiracy beliefs (IW = 0.21, p < 0.05; RIW = 36%). 18 19 Next, we tested whether the relative importance weights between the three emotions were significantly different from each 20 21 22 other (see Table 4). 23 24 25 26 Table 4 27 28 29 Comparing Relative Importance Weights of Intergroup Emotions in Predicting Islamophobia and its Subcomponents Across All 30 31 Samples. 32 33 Country Reference Predictor Emotion Tripartite Islamophobia Scale Anti-Islam Sentiment Anti-Muslim Prejudice Conspiracy Beliefs 34 (Intergroup Fear) LLCI ULCI LLCI ULCI LLCI ULCI LLCI ULCI 35 36 5 Countries Anger Islam & Muslims -0.014 0.041 -0.007 0.045 0.006 0.063 -0.046 0.013 37 (N = 1466) Disgust Islam & Muslims -0.055 -0.002 -0.055 -0.007 -0.036 0.020 -0.063 -0.003 38 39 40 USA (n = 295) Anger Islam & Muslims -0.039 0.079 -0.039 0.081 -0.006 0.096 -0.059 0.058 41 42 43 44 45 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 22 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 22 1 2 3 Disgust Islam & Muslims -0.083 0.011 -0.083 0.012 -0.043 0.053 -0.093 0.017 4 5 6 Germany (n = 293) Anger Islam & Muslims 0.022 0.140 0.032 0.133 0.048 0.171 -0.064 0.072 7 Disgust Islam & Muslims 0.014 0.146 0.015 0.137 0.034 0.171 -0.067 0.083 8 9 10 Poland (n = 297) Anger Islam & Muslims -0.064 0.092 -0.058 0.085 -0.053 0.103 -0.080 0.075 11 Disgust Islam & Muslims -0.124 0.019 -0.104 0.023 -0.130 0.013 -0.103 0.049 12 13 France (n = 289) Anger Islam & Muslims -0.032 0.088 -0.046 0.068 -0.024 0.103 -0.062 0.065 14 15 Disgust Islam & MuslimsFor-0.053 Peer0.082 Review-0.087 0.023 -0.011 0.126 -0.063 0.081 16 17 India (n = 292) Anger Islam & Muslims -0.008 0.097 -0.024 0.084 0.016 0.116 -0.034 0.071 18 19 Disgust Islam & Muslims -0.032 0.061 -0.049 0.045 0.001 0.093 -0.051 0.042 20 Notes. The reference intergroup emotion fear is compared to anger and disgust. If zero is not included in the confidence intervals, weights are 21 22 significantly different from one another. Significant differences are displayed in bold. 23 24 25 26 Fear and anger did not show significant differences in their relative weights in explaining TIS, 95% CI [-.014, .041], anti-Islam 27 28 sentiment, 95% CI [-.007, .045], or conspiracy beliefs, 95% CI [-.046, .013]. However, for anti-Muslim prejudices, the 95% CI 29 30 [.006, .063] did not include zero, and thus the results indicate that anger (IW = 0.24 p < 0.05, RIW = 37%) had a relatively larger 31 32 33 weight size compared to fear (IW = 0.21 p < 0.05, RIW = 31%). In the country-level analyses, anger and disgust did now show 34 35 significant differences in the USA, Poland, or France. However, both anger and disgust were stronger predictors, compared to fear, for 36 37 the TIS, anti-Islam sentiment, and anti-Muslim prejudice, in Germany. Moreover, both anger and disgust were also significantly 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 23 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 23 1 2 3 stronger predictors of anti-Muslim prejudice in India. Table 5 shows the comparison of relative importance weights with disgust as 4 5 6 reference predictor. 7 8 9 10 Table 5 11 12 Comparing Relative Importance Weights of Intergroup Emotions in Predicting Islamophobia and its Subcomponents Across All 13 14 15 Samples. For Peer Review 16 17 Country Reference Predictor Emotion Tripartite Islamophobia Scale Anti-Islam Sentiment Anti-Muslim Prejudice Conspiracy Beliefs 18 (Intergroup Disgust) LLCI ULCI LLCI ULCI LLCI ULCI LLCI ULCI 19 20 5 Countries (N = 1466) Fear Islam & Muslims 0.001 0.055 0.006 0.055 -0.020 0.036 0.003 0.062 21 Anger Islam & Muslims 0.027 0.059 0.035 0.066 0.026 0.059 0.000 0.034 22 23 24 USA (n = 295) Fear Islam & Muslims -0.023 0.077 -0.011 0.085 -0.055 0.041 -0.014 0.093 25 Anger Islam & Muslims 0.018 0.009 0.023 0.098 0.010 0.078 0.005 0.076 26 27 Germany (n = 293) Fear Islam & Muslims -0.145 -0.014 -0.135 -0.016 -0.171 -0.033 -0.085 0.064 28 29 Anger Islam & Muslims -0.047 0.055 -0.040 0.054 -0.041 0.058 -0.053 0.048 30 31 Poland (n = 297) Fear Islam & Muslims -0.021 0.124 -0.019 0.107 -0.014 0.130 -0.047 0.102 32 33 Anger Islam & Muslims 0.029 0.108 0.014 0.091 0.048 0.128 -0.021 0.065 34 35 France (n = 289) Fear Islam & Muslims -0.081 0.054 -0.023 0.087 -0.124 0.010 -0.080 0.063 36 37 Anger Islam & Muslims -0.021 0.040 0.011 0.074 -0.054 0.023 -0.048 0.031 38 39 India (n = 292) Fear Islam & Muslims -0.061 0.033 -0.047 0.049 -0.093 -0.001 -0.041 0.053 40 Anger Islam & Muslims 0.002 0.073 0.008 0.070 -0.011 0.062 -0.002 0.059 41 42 43 44 45 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 24 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 24 1 2 3 Notes. The reference intergroup emotion disgust is compared to anger and fear. If zero is not included in the confidence intervals, weights are 4 5 significantly different from one another. Significant differences are displayed in bold. 6 7 8 9 In the overall aggregated sample, both fear and anger showed significantly larger associations compared to disgust, except for anti- 10 11 Muslim prejudice (see Table 5). Regarding the individual country-analyses, anger was a significantly stronger predictor, compared to 12 13 disgust for the USA and Poland, while fear and disgust did not differ for these countries. Disgust was also a stronger predictor 14 15 For Peer Review 16 compared to fear in Germany (except for conspiracy beliefs). Disgust was also relatively stronger compared to fear in predicting anti- 17 18 Muslim prejudice in India. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 25 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Running head: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 25 1 2 3 Study 1 Discussion 4 5 6 Study 1 lends support for our hypothesis that Islamophobia is best explained as a three- 7 8 factor model, consisting of anti-Muslim prejudice, anti-Islam sentiment, and Islamophobic 9 10 conspiracy beliefs. The Tripartite Islamophobia Scale (TIS) also showed scalar invariance in the 11 12 overall sample. Hence, the TIS seems appropriate for cross-cultural analysis, including the 13 14 15 comparison of mean values. As for the second aim of exploring emotional associations with the 16 17 TIS, the results were partially in line with our expectations that anger and disgust would be 18 19 predictive of Islamophobia,For above andPeer beyond fear.Review In the aggregated sample analyses, fear, 20 21 22 anger, and disgust were all uniquely associated with Islamophobia as a whole as well as its 23 24 subcomponents. However, anger and fear did not differ in their relative weight in explaining 25 26 Islamophobia as a whole. Regarding the analyses of the individual subcomponents, anger was 27 28 29 significantly more predictive than fear of the anti-Muslim prejudice dimensions. Moreover, 30 31 disgust was less predictive than fear of all, except the anti-Muslim prejudice dimension. In terms 32 33 of country-level analyses, we found a more heterogenous picture which we discuss in more detail 34 35 in the general discussion. 36 37 38 Study 2 39 40 The aim of Study 2 was twofold. First, we investigated the moderating role of two 41 42 potential individual differences (i.e., ingroup identification and social dominance orientation) on 43 44 45 the relationship between intergroup emotions and Islamophobia (e.g., Kossowska et al., 2008; 46 47 Matthews & Levin, 2012). Second, we investigated a number of attitudinal and behavioral 48 49 outcomes expected to differentially relate to each subcomponent of the TIS. To this end, we 50 51 52 tested whether our Islamophobia scale would predict negative intergroup outcome variables as 53 54 criterion variables while controlling for further related variables. Moreover, based on previous 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 26 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 26 1 2 3 research on anti-Semitism (e.g., Bilewicz & Krzeminski, 2010), we hypothesized that prejudices 4 5 6 and conspiracy beliefs would be stronger predictors of intergroup attitudes and behaviors focused 7 8 on the overt domination and subjugation of Muslims (i.e., ethnic persecution) than anti-Islamic 9 10 sentiment. 11 12 Methods 13 14 15 Participants. Amazon MTurk was used to collect a USA sample (N = 213) between 16 17 March and April of 2019. The sample consisted of 46.9% women and the average age was 31.70 18 19 (SD = 1.17). Moreover, 14.6%For had Peercompleted high Review school or less, 22.5% had completed some 20 21 22 college, 37.6% had completed a bachelor’s degree, and 8.5% had partially completed or 23 24 completed a graduate or professional degree. Detailed descriptive statistics for the sample are 25 26 provided in the SOM (see Table S2). 27 28 29 Instruments. Tripartite Islamophobia Scale (TIS). The TIS developed in Study 1 was 30 31 administered (anti-Islam sentiment, α = .91; anti-Muslim prejudice, α = .92; anti-Muslim 32 33 conspiracy beliefs, α = .97; TIS aggregated scale, α = .96) together with the same intergroup 34 35 emotions scales (fear of Islam and Muslims, α = .97; anger toward Islam and Muslims, α = .97; 36 37 38 disgust toward Islam and Muslims, α = .97). For the TIS, confirmatory factor analysis replicated 39 40 measurement structure from Study 1 (see Table S13 in SOM). 41 42 Individual difference measures. We administered two additional measures, both scored 43 44 45 on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). 46 47 Social Dominance Orientation. Social dominance orientation was assessed through use 48 49 of the 16-item (e.g., “Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups”; α = .96) SDO- 50 51 52 7 scale (Ho et al., 2015). 53 54 Ingroup identification. Ingroup identification was measured using five items (e.g.; “I feel 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 27 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 27 1 2 3 strongly connected to other Americans”; α = .96) adapted from the collective self-esteem scale 4 5 6 (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992). 7 8 Predictive validation measures. To assess the incremental validity of 9 10 our scale, we administered three additional measures. All predictive measures were scored 11 12 13 on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) unless stated 14 15 otherwise. 16 17 Ethnic persecution. Ethnic persecution was measured by an adapted version (Thomsen, 18 19 For Peer Review 20 Green, & Sidanius, 2008) of Altemeyer’s (1996) posse scale. Six items assess one’s willingness 21 22 to participate in the politically sanctioned persecution of Muslims (e.g., “I would participate in 23 24 attacks on Muslim headquarters if supervised by the proper authorities”; α = .93). 25 26 Anti-Muslim policy support. Support for anti-Muslim policies was assessed by nine 27 28 29 items from Kteily, Hodson, and Bruneau (2016; e.g., “We need to stop accepting Muslim 30 31 refugees into this country, period”; α = .97). 32 33 Dehumanization. Dehumanization of outgroup members (i.e., Muslims) was assessed 34 35 36 with the Ascent of Man scale (Kteily et al., 2015) in which participants rated the average 37 38 ‘evolvedness’ of Muslims from 0-100 (full humanity). We used a reverse score for analysis, with 39 40 higher values indicating more dehumanization. 41 42 43 Analysis of data. First, we tested whether social dominance orientation and/or ingroup 44 45 identification moderate the relationship between the intergroup emotions and Islamophobia. 46 47 Next, to test for the predictive validity of the TIS, we used hierarchical regression analysis by 48 49 stepwise regressing three criterion variables (e.g., ethnic persecutions) on the three 50 51 52 subcomponents of TIS and our individual differences measures. 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 28 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 28 1 2 3 Results 4 5 6 Table 6 shows the mean scores, standard deviations, and inter-correlations among the 7 8 criterion variables and the Islamophobia subscales. All the measures showed significant inter- 9 10 correlations in the expected direction. Additional results are provided in the SOM (Table S12), 11 12 investigating each intergroup emotion separately for Islam and Muslims. 13 14 15 16 17 Table 6 18 19 Means, Standard Deviations,For Scales, Peer and Intercorrelations Review Between Variables (N = 213, USA: 20 21 22 Sample 6). 23 24 M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 25 26 1. Social dominance orientation 2.01 0.97 – 27 28 29 2. Ingroup identification 3.73 1.07 .26** 30 31 3. Fear of Islam & Muslims 2.17 1.29 .44** .32** 32 33 4. Anger Islam & Muslims 2.12 1.23 .50** .27** .83** 34 35 36 5. Disgust Islam & Muslims 2.06 1.26 .51** .25** .80** .95** 37 38 6. Anti-Islam Sentiment 2.50 0.96 .36** .34** .64** .77** .73** 39 40 7. Anti-Muslim Prejudice 2.08 0.97 .52** .37** .73** .79** .78** .79** 41 42 8. Conspiracy Beliefs 2.38 1.36 .47** .34** .71** .80** .78** .81** .87** 43 44 45 9. Tripartite Islamophobia Scale 2.35 1.04 .48** .37** .75** .83** .80** .92** .94** .94** 46 47 ** p < .01. 48 49 50 51 Moderation analysis. To test whether ingroup identification and/or SDO would 52 53 moderate the relationship between the three intergroup emotions and Islamophobia we ran a 54 55 56 hierarchical regression analysis. In the first step, we entered both individual difference variables 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 29 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 29 1 2 3 ingroup identification and SDO along with the intergroup emotions. In the second step, we 4 5 6 additionally entered the interaction terms between the moderators (centered) and the intergroup 7 8 emotions (centered). Table 7 shows a summary of the hierarchical regression analysis for 9 10 Islamophobia. 11 12 13 14 15 Table 7 16 17 Regression Analyses Predicting Islamophobia. 18 19 Model For Peer ReviewTripartite Islamophobia Scale 20 21 B SE(HC4) t p 22 23 Step 1 Ingroup identification 0.15 .05 2.72 .007 24 Social dominance orientation 0.08 .07 1.22 .225 25 26 Intergroup fear 0.11 .08 1.44 .152 27 Intergroup anger 0.51 .15 3.32 .001 28 29 Intergroup disgust 0.21 .14 1.45 .148 30 31 32 Step 2 Ingroup identification (ID) 0.14 .06 2.41 .017 33 34 Social dominance orientation (SDO) 0.12 .07 1.76 .079 35 Intergroup fear 0.08 .08 0.97 .334 36 37 Intergroup anger 0.41 .16 2.55 .011 38 39 Intergroup disgust 0.34 .15 2.18 .030 40 ID*Fear 0.26 .09 2.88 .004 41 42 ID*Anger -0.16 .14 -1.15 .250 43 ID*Disgust -0.08 .13 -0.58 .565 44 45 SDO*Fear -0.19 .07 2.61 .009 46 SDO*Anger 0.39 .19 2.00 .046 47 48 SDO*Disgust -0.24 .17 -1.39 .166 49 50 Notes. Continuous variables (ingroup identification, social dominance orientation, and intergroup 51 emotions) are centered. Significant effects are displayed in bold. 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 30 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 30 1 2 3 In the first step of the analysis, F(5, 207) = 81.1, p < .001, R2 = .66, only ingroup 4 5 6 identification and intergroup anger showed significant effects on Islamophobia. Entering the 7 8 interaction terms in the second step of the analysis, F(11, 201) = 39.11, p < .001, R2 = .68, 9 10 increased the explained variance slightly by 2%. In the second step, intergroup disgust also 11 12 showed a significant positive effect.1 Regarding the moderation analyses, in line with our 13 14 15 expectations, ingroup identification and fear showed a significant interaction, such that higher 16 17 fear was associated with increased Islamophobia among those with higher ingroup identification 18 19 (see Figure 2). For Peer Review 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Figure 2. Simple slopes for interactions between intergroup emotions and ingroup identification and 39 SDO. Ribbons present 95% confidence intervals. 40 41 42 43 Moreover, in line with our hypothesis, anger and SDO showed a significant interaction 44 45 such that higher anger was associated with increased Islamophobia for individuals high in SDO. 46 47 48 Unexpectedly, SDO also showed a significant interaction with fear, such that higher fear was 49 50 associated with significantly higher Islamophobia for low SDO individuals. No interaction 51 52 between disgust and SDO or ingroup identification was indicated. 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 31 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 31 1 2 3 Predictive validity. Lastly, we regressed three negative intergroup outcome variables 4 5 6 (dehumanization, support for anti-Muslim policies, and ethnic persecutions) on demographic 7 8 indicators, ingroup identification, SDO, and our TIS subscales in hierarchical multiple regression 9 10 analyses. This enabled us to test the incremental validity of our scale by controlling for 11 12 predictors expected to be related to the criterion variables. In the first step, we entered 13 14 15 demographic variables (age, gender, education, and political orientation), ingroup identification 16 17 and SDO. In the second step, we entered all subcomponents of our Islamophobia scale (anti- 18 19 Muslim prejudice, anti-IslamFor sentiment, Peer and conspiracy Review beliefs) into the model (see Table 8). 20 21 22 23 24 Table 8 25 26 Regression Analysis with the Three Subcomponents of the Tripartite Islamophobia Scale and 27 28 29 Criterion Variables (N = 213, Sample 6). 30 31 32 Islamophobia criteria Dehumanization Anti-Muslim Policy Ethnic Persecution 33 34 35 36 ß SE(HC4) p ß SE(HC4) p ß SE(HC4) p 37 Step 1 38 39 Age .19 0.06 .752 -.18 0.03 .581 -.05 0.04 .198 40 Gender .13 0.14 .348 .15 0.08 .045 -.18 0.09 .048 41 Education .00 0.05 .972 -.04 0.03 .187 -.04 0.03 .231 42 43 Political orientation .05 0.06 .412 -.00 0.03 .957 -.03 0.04 .519 44 Ingroup identification -.07 0.07 .338 .04 0.04 .300 .00 0.04 .962 45 46 SDO .18 0.09 .049 -.18 0.03 < .001 -.05 0.04 < .001 47 Step 2 48 49 Anti-Islam Sentiment .03 0.13 .795 -.13 0.07 .075 -.17 0.08 .037 50 Anti-Muslim Prejudice .12 0.16 .452 .73 0.09 < .001 .52 0.10 < .001 51 52 Conspiracy Beliefs .39 0.12 < .001 .37 0.06 < .001 .26 0.07 < .001 53 Adjusted R2 .36 .83 .67 54 Change in adjusted R2 .17 .37 .23 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 32 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 32 1 2 3 Standard error of estimate .97 .53 .62 4 5 Significant F change p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 6 Notes. Values reflect β coefficients for the full model. Age: 1 (lower) - 5 (higher); Gender: 1 (Male) – 2 7 8 (Female); Education: 1 (low) - 12 (high); Political Orientation: 1 (left) - 5 (right). All constructs were 9 entered stepwise in a two-step hierarchical regression model. Significant effects are displayed in bold. 10 11 12 13 Consistent with our expectation, anti-Muslim prejudice and the conspiracy belief 14 15 subcomponents were significant and unique predictors, controlling for all the remaining 16 17 measures, and explained an additional 17% to 37% of the total variance, over and above the 18 19 well-established measuresFor in the model Peer (see Table Review 8).2 In line with our expectation, anti-Muslim 20 21 22 prejudice and conspiracy beliefs outperformed anti-Islam sentiment in predictive power. 23 24 Conspiracy beliefs were, moreover, significantly associated with dehumanization. 25 26 27 28 Study 2 Discussion 29 30 Study 2 tested two individual difference variables explaining distinct emotional reactions 31 32 33 to Islam and Muslims. Furthermore, we analyzed the incremental validity of the TIS. As 34 35 hypothesized, especially for individuals high in SDO, anger was associated with higher 36 37 Islamophobia. This is in line with previous research indicating a close relationship between SDO 38 39 and intergroup anger (e.g., Matthews & Levin, 2012). Moreover, as expected, social 40 41 42 identification moderated the effects of fear on Islamophobia. Unexpectedly, the results indicated 43 44 that SDO also interacted with fear, such that higher fear and low SDO interacted in predicting 45 46 increased Islamophobia. However, no interaction with disgust was shown. This suggests that 47 48 49 other potential moderating factors might be at play that need further exploration to explain the 50 51 disgust-Islamophobia nexus. We will discuss these finding in more detail in the general 52 53 discussion. 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 33 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 33 1 2 3 Regarding the incremental validity of our scale, we hypothesized and found support that, 4 5 6 compared to anti-Islamic sentiment, both anti-Muslim prejudice and conspiracy beliefs had 7 8 larger effects on behavioral inclinations that promote the active and forceful oppression of 9 10 Muslims and Islamic organizations (e.g., support for anti-Muslim policies). This prediction was 11 12 partly based on research on anti-Semitism, which showed that above and beyond anti-Semitic 13 14 15 prejudices, anti-Semitic conspiracy beliefs were most significantly predictive of negative 16 17 intergroup outcome measures (Bilewicz et al., 2013). 18 19 For PeerGeneral DiscussionReview 20 21 22 Since the introduction of the term about 30 years ago, several conceptualizations and 23 24 models of Islamophobia have been proposed (Bleich, 2011; Klug, 2012). Yet, many theoretical 25 26 and methodological issues have persisted including a lack of knowledge about Islamophobia’s 1) 27 28 29 components, 2) cross-cultural validity, 3) emotional underpinnings, 4) relation to individual 30 31 differences, and 5) societal consequences. In this paper, we aimed to address each of these 32 33 issues. Across several cultures, we reliably distinguished between three different types of 34 35 attitudes and beliefs about Islam and Muslims, using the Tripartite Islamophobia Scale (TIS). 36 37 38 Second, across cultural contexts, we systematically showed that both anger and – to a lesser 39 40 degree – disgust predict Islamophobia in addition to fear. Third, we demonstrate that individual 41 42 differences in the emotional reactions of anger and fear can be explained as a function of social 43 44 45 dominance orientation and ingroup identification. Finally, we analyze the scale’s predictive 46 47 validity and demonstrate its relevance in explaining important societal outcomes (e.g., blatant 48 49 dehumanization, anti-Muslim policy support). 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 34 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 34 1 2 3 A New and Cross-Culturally Valid Islamophobia Measure 4 5 6 One of the more persistent issues regarding research on Islamophobia was the lack of a 7 8 cross-culturally validated instrument to measure the phenomena across time, groups, and 9 10 geographical regions. Therefore, we designed and tested our Islamophobia measure in five 11 12 different cultural contexts. The results show that our TIS instrument indicates full scalar 13 14 15 invariance. This suggests that the scale assesses the same underlying constructs in each setting 16 17 and, hence, may be used to make valid comparisons, including among different mean levels, of 18 19 Islamophobia across cultures.For Peer Review 20 21 22 Moreover, we contribute to current discussions of the comparability of Islamophobia with 23 24 anti-Semitism and other prejudices, a topic which has triggered heated debates in the academic 25 26 and public discourse, including questioning whether or not these phenomena are comparable to 27 28 29 each other (e.g., Küntzl, 2008; Uenal, 2016c). Our results indicate that – comparable to modern 30 31 anti-Semitism – Islamophobia manifest itself in different ways: negative sentiments against the 32 33 Islamic religion, prejudice against Muslim individuals, and conspiracy beliefs about Muslims as 34 35 collective agents with malicious and deceptive intentions. Our measure, thus, offers a 36 37 38 conceptually sound way to compare Islamophobia with other forms of prejudices and conspiracy 39 40 beliefs. 41 42 Conspiracy Beliefs as Component of Islamophobia 43 44 45 Our research advances theoretical discussions on Islamophobia by adding to a neglected, 46 47 yet crucial, aspect of the concept: conspiracy beliefs. The results of this paper indicate that 48 49 Islamophobic conspiracy beliefs were a statistically unique factor in five different cultural 50 51 52 settings. We also found that the subcomponents disassociated in terms of the downstream 53 54 intergroup outcomes they best predicted (i.e., ethnic persecution, dehumanization, anti-Muslim 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 35 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 35 1 2 3 policy support). Similar to findings on anti-Semitism (Bilewicz & Krzeminski, 2010; Bilewicz et 4 5 6 al., 2013), on which we partly based our hypothesis, we found that beyond anti-Islam sentiment 7 8 alone, anti-Muslim prejudice and especially adherence to conspiracy beliefs were most predictive 9 10 of these outcomes. Both of these subcomponents explained our three criterion variables over and 11 12 above anti-Islamic sentiment. Crucially, our scale also showed good incremental validity and 13 14 15 predicted the criterion variables, even when controlling for demographic variables, ingroup 16 17 identification, and social dominance orientation. Moreover, we found that the conspiracy beliefs 18 19 sub-component showed robustFor association Peer with fearReview across the samples and, compared to disgust, 20 21 22 slightly stronger associations with fear in the overall sample analyses. This finding aligns with 23 24 previous experimental research showing that belief in conspiracy theories is associated with 25 26 anxiety, uncertainty, and a perceived lack of control (e.g., van Prooijen & Douglas, 2018; 27 28 29 Whitson & Galinsky, 2008). 30 31 Emotional Underpinnings of Islamophobia Across Cultures 32 33 Taking a socio-functional and threat-based approach to prejudice (e.g., Neuberg & 34 35 Schaller, 2016), we hypothesized that anger and disgust would be predictive of Islamophobia, 36 37 38 above and beyond fear. Indeed, we found that, controlling for intergroup fear, anger and disgust 39 40 were unique and significant predictors of Islamophobia in the aggregated sample, explaining 41 42 Islamophobia taken as a whole as well as its subcomponents, albeit to varying degrees. 43 44 45 Nevertheless, applying a more stringent test to compare the relative strength of each emotion 46 47 showed that anger and fear did not significantly differ in their relative predictive strength for the 48 49 aggregated Islamophobia scale. However, anger was a significantly stronger predictor for the 50 51 52 anti-Muslim prejudice component compared to both fear and disgust. Also, both anger and fear 53 54 were significantly stronger predictors, compared to disgust, of the aggregated scale as well as 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 36 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 36 1 2 3 two of its subcomponents. Thus, in addition to fear, considering both anger and disgust as 4 5 6 integral parts of Islamophobia seems warranted. 7 8 In the country level analyses, the results were more heterogenous. To start with, fear did 9 10 not differ in relative strength from anger and disgust for the USA, Poland, and France. However, 11 12 for Germany, we found that both anger and disgust showed significantly stronger associations 13 14 15 with Islamophobia compared to fear. Anger, on the other hand, was significantly stronger 16 17 compared to disgust for the USA, Poland and, partially, also for both France (anti-Islam 18 19 sentiment) and India (TISFor and anti-Islam Peer sentiment). Review 20 21 22 Overall, this paper advances research on the emotional underpinning of Islamophobia by 23 24 providing cross-cultural evidence for the relevance of the anger- and disgust-bases of 25 26 Islamophobia. While our results indicate that fear does play a significant role in explaining 27 28 29 Islamophobia, as suggested by the most prominent definitions and conceptualizations of current 30 31 Islamophobia, our results ascribe anger an equally large role for explaining Islamophobia. 32 33 Disgust, though significantly smaller in effect size, also played a significant role in predicting 34 35 Islamophobia in the aggregated sample, and thus warrants more attention. Our findings on the 36 37 38 country-level of analysis paint a more heterogenous picture and point to context-dependent 39 40 emotional underpinnings of Islamophobia. While it exceeds the aim and scope of this paper to 41 42 explain the country-level variations that were not based on representative samples, they 43 44 45 nevertheless raise intriguing questions as to how to explain such cross-cultural differences. For 46 47 instance, in Germany, France, and also partially in India where anger and disgust were 48 49 significant predictors of Islamophobia and most of its individual subcomponents, there are much 50 51 52 larger Muslim populations (6.1% in Germany, 8.8% in France, and 15% in India; PEW, 2017) 53 54 compared to the USA and Poland (less than 1% of the overall population; PEW, 2017). Given 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 37 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 37 1 2 3 this, greater anger and disgust reactions in these samples might be a function of perceptions of 4 5 6 increased socio-economic competition as well as perceptions of decreased collective support for 7 8 the non-Muslim ingroup relative to population strength. Another interesting pattern which 9 10 emerged is that anti-Muslim prejudice was more strongly associated with anger compared to 11 12 fear, and in some countries, also stronger compared to disgust. Future research should further 13 14 15 investigate these patterns and contextual differences. 16 17 Fear & Anger: Moderation by Social Dominance Orientation and Ingroup Identification 18 19 This article also advancesFor previous Peer research Review by examining how differential emotional 20 21 22 underpinnings of Islamophobia seem to partially serve as a function of psychological 23 24 mechanisms (i.e., SDO and ingroup identification). Partially in line with our hypotheses, we 25 26 found that individuals who scored higher on SDO showed more Islamophobia in conjunction 27 28 29 with anger, but not disgust or fear. This is in accordance with previous research analyzing the 30 31 associations of SDO and emotions in predicting negative intergroup outcomes, which points to 32 33 anger as the primary affective component of an SDO mindset (e.g., Matthews & Levin, 2012). 34 35 SDO has been consistently shown to be a robust predictor of negative outgroup attitudes and 36 37 38 behavior signaling aggression towards low-status groups (Sidanius et al., 2017). An interesting, 39 40 yet unexpected, finding of our study is the significant interaction between fear and SDO 41 42 negatively predicting Islamophobia. More specifically, our results show that the effect of fear on 43 44 45 Islamophobia seems to be buffered for high SDO individuals, while for low SDO individuals, 46 47 fear leads to more Islamophobia. Low SDO has been previously associated with less negative 48 49 intergroup bias. Individuals low in SDO are construed as more egalitarian and less dominant and 50 51 52 as such, less prejudiced. However, our results indicate, if intergroup fear is present, low SDO can 53 54 be associated with higher prejudice. 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 38 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 38 1 2 3 In contrast to SDO, we hypothesized that fear and disgust, but not anger, would interact 4 5 6 with higher ingroup identification in predicting Islamophobia. Indeed, for individuals highly 7 8 identified with their ingroup, we found that fear amplifies Islamophobic attitudes and beliefs. We 9 10 interpret this finding in light of research which shows that ingroup identification is more 11 12 indicative of ingroup love rather than outgroup derogation per se (Brewer, 1999; Levin & 13 14 15 Sidanius, 1999). Individuals highly attached to their ingroup might adopt derogatory outgroup 16 17 attitudes as a means of signaling their ingroup preference and thereby re-asserting their 18 19 distinctiveness and facilitatingFor ingroup Peer solidarity. Review Nevertheless, previous research has also 20 21 22 shown that the association between ingroup identification and negative outgroup affect varies in 23 24 tandem with other factors, such as perceived collective support (e.g., Mackie & Smith, 2015). 25 26 Future studies might consider assessing both ingroup identification and perceived collective 27 28 29 support as potential moderators to further explore the fear-Islamophobia nexus. Finally, we could 30 31 not find an interaction with either of our moderators and disgust. Previous research has shown 32 33 that right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1996), an individual difference construct closely 34 35 related, yet distinct from SDO, might be a better suited moderator between disgust and prejudice 36 37 38 (e.g., Sibley & Duckitt, 2008). 39 40 Overall, our findings add to previous efforts of assessing ideological attitudes and social 41 42 identification together with intergroup emotions in predicting specific intergroup outcomes (e.g., 43 44 45 Kossowska et al., 2008; Matthews & Levin, 2012). In addition to corroborating previous results, 46 47 our findings contribute to research by showing that low SDO can also be associated with higher 48 49 prejudice, given the presence of intergroup fear. This is novel in light of previous research which 50 51 52 has consistently found low SDO to be associated with less prejudice across different intergroup 53 54 contexts (Sidanius et al., 2017). Our results indicate that an egalitarian and non-dominant 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 39 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 39 1 2 3 worldview, as indicated by low levels of SDO, might not be sufficient to buffer the effects of 4 5 6 fear on prejudice, at least not in the case of Islamophobia. Future studies could further explore 7 8 this relationship. 9 10 Limits on Generality 11 12 While we believe that the cross-cultural approach taken in this study is a strength, the 13 14 15 results should also be interpreted in light of some limitations. For instance, some socio- 16 17 demographics varied between the countries (see Table S2 SOM). Moreover, although MTurk 18 19 samples (and, presumably,For PROLIFIC Peer samples asReview well), are more representative than traditional 20 21 22 social psychological samples (Paolacci & Chandler, 2014), these samples are not fully 23 24 representative. In addition, concepts like Islamophobia are not static entities and develop over 25 26 time. Thus, future research might re-evaluate item selections depending on time, geography, and 27 28 29 socio-political contexts, and potentially add further items to the scale. Indeed, the cross-cultural 30 31 approach taken in the present research does not claim that the culturally most relevant or even 32 33 most valid aspects of Islamophobia were assessed in each study. Although the item selection was 34 35 based on extensive preliminary research and literature and was discussed with researchers from 36 37 38 most of the countries in which data were collected, future research may profitably validate the 39 40 content of the scales by, for instance, using qualitative methods as well. Beside others, this may 41 42 allow a validation of the scale’s content against people’s evaluations, attitudes and feelings 43 44 45 regarding Muslims and their religion from a bottom-up perspective. Furthermore, future studies 46 47 could consider behavioral validation methods, in addition to self-report validation approaches, to 48 49 further gauge the psychometric properties of our scale. 50 51 52 Moreover, the three subcomponents of the TIS were strongly correlated. On the one hand, 53 54 this may indicate the intertwined nature of Islamophobic attitudes and sentiments. On the other 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 40 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 40 1 2 3 hand, future refinements of this scale may test whether rephrasing some of the items possibly 4 5 6 reduces linguistic overlap between them, which may have led to higher inter-item correlations. 7 8 Nevertheless, despite these findings, it is important to note that our proposed three-factor 9 10 solution was confirmed across five culturally different countries supporting the tripartite nature 11 12 of Islamophobia. Furthermore, criterion validation analyses further corroborated our tripartite 13 14 15 view by showing theoretically justifiable, and statistically significant disassociation, of the three 16 17 subcomponents in regard to their respective emotional antecedents as well as the intergroup 18 19 outcomes they predict. For Peer Review 20 21 22 Practical Implications and Future Directions 23 24 An interesting area for future research highlighted by the present work concerns 25 26 Islamophobic conspiracy beliefs. Our results indicate that the phenomenon is common across the 27 28 29 analyzed cultural contexts and statistically distinct from the other two subcomponents. Yet, it 30 31 remains an under-investigated phenomenon. Further research on the emotional bases of 32 33 Islamophobia (and other prejudices) in different regional contexts could advance knowledge on 34 35 the proximal, ultimate, and societal factors that may explain cross-country variations. Future 36 37 38 studies could also investigate further individual and group differences as potential moderators of 39 40 the relationship between intergroup emotions and Islamophobia. Specifically, analyzing the role 41 42 of perceived collective support and threat perceptions in fear-modulation might prove fruitful. 43 44 45 We hope that by providing a more rigorous operationalization, as well as enhanced tools of 46 47 assessment of Islamophobia and its substantive subcomponents, the present research can help 48 49 facilitate further research concerned with the causes and consequences of Islamophobia. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 41 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 41 1 2 3 References 4 5 6 Abalakina-Paap, M., Stephan, W. G., Craig, T., & Gregory, W. L. (1999). Beliefs in 7 8 Conspiracies. Political Psychology, 20(3), 637–647. http://doi.org/10.1111/0162- 9 10 895X.00160 11 12 Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The 13 14 15 Authoritarian Personality. New York, NY: Harper and Row. 16 17 Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of Prejudice. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. 18 19 Altemeyer, B. (1996). TheFor authoritarian Peer specter. Review Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 20 21 22 Bangstad, S. (2016). Islamophobia: What’s in a Name? Journal of Muslims in Europe, 5(2), 23 24 145–169. http://doi.org/10.1163/22117954-12341324 25 26 Bartlett, J., & Miller, C. (2010). The power of unreason: conspiracy theories, extremism and 27 28 29 counter-terrorism. London: Demos. Retrieved April 13, 2018, from 30 31 http://westernvoice.net/Power of Unreason.pdf 32 33 Bilewicz, M., & Krzeminski, I. (2010). Anti-Semitism in Poland and Ukraine: The belief in 34 35 Jewish control as a mechanism of scapegoating. International Journal of Conflict and 36 37 38 Violence, 4(2), 234–243. 39 40 Bilewicz, M., Winiewski, M., Kofta, M., & Wójcik, A. (2013). Harmful ideas, The structure and 41 42 consequences of Anti-Semitic beliefs in Poland. Political Psychology, 34(6), 821–839. 43 44 45 http://doi.org/DOI: 10.1111/pops.12024 46 47 Bleich, E. (2011). What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is There? Theorizing and Measuring an 48 49 Emerging Comparative Concept. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(12), 1581–1600. 50 51 52 http://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211409387 53 54 Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 42 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 42 1 2 3 Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126 4 5 6 Brown, R. (2010). Prejudice: its social psychology (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 7 8 Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance. 9 10 Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. 11 12 http://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834 13 14 15 Choma, B. L., Hodson, G., & Costello, K. (2012). Intergroup disgust sensitivity as a predictor of 16 17 islamophobia: The modulating effect of fear. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18 19 48(2), 499–506. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.014For Peer Review 20 21 22 Choma, B. L., Haji, R., Hodson, G., & Hoffarth, M. (2016). Avoiding cultural contamination: 23 24 Intergroup disgust sensitivity and religious identification as predictors of interfaith threat, 25 26 faith-based policies, and islamophobia. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 50–55. 27 28 29 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.013 30 31 Conway, G. (1997). Islamophobia – A challenge for us all. Report of the Runnymede Trust 32 33 Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia. London, UK. 34 35 Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. 36 37 38 Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 41–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065- 39 40 2601(01)80004-6 41 42 Dumont, M., Yzerbyt, V., Wigboldus, D., & Gordijn, E. H. (2003). Social Categorization and 43 44 45 Fear Reactions to the September 11th Terrorist Attacks. Personality and Social Psychology 46 47 Bulletin, 29(12), 1509–1520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203256923 48 49 Elahi, F., & Khan, O. (2017). Islamophobia. Still a challenge for us all. A 20th-anniversary 50 51 52 report. London, UK. Retrieved February 9, 2018, from 53 54 https://www.runnymedetrust.org/projects-and-publications/equality-and- 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 43 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 43 1 2 3 integration/islamophobia.html 4 5 6 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using 7 8 G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 9 10 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 11 12 Fekete, L. (2012). The Muslim conspiracy theory and the Oslo massacre. Race & Class, 53(3), 13 14 15 30–47. http://doi.org/10.1177/0306396811425984 16 17 Gallup World. (2013). Islamophobia: understanding anti-Muslim sentiment in the West. 18 19 Retrieved February 4,For 2018, from Peer http://www.gallup.com/poll/157082/islamophobia- Review 20 21 22 understanding-anti-muslim-sentiment-west.aspx 23 24 Goodwin, M. J., Raines, T., & Cutts, D. (2017). What Do Europeans Think About Muslim 25 26 Immigration? London, UK. Retrieved March 3, 2017, from 27 28 29 https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/what-do-europeans-think-about-muslim- 30 31 immigration 32 33 Hafez, F. (2013). Islamophobe Weltverschwörungstheorien [Islamophobic Conspiracy Theories]. 34 35 Journal Für Psychologie, 21(1), 1–22. 36 37 38 Halliday, F. (1999). “Islamophobia” reconsidered. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(5), 892–902. 39 40 http://doi.org/10.1080/014198799329305 41 42 Helbling, M. (2012). Islamophobia in the West: Measuring and Explaining Individual Attitudes. 43 44 45 (M. Helbling, Ed.). London: Routledge. 46 47 Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., … Stewart, 48 49 A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring 50 51 52 preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ scale. Journal of Personality and 53 54 Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–28. http://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 44 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 44 1 2 3 Horn, J. L., & Mcardle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance 4 5 6 in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18(3), 117–144. 7 8 https://doi.org/10.1080/03610739208253916 9 10 Hodson, G., Choma, B. L., Boisvert, J., Hafer, C. L., MacInnis, C. C., & Costello, K. (2013). The 11 12 role of intergroup disgust in predicting negative outgroup evaluations. Journal of 13 14 15 Experimental Social Psychology, 49(2), 195–205. 16 17 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JESP.2012.11.002 18 19 Human Rights Watch (2018).For “Eradicating Peer Ideological Review Viruses” China’s Campaign of 20 21 22 Repression Against Xinjiang’s Muslims. Retrieved May 20, 2019, from 23 24 https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/09/09/eradicating-ideological-viruses/chinas-campaign- 25 26 repression-against-xinjiangs 27 28 29 Imhoff, R., & Recker, J. (2012). Differentiating Islamophobia: Introducing a New Scale to 30 31 Measure Islamoprejudice and Secular Islam Critique. Political Psychology, 33(6), 811–824. 32 33 http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00911.x 34 35 Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor 36 37 38 variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35(1), 1–19. 39 40 https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3501_1 41 42 Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as 43 44 45 motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. 46 47 http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 48 49 Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 50 51 52 36(4), 409–426. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291366 53 54 Ketelaar, T. (2015). Evolutionary Psychology and Emotion: A Brief History. In V. Zeigler-Hill, 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 45 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 45 1 2 3 L. L. M. Welling, & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Evolutionary Perspectives on Social 4 5 6 Psychology (pp. 51–67). Cham: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12697-5_5 7 8 Klug, B. (2012). Islamophobia: A concept comes of age. Ethnicities, 12(5), 665–681. 9 10 http://doi.org/10.1177/1468796812450363 11 12 Kteily, N., Bruneau, E., Waytz, A., & Cotterill, S. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and 13 14 15 empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social 16 17 Psychology, 109(5), 901–931. http://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000048 18 19 Kteily, N., Hodson, G., &For Bruneau, Peer E. (2016). TheyReview see us as less than human: 20 21 22 Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization. Journal of 23 24 Personality and Social Psychology, 110(3), 343–370. http://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000044 25 26 Kunst, J. R., Sam, D. L., & Ulleberg, P. (2013). Perceived islamophobia: Scale development and 27 28 29 validation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(2), 225–237. 30 31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.11.001 32 33 Küntzl, M. (2008). “Islamophobia” or “Truthophobia”? Berlin’s anti-Semitism center is 34 35 going astray. Retrieved October 22, 2014, from 36 37 38 http://online.wsj.com/news/articlesSB122869182286886467 39 40 Lee, S. A., Reid, C. A., Short, S. D., Gibbons, J. A., Yeh, R., & Campbell, M. L. (2013). Fear of 41 42 Muslims: Psychometric evaluation of the Islamophobia Scale. Psychology of Religion and 43 44 45 Spirituality, 5(3), 157–171. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0032117 46 47 Leibold, J., & Kühnel, S. (2006). Islamophobie: Differenzierung tut not [Islamophobia: 48 49 Differentiation is necessary]. In W. Heitmeyer (Ed.), Deutsche Zustände. Folge 4 (pp. 135– 50 51 52 155). Frankfurt a. Main: Suhrkamp. 53 54 Levin, S., & Sidanius, J. (1999). Social dominance and social identity in the United States and 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 46 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 46 1 2 3 Israel: Ingroup favoritism or outgroup derogation? Political Psychology, 20(1), 99–126. 4 5 6 https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00138 7 8 Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective Self-Esteem Scale: Self-Evaluation of One's 9 10 Social Identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302–318. 11 12 http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292183006 13 14 15 Kossowska, Małgorzata Bukowskia, M., & Van Hielb, A. (2008). The impact of submissive 16 17 versus dominant authoritarianism and negative emotions on prejudice. Personality and 18 19 Individual DifferencesFor, 45, 744–749. Peer Review 20 21 22 Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive 23 24 action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25 26 79(4), 602–616. http://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.4.602 27 28 29 Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2015). Intergroup emotions. In APA handbook of personality and 30 31 social psychology, Volume 2: Group processes. (pp. 263–293). American Psychological 32 33 Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14342-010 34 35 Matthews, M., & Levin, S. (2012). Testing a dual process model of prejudice: Assessment of 36 37 38 group threat perceptions and emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 36(4), 564–574. 39 40 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9280-y 41 42 Miles, R., & Brown, M. (2003). Racism (2nd editio). London, UK: Routledge. 43 44 45 Moscovici, S. (1987). The Conspiracy Mentality. In C. F. Graumann & S. Moscovici (Eds.), 46 47 Changing Conceptions of Conspiracy (pp. 151–169). New York, NY: Springer. 48 49 http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4618-3 50 51 52 Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. (2016). An evolutionary threat-management approach to 53 54 prejudices. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 1–5. 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 47 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 47 1 2 3 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.06.004 4 5 6 Nilsson, I., & Ekehammar, B. (1987). Personpositivity bias in political perception? European 7 8 Journal of Social Psychology, 17(2), 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420170210 9 10 O’Donnell, S. J. (2018). Islamophobic conspiracism and neoliberal subjectivity: the inassimilable 11 12 society. Patterns of Prejudice, 52(1), 1–23. http://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2017.1414473 13 14 15 Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a 16 17 Participant Pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. 18 19 https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598For Peer Review 20 21 22 Park, J. H., Schaller, M., & Crandall, C. S. (2007). Pathogen-avoidance mechanisms and the 23 24 stigmatization of obese people. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 410–414. 25 26 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.05.008 27 28 29 Pew Research Center. (2017). “Europe’s Growing Muslim Population” (Nov. 29, 2017). 30 31 Retrieved August 19, 2019, from https://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/europes-growing- 32 33 muslim-population/ 34 35 PEW. (2017). “Americans Express Increasingly Warm Feelings Toward Religious Groups.” 36 37 38 Retrieved February 3, 2018, from http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp- 39 40 content/uploads/sites/11/2017/02/15093007/Feeling-thermometer-report-FOR-WEB.pdf 41 42 Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. New York, NY, US: Harper & 43 44 45 Row. 46 47 Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A 48 49 personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and 50 51 52 Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.67.4.741 53 54 Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes: 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 48 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 48 1 2 3 A Meta-Analytic Review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336–353. 4 5 6 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4 7 8 Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of 9 10 Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. http://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02 11 12 Schaller, M., & Park, J. H. (2011). The Behavioral Immune System (and Why It Matters). 13 14 15 Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 99–103. 16 17 http://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411402596 18 19 Schiffer, S., & Wagner, C.For (2011). Anti-SemitismPeer Review and Islamophobia - new enemies, old patterns. 20 21 22 Race & Class, 52(3), 77–84. http://doi.org/10.1177/0306396810389927 23 24 Sears, D. O. (1983). The person-positivity bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25 26 44(2), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.2.233 27 28 29 Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and Prejudice: A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical 30 31 Review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 248–279. 32 33 https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308319226 34 35 Sidanius, J., Cotterill, S., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Kteily, N., & Carvacho, H. (2017). Social 36 37 38 Dominance Theory: Explorations in the Psychology of Oppression. In C. G. Sibley & F. K. 39 40 Barlow (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice (pp. 149–187). 41 42 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.008 43 44 45 Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing Measurement Invariance in 46 47 CrossNational Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–107. 48 49 http://doi.org/10.1086/209528 50 51 52 Swami, V., Barron, D., Weis, L., & Furnham, A. (2018). To Brexit or not to Brexit: The roles of 53 54 Islamophobia, conspiracist beliefs, and integrated threat in voting intentions for the United 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 49 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 49 1 2 3 Kingdom European Union membership referendum. British Journal of Psychology, 109(1), 4 5 6 156–179. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12252 7 8 Thomsen, L., Green, E. G. T., & Sidanius, J. (2008). We will hunt them down: How social 9 10 dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism fuel ethnic persecution of 11 12 immigrants in fundamentally different ways. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13 14 15 44(6), 1455–1464. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.06.011 16 17 Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2015, June 1). RWA Web: A Free, Comprehensive, Web- 18 19 Based, and User-FriendlyFor Tool Peer for Relative Review Weight Analyses. Journal of Business and 20 21 22 Psychology. Springer New York LLC. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9351-z 23 24 Uenal, F. (2016a). Disentangling Islamophobia: The differential effects of symbolic, realistic, 25 26 and terroristic threat perceptions as mediators between social dominance orientation and 27 28 29 Islamophobia. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4(1), 66–90. 30 31 https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v4i1.463 32 33 Uenal, F. (2016b). The “Secret Islamization” of Europe: Exploring Integrated Threat Theory for 34 35 Predicting Islamophobic Conspiracy Stereotypes. International Journal of Conflict and 36 37 38 Violence, 10(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.41119/UNIBI/ijcv.499 39 40 Uenal, F. (2016c). Islamophobia & Anti-Semitism. Comparing the social psychological 41 42 underpinnings of Anti-Semitic and Anti-Muslim Beliefs in Contemporary Germany. 43 44 45 Islamophobia Studies Journal, 3(2), 35–55. 46 47 United Nations. (2018, March 6). “No other conclusion,” ethnic cleansing of Rohingyas in 48 49 Myanmar continues – senior UN rights official. UN News. Retrieved April 3, 2018, from 50 51 52 https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/03/1004232 53 54 van Prooijen, J.-W., & Douglas, K. M. (2018). Belief in conspiracy theories: Basic principles of 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 50 of 256

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 50 1 2 3 an emerging research domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(7), 897–908. 4 5 6 https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2530 7 8 Whitson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception. 9 10 Science, 322(5898), 115–117. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1159845 11 12 Wilson, G. D. (1973). The Psychology of Conservatism. London, UK: Academic Press. 13 14 15 Zia-Ebrahimi, R. (2018). When the Elders of Zion relocated to Eurabia: conspiratorial 16 17 racialization in antisemitism and Islamophobia. Patterns of Prejudice, 52(4), 314–337. 18 19 https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2018.1493876For Peer Review 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Page 51 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 51 1 2 3 Footnotes 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Only main effects and two-way interactions were predicted. However, we also conducted analyses with 10 all possible and meaningful interactions. These interactions were not significant, and did not improve the 11 predictive ability of the models. These higher-order interactions are not discussed in this paper. 12 13 2 In two out of the three regression analyses the anti-Islam sentiment subcomponent shows a negative 14 regression coefficient. However, running the analyses without the other two subcomponents indicates that 15 anti-Islam sentiment has a significant and positive effect on the outcome variables. Given the high 16 intercorrelation between the subcomponents, these results are due to multicollinearity and thus the 17 negative coefficient can be interpreted as suppression effect rather than a true negative effect. 18 19 For Peer Review 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 52 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Supplemental Online Materials 14 For Peer Review 15 16 The nature of Islamophobia: A test of a tripartite view in five countries 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 53 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 S1 4 5 6 Participants and Power Analysis Across all Studies and Analyses. 7 8 Study 1 – Confirmatory Factor Analyses and Measurement invariance Analyses (Table 2, and Tables S8-S9 in the SOM) 9 10 In contrast to experimental studies there is still a lack of clear guidance and commonly accepted rules and techniques when it comes to 11 12 determine adequate sample size for confirmatory factor analyses (CFA; e.g., Putnick & Bornstein, 2016). For instance, older approaches suggested 13 14 For Peer Review 15 aiming for a 5:1 or 10:1 ratio of observations to parameter estimates (or constructs). However, these approaches have been shown to be inadequate 16 17 (e.g. Little, 2013). Other approaches such as Monte Carlo simulation studies on the other hand do not account for the complexities when it comes to 18 19 more complex CFAs such as multi-group CFA research designs. Nevertheless, key factors in determining the required sample size include, besides 20 21 22 other factors, the reliability of the measured scales and the convergent and discriminant validity of the indicators and the constructs (ibid.). In a 23 24 previous study (Uenal, 2016c), an earlier version of the Tripartite Islamophobia Scale showed good reliability, as well as good discriminant and 25 26 convergent validity. Given these preliminary results, we decided to rely on an absolute sample size guideline. Following the recommendations by 27 28 29 Little (2013) and Meade and Bauer (2007), we chose a medium size sample size of 300 individuals per population. Our final sample of 1,466 30 31 therefore represents a size that is adequate according to the consulted literature. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 54 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Study 1 – Hierarchical Regression Analyses (Intergroup Emotions and TIS) (Tables 3-5, and Tables S6-S7 and S10-S11 in the SOM) 4 5 2 6 As determined via power analyses (G*Power, Faul et al., 2009; Linear multiple regression: Fixed model, R increase), a total of 292 participants per 7 8 population and 1460 participants for five countries in total would be needed to have an 80% chance to observe an effect of small size (f2 = .04). 9 10 Hence, to satisfy this criterion and leave some flexibility to exclude inattentive participants, we aim at recruiting 1500 participants via Amazon 11 12 Mechanical Turk and/or PROLIFIC services for an online study. 13 14 For Peer Review 15 16 17 Study 2 – Hierarchical Regression analyses (SDO*ID*Emotions, and TIS) (Table 7) 18 19 As determined via power analyses (G*Power, Faul et al., 2009; Linear multiple regression: Fixed model, R2 increase), a total of 187 participants in 20 21 2 22 total would be needed to have an 80% chance to observe an interaction effect of small to medium size (f = .05). Hence, to satisfy this criterion and 23 24 leave some flexibility to exclude inattentive participants, we aim at recruiting 230 participants via Amazon Mechanical Turk for an online study. 25 26 27 28 29 Study 2 – Hierarchical Regression Analyses (Demographics, SDO, ID, Political Orientation, and TIS on Criterion Variables) (Table 8) 30 31 As determined via power analyses (G*Power, Faul et al., 2009; Linear multiple regression: Fixed model, R2 increase), a total of 212 participants in 32 33 total would be needed to have an 80% chance to observe an interaction effect of small to medium size (R2 = .05). Hence, to satisfy this criterion and 34 35 leave some flexibility to exclude inattentive participants, we aim at recruiting 230 participants via Amazon Mechanical Turk for an online study. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 55 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Table S2 4 5 6 Socio-Demographic Composition of Samples (Samples 1-5: N = 1466; Sample 6: N = 213). 7 8 9 10 Country - Demographics 11 12 13 Mean SD Min Max N 14 For Peer Review 15 16 Sample 1 USA (n = 295) 17 18 Age (1 = Low – 8 = High) 4.14 1.29 2 8 295 19 20 Gender (1 = Male / 2 = Female / 3 = Other) 1.46 0.51 1 3 295 21 22 23 Education (1 = Low – 8 = High) 4.34 1.34 1 8 295 24 25 Household Income (1 = Low – 9 = High) 3.92 1.63 1 9 295 26 27 Political Orientation (1 = Liberal / Left – 7 = Conservative / Right) 2.78 1.22 1 5 295 28 29 Sample 2 Germany (n = 293) 30 31 32 Age (1 = Low – 8 = High) 2.99 0.99 2 7 293 33 34 Gender (1 = Male / 2 = Female / 3 = Other) 1.39 0.49 1 3 293 35 36 Education (1 = Low – 8 = High) 7.37 1.08 1 11 293 37 38 39 Household Income (1 = Low – 9 = High) 2.97 1.62 1 8 290 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 56 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Political Orientation (1 = Liberal / Left – 7 = Conservative / Right) 2.42 0.79 1 4 293 4 5 6 Sample 3 Poland (n = 297) 7 8 Age (1 = Low – 8 = High) 2.70 0.86 2 6 297 9 10 Gender (1 = Male / 2 = Female / 3 = Other) 1.31 0.48 1 3 297 11 12 Education (1 = Low – 8 = High) 6.63 1.78 3 10 297 13 14 For Peer Review 15 Household Income (1 = Low – 9 = High) 2.43 1.33 1 8 294 16 17 Political Orientation (1 = Liberal / Left – 7 = Conservative / Right) 3.09 0.86 1 5 297 18 19 Sample 4 France (n = 288) 20 21 22 Age (1 = Low – 8 = High) 3.44 1.19 2 7 297 23 24 Gender (1 = Male / 2 = Female / 3 = Other) 1.72 0.46 1 3 297 25 26 Education (1 = Low – 8 = High) 4.76 2.96 1 11 297 27 28 29 Household Income (1 = Low – 9 = High) 3.40 2.33 1 10 294 30 31 Political Orientation (1 = Liberal / Left – 7 = Conservative / Right) 2.56 0.92 1 5 297 32 33 Sample 5 India (n = 293) . 34 35 Age (1 = Low – 8 = High) 3.96 1.17 2 7 293 36 37 38 Gender (1 = Male / 2 = Female / 3 = Other) 1.42 0.49 1 2 293 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 57 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Education (1 = Low – 8 = High) 4.38 1.37 2 9 293 4 5 6 Household Income (1 = Low – 9 = High) 3.90 1.51 1 10 293 7 8 Political Orientation (1 = Liberal / Left – 7 = Conservative / Right) 2.88 1.23 1 5 293 9 10 Sample 6 USA (n = 213) . 11 12 Age (1 = Low – 8 = High) 3.70 1.17 2 7 213 13 14 For Peer Review 15 Gender (1 = Male / 2 = Female / 3 = Other) 1.47 0.50 1 3 213 16 17 Education (1 = Low – 8 = High) 4.09 1.35 1 8 213 18 19 Household Income (1 = Low – 9 = High) 2.65 1.61 1 11 213 20 21 22 Political Orientation (1 = Liberal / Left – 5 = Conservative / Right) 2.13 1.42 1 5 213 23 24 Notes. Due to data quality issues pertaining to online participants from Amazon MTurk, we included a quality check to sort out bots and otherwise 25 26 non-sensical and / or random data. Participants were asked to answer an attention check question by choosing one specific answer option at the 27 28 29 beginning of the survey. Due to known issues with bots and other issues for the MTurk participants pool in India, we included two additional 30 31 attention checks into the survey; one additional at the beginning, and one in the middle of the survey (e.g., “To monitor the quality, please press 3 on 32 33 the following scale.”). Participants who failed one and more quality checks were sorted out. Also, participants who finished the survey in an 34 35 unreasonably short amount of time (>180 seconds) were sorted out. In total 34 participants for Study 1 were removed due to failed attention checks 36 37 38 or other quality measures of the survey (USA: 5; Germany: 7; India: 7; France: 12; Poland: 3). In Study 2, 17 participants were removed. 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 58 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Table S3 4 5 6 Indicators of the Tripartite Islamophobia Scale used in all Samples. 7 8 Overarching First-Order Definition Questionnaire items, each with five Scale options 9 10 Concept Concept response options: 11 12 13 14 For Peer Review 15 16 17 Tripartite Anti-Islam Indiscriminate and negative 1) Islam is a sexist religion. 1 – “Strongly disagree” 18 19 Islamophobia Sentiment attitudes towards the Islamic 2) Islam is a violence-glorifying 2 – “Somewhat disagree” 20 21 22 religion. religion. 3 – “Neither agree nor disagree” 23 24 3) The Islamic religion is harmful for 4 – “Somewhat agree” 25 26 world peace. 5 – “Strongly agree” 27 28 29 4) The Islamic religion is by default 30 31 not compatible with modernity. 32 33 5) Islam is an anti-semitic religion. 34 35 36 6) Islam has produced an admirable 37 38 culture.* 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 59 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 7) Islamic culture fits perfectly in our 4 5 6 Western World.* 7 8 Anti-Muslim Indiscriminate and negative 1) The Islamist terrorists find strong 1 – “Strongly disagree” 9 10 Prejudice attitudes towards Muslim support among Muslims. 2 – “Somewhat disagree” 11 12 individuals. 2) Muslims are not trustworthy. 3 – “Neither agree nor disagree” 13 14 For Peer Review 15 3) Muslims attract more attention 4 – “Somewhat agree” 16 17 due to their aggressive behavior. 5 – “Strongly agree” 18 19 4) Muslims are a social and 20 21 22 economic burden for [Respondents 23 24 Country]. 25 26 5) Muslims appear to be rather 27 28 29 irrational, compared to non-Muslims 30 31 in this country. 32 33 6) Muslim practices fit perfectly in 34 35 our [Residents Country].* 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 60 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 7) Muslims are an enrichment for the 4 5 6 [Residents Country].* 7 8 Anti-Muslim Conspiracy beliefs 1) Muslims are planning to Islamize 1 – “Definitely false” 9 10 Conspiracy pertaining to Muslims. the West step by step. 2 – “Somewhat false” 11 12 Beliefs 2) Actually, Muslims are striving to 3 – “Neither false nor true” 13 14 For Peer Review 15 establish the Sharia in the 4 – “Somewhat true” 16 17 [Respondents Country]. 5 – “Definitely true” 18 19 3) Muslims secretly plot for an 20 21 22 Islamization of [Residents 23 24 Country]. 25 26 4) Muslims would like to control the 27 28 29 international political institutions. 30 31 5) Muslims achieve their collective 32 33 goals by secret agreements. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 61 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Notes. The original German items were translated into English, Polish, and French from German or English and back-translated by native speakers 4 5 6 and/or professional translators. Many thanks to Dr. Katarzyna Wojnicka and Dr. Katarzyna Jaśko for the Polish translations. Gratitude to Dr. 7 8 Pascale Roure and Camille Barras MA for the French translations. The translated items are listed below (Tables S14-S15). 9 10 * Reverse coded items 11 12 13 14 For Peer Review 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 62 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Table S4 4 5 6 Studies 1 and 2 – Reliability Indicator for TIS Single-Country Analysis (Samples 1-5, USA, Germany, Poland, France and India: N = 1466; Sample 7 8 6, USA: N = 213). 9 10 11 12 Study Country Constructs α 13 14 For Peer Review 15 Study 1 Aggregated 5 Countries Anti-Islam Sentiment .91 16 17 (N = 1466) Anti-Muslim prejudice .91 18 19 Conspiracy Beliefs .95 20 21 22 23 24 Anger Islam & Muslims .97 25 26 Disgust Islam & Muslims .97 27 28 29 Fear of Islam and Muslims .97 30 31 Study 1 Single Country Analysis 32 33 USA Anti-Islam Sentiment .92 34 35 36 (n = 295) Anti-Muslim prejudice .92 37 38 Conspiracy Beliefs .95 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 63 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 Anger Islam & Muslims .97 7 8 Disgust Islam & Muslims .98 9 10 Fear of Islam and Muslims .98 11 12 13 14 For Peer Review 15 Germany Anti-Islam Sentiment .90 16 17 (n = 293) Anti-Muslim prejudice .91 18 19 Conspiracy Beliefs .92 20 21 22 23 24 Anger Islam & Muslims .94 25 26 Disgust Islam & Muslims .95 27 28 29 Fear of Islam and Muslims .94 30 31 32 33 Poland Anti-Islam Sentiment .83 34 35 (n = 297) Anti-Muslim prejudice .84 36 37 38 Conspiracy Beliefs .91 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 64 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 Anger Islam & Muslims .96 7 8 Disgust Islam & Muslims .97 9 10 Fear of Islam and Muslims .95 11 12 13 14 For Peer Review 15 France Anti-Islam Sentiment .93 16 17 (n = 289) Anti-Muslim prejudice .88 18 19 Conspiracy Beliefs .96 20 21 22 23 24 Anger Islam & Muslims .96 25 26 Disgust Islam & Muslims .96 27 28 29 Fear of Islam and Muslims .98 30 31 32 33 India Anti-Islam Sentiment .89 34 35 (n = 292) Anti-Muslim prejudice .89 36 37 38 Conspiracy Beliefs .95 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 65 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 Anger Islam & Muslims .97 7 8 Disgust Islam & Muslims .98 9 10 Fear of Islam and Muslims .96 11 12 Study 2 13 14 For Peer Review 15 USA Anti-Islam Sentiment .91 16 17 (n = 213) Anti-Muslim prejudice .92 18 19 Conspiracy Beliefs .97 20 21 22 23 24 Anger Islam & Muslims .97 25 26 Disgust Islam & Muslims .97 27 28 29 Fear of Islam and Muslims .97 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 66 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Table S5 4 5 6 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Between all Variables Across Samples in Study 1. 7 8 M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 1. Tripartite Islamophobia Scale 2.01 0.97 - 10 11 2. Anti-Muslim Prejudice 3.73 1.07 .26** 12 13 3. Anti-Islam Sentiment 2.13 1.42 .53** .34** 14 4. Conspiracy Beliefs 2.23 1.37 For.39** .31** Peer.33** Review 15 16 5. Fear of Islam 2.12 1.32 .45** .31** .45** .84** 17 18 6. Fear of Muslims 2.27 1.34 .43** .24** .40** .78** .70** 19 7. Anger toward Islam 1.98 1.23 .53** .28** .54** .72** .83** .81** 20 21 8. Anger toward Muslims 2.17 1.34 .44** .22** .42** .75** .71** .93** .83** 22 23 9. Disgust of Islam 1.94 1.27 .55** .27** .50** .71** .79** .79** .94** .85** 24 10. Disgust of Muslims 2.17 1.29 .44** .32** .40** .96** .96** .77** .80** .76** .78** 25 26 11. Fear Islam & Muslims 2.12 1.23 .50** .27** .49** .79** .80** .96** .95** .93** .91** .83** 27 28 12. Anger Islam & Muslims 2.06 1.26 .51** .25** .47** .76** .78** .90** .91** .97** .96** .80** .95** 29 13. Disgust Islam & Muslims 2.50 0.96 .36** .34** .43** .62** .61** .76** .70** .75** .66** .64** .77** .73** 30 31 ** p < .01. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 67 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Table S6 4 5 6 Regression Results Using the Tripartite Islamophobia Scale as the Criterion Variable (n = 1466). 7 8 b beta sr2 9 Country Predictor b 95% CI beta 95% CI sr2 95% CI r Fit Difference 10 [LL, UL] [LL, UL] [LL, UL] 11 5 Countries Step 1 12 (N = 1466) (Intercept) 1.22** [1.14, 1.29] 13 Adj. R2 = .575** 14 Fear of Islam For0.38** [0.33, Peer 0.44] 0.45 [0.38,Review 0.51] .05 [.04, .07] .74** 15 95% CI [.55,.60] 16 Fear of Muslims 0.29** [0.24, 0.35] 0.34 [0.28, 0.40] .03 [.02, .04] .72** 17 18 19 Step 2 20 (Intercept) 1.01** [0.95, 1.08] 21 22 Fear of Islam 0.17** [0.12, 0.23] 0.20 [0.14, 0.27] .01 [.00, .01] .74** 23 Adj. R2 = .690** R2 = .115** 24 Fear of Muslims 0.11** [0.06, 0.17] 0.13 [0.07, 0.20] .00 [-.00, .01] .72** 95% CI [.67,.71] 95% CI [.09, .13] 25 Anger toward Islam 0.32** [0.26, 0.38] 0.36 [0.29, 0.42] .03 [.02, .03] .79** 26 27 Anger toward Muslims 0.20** [0.14, 0.26] 0.22 [0.15, 0.28] .01 [.00, .01] .76** 28 29 30 Step 3 31 32 (Intercept) 1.00** [0.94, 1.07] 33 Fear of Islam 0.16** [0.11, 0.22] 0.19 [0.13, 0.26] .01 [.00, .01] .74** 34 Adj. R2 = .693** R2 = .004** 35 Fear of Muslims 0.12** [0.06, 0.18] 0.14 [0.07, 0.21] .00 [.00, .01] .72** 95% CI [.67,.71] 95% CI [.00, .01] 36 Anger toward Islam 0.25** [0.18, 0.31] 0.28 [0.20, 0.35] .01 [.01, .02] .79** 37 38 Anger toward Muslims 0.18** [0.10, 0.25] 0.19 [0.11, 0.28] .00 [.00, .01] .76** 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 68 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Disgust toward Islam 0.14** [0.07, 0.20] 0.15 [0.07, 0.22] .00 [.00, .01] .74** 4 5 Disgust toward Muslims -0.03 [-0.11, 0.05] -0.03 [-0.12, 0.05] .00 [-.00, .00] .72** 6 7 8 USA Step 1 9 (n = 295) (Intercept) 1.05** [0.88, 1.21] 10 Adj. R2 = .616** 11 Fear of Islam 0.35** [0.21, 0.49] 0.39 [0.23, 0.55] .03 [.01, .06] .76** 12 95% CI [.55,.67] 13 Fear of Muslims 0.37** [0.23, 0.52] 0.42 [0.26, 0.57] .03 [.01, .06] .76** 14 For Peer Review 15 16 Step 2 17 (Intercept) 0.89** [0.74, 1.03] 18 19 Fear of Islam 0.10 [-0.04, 0.24] 0.11 [-0.05, 0.27] .00 [-.00, .01] .76** 2 2 20 Adj. R = .710** R = .095** Fear of Muslims 0.18* [0.03, 0.34] 0.20 [0.03, 0.37] .01 [-.00, .01] .76** 21 95% CI [.65,.75] 95% CI [.05, .13] 22 Anger toward Islam 0.43** [0.27, 0.59] 0.46 [0.29, 0.64] .03 [.01, .05] .82** 23 24 Anger toward Muslims 0.11 [-0.07, 0.29] 0.11 [-0.07, 0.30] .00 [-.00, .01] .79** 25 26 27 28 Step 3 29 30 (Intercept) 0.88** [0.74, 1.03] 31 Fear of Islam 0.10 [-0.05, 0.25] 0.11 [-0.05, 0.28] .00 [-.00, .01] .76** 32 Adj. R2 = .710** R2 = .000 33 Fear of Muslims 0.18* [0.02, 0.34] 0.20 [0.03, 0.38] .01 [-.00, .01] .76** 34 95% CI [.65,.75] 95% CI [-.00, .00] 35 Anger toward Islam 0.43** [0.24, 0.61] 0.46 [0.26, 0.65] .02 [.00, .04] .82** 36 Anger toward Muslims 0.10 [-0.13, 0.33] 0.10 [-0.13, 0.34] .00 [-.00, .00] .79** 37 38 Disgust toward Islam 0.01 [-0.19, 0.21] 0.01 [-0.20, 0.22] .00 [-.00, .00] .77** 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 69 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 4 5 Germany Step 1 6 (n = 293) (Intercept) 1.18** [1.01, 1.36] 7 8 Fear of Islam 0.46** [0.34, 0.58] 0.52 [0.38, 0.65] .11 [.06, .17] .66** Adj. R2 = .443** 9 Fear of Muslims 0.19** [0.05, 0.33] 0.18 [0.05, 0.31] .01 [-.01, .03] .58** 95% CI [.36,.51] 10 11 12 13 Step 2 14 (Intercept) For0.90** [0.75, Peer 1.04] Review 15 16 Fear of Islam 0.10 [-0.02, 0.21] 0.11 [-0.02, 0.24] .00 [-.00, .01] .66** Adj. R2 = .652** R2 = .209** 17 Fear of Muslims 0.09 [-0.03, 0.21] 0.09 [-0.03, 0.20] .00 [-.00, .01] .58** 18 95% CI [.59,.70] 95% CI [.15, .27] 19 Anger toward Islam 0.43** [0.32, 0.53] 0.51 [0.39, 0.64] .08 [.04, .12] .78** 20 21 Anger toward Muslims 0.19** [0.07, 0.31] 0.19 [0.07, 0.30] .01 [-.00, .03] .69** 22 23 24 25 Step 3 26 27 (Intercept) 0.87** [0.73, 1.01] 28 Fear of Islam 0.10 [-0.01, 0.21] 0.11 [-0.01, 0.23] .00 [-.00, .01] .66** 29 Adj. R2 = .691** R2 = .039** 30 Fear of Muslims 0.10 [-0.01, 0.22] 0.10 [-0.01, 0.21] .00 [-.00, .01] .58** 31 95% CI [.63.73] 95% CI [.01, .06] 32 Anger toward Islam 0.23** [0.11, 0.35] 0.28 [0.13, 0.42] .02 [-.00, .03] .78** 33 Anger toward Muslims 0.14 [-0.00, 0.27] 0.13 [-0.00, 0.27] .00 [-.00, .01] .69** 34 35 Disgust toward Islam 0.29** [0.18, 0.41] 0.34 [0.21, 0.47] .03 [.01, .05] .76** 36 37 38 Poland Step 1 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 70 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 (n = 297) (Intercept) 2.07** [1.87, 2.26] Adj. R2 = .417** 4 5 Fear of Islam 0.28** [0.17, 0.39] 0.40 [0.25, 0.56] .05 [.01, .09] .63** 95% CI [.33,.49] 6 Fear of Muslims 0.18** [0.08, 0.28] 0.27 [0.12, 0.43] .02 [-.00, .05] .60** 7 8 9 Step 2 10 11 (Intercept) 1.82** [1.64, 1.99] 12 Fear of Islam 0.16** [0.06, 0.26] 0.23 [0.08, 0.37] .01 [-.00, .03] .63** 13 Adj. R2 = .568** R2 = .151** 14 Fear of Muslims For0.07 [-0.02, Peer 0.17] 0.11 [-0.04,Review 0.25] .00 [-.01, .01] .60** 15 95% CI [.49,.62] 95% CI [.09, .21] 16 Anger toward Islam 0.19** [0.08, 0.29] 0.26 [0.12, 0.41] .02 [-.00, .04] .68** 17 Anger toward Muslims 0.18** [0.08, 0.28] 0.27 [0.12, 0.41] .02 [-.00, .04] .68** 18 19 20 21 22 Step 3 23 24 (Intercept) 1.81** [1.63, 1.99] 25 Fear of Islam 0.16** [0.06, 0.26] 0.23 [0.09, 0.38] .01 [-.00, .03] .63** 26 Adj. R2 = .569** R2 = .001 27 Fear of Muslims 0.07 [-0.02, 0.17] 0.11 [-0.04, 0.25] .00 [-.01, .01] .60** 95% CI [.49,.62] 95% CI [-.00, .01] 28 Anger toward Islam 0.16** [0.05, 0.28] 0.23 [0.07, 0.40] .01 [-.00, .03] .68** 29 30 Anger toward Muslims 0.16** [0.04, 0.28] 0.24 [0.06, 0.42] .01 [-.00, .03] .68** 31 32 Disgust toward Islam 0.04 [-0.08, 0.16] 0.06 [-0.11, 0.22] .00 [-.00, .00] .60** 33 34 35 France Step 1 36 (n = 289) (Intercept) 1.01** [0.87, 1.15] Adj. R2 = .606** 37 38 Fear of Islam 0.37** [0.28, 0.47] 0.47 [0.35, 0.58] .08 [.04, .12] .75** 95% CI [.54,.66] 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 71 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Fear of Muslims 0.33** [0.22, 0.44] 0.36 [0.24, 0.48] .05 [.02, .08] .72** 4 5 6 Step 2 7 8 (Intercept) 0.81** [0.69, 0.93] 9 Fear of Islam 0.14* [0.03, 0.24] 0.17 [0.03, 0.30] .01 [-.00, .01] .75** 10 Adj. R2 = .733** R2 = .127** 11 Fear of Muslims 0.15* [0.02, 0.28] 0.16 [0.02, 0.30] .00 [-.00, .01] .72** 12 95% CI [.68,.77] 95% CI [.08, .17] 13 Anger toward Islam 0.38** [0.26, 0.50] 0.43 [0.29, 0.56] .04 [.01, .06] .81** 14 Anger toward Muslims For0.20** [0.06, Peer 0.34] 0.19 [0.05,Review 0.33] .01 [-.00, .02] .76** 15 16 17 18 19 Step 3 20 21 (Intercept) 0.76** [0.64, 0.88] 22 Fear of Islam 0.14* [0.03, 0.25] 0.17 [0.03, 0.30] .01 [-.00, .01] .75** 23 Adj. R2 = .751** R2 = .018** 24 Fear of Muslims 0.14* [0.01, 0.28] 0.16 [0.01, 0.30] .00 [-.00, .01] .72** 95% CI [.70,.78] 95% CI [.00, .03] 25 Anger toward Islam 0.25** [0.12, 0.38] 0.28 [0.13, 0.42] .01 [-.00, .03] .81** 26 27 Anger toward Muslims 0.05 [-0.12, 0.21] 0.05 [-0.12, 0.21] .00 [-.00, .00] .76** 28 Disgust toward Islam 0.22** [0.09, 0.35] 0.22 [0.09, 0.35] .01 [-.00, .02] .79** 29 30 31 32 India Step 1 33 (n = 292) (Intercept) 1.29** [1.12, 1.46] 34 Adj. R2 = .584** 35 Fear of Islam 0.40** [0.26, 0.55] 0.47 [0.31, 0.64] .04 [.01, .08] .75** 95% CI [.51,.64] 36 Fear of Muslims 0.27** [0.12, 0.41] 0.31 [0.14, 0.48] .02 [-.00, .04] .73** 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 72 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Step 2 4 5 (Intercept) 1.11** [0.96, 1.26] 6 Fear of Islam 0.25** [0.10, 0.39] 0.29 [0.12, 0.46] .01 [-.00, .03] .75** Adj. R2 = .695** R2 = .111** 7 8 Fear of Muslims -0.09 [-0.25, 0.07] -0.11 [-0.30, 0.08] .00 [-.00, .01] .73** 95% CI [.64,.73] 95% CI [.07, .16] 9 Anger toward Islam 0.28** [0.12, 0.44] 0.32 [0.14, 0.50] .01 [-.00, .03] .81** 10 11 Anger toward Muslims 0.33** [0.16, 0.50] 0.37 [0.18, 0.56] .02 [-.00, .03] .80** 12 13 14 For Peer Review 15 16 Step 3 1.11** [0.95, 1.26] 17 (Intercept) 0.23** [0.08, 0.37] 0.27 [0.09, 0.44] .01 [-.00, .02] .75** 18 19 Fear of Islam -0.08 [-0.24, 0.09] -0.09 [-0.28, 0.10] .00 [-.00, .00] .73** 2 2 20 Adj. R = .698** R = .003 Fear of Muslims 0.18 [-0.01, 0.37] 0.21 [-0.01, 0.43] .00 [-.00, .01] .81** 21 95% CI [.64,.73] 95% CI [-.00, .01] 22 Anger toward Islam 0.39** [0.16, 0.62] 0.44 [0.18, 0.70] .01 [-.00, .03] .80** 23 24 Anger toward Muslims 0.19 [-0.02, 0.40] 0.21 [-0.02, 0.45] .00 [-.00, .01] .80** 25 Disgust toward Islam -0.14 [-0.37, 0.09] -0.16 [-0.42, 0.10] .00 [-.00, .01] .77** 26 27 28 29 30 Note. A significant b-weight indicates the beta-weight and semi-partial correlation are also significant. b represents unstandardized regression 31 weights. beta indicates the standardized regression weights. sr2 represents the semi-partial correlation squared. r represents the zero-order 32 33 correlation. LL and UL indicate the lower and upper limits of a confidence interval, respectively. 34 35 * p < .05. ** p < .01. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 73 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Table S7 4 5 6 Regression Results Using the Tripartite Islamophobia Subscales as the Criterion Variables (n = 1466). 7 8 Country Intergroup emotions Anti-Islam Sentiment Anti-Muslim Prejudice Conspiracy Beliefs 9 B (SE) β B (SE) β B (SE) β 10 5 Countries Step 1 11 (N = 1466) 12 Fear of Islam .49***(0.04) .54 .12***(0.03) .13 .19***(0.04) .20 13 Fear of Muslims .13*(0.04) .14 .13***(0.03) .14 .16***(0.04) .16 14 R2 For .44**Peer Review.52** .51** 15 16 Step 2 17 18 Anger toward Islam .47***(0.04) .50 .27***(0.04) .28 .11*(0.04) .11 19 Anger toward Muslims .10*(0.05) .10 .21***(0.04) .22 .22***(0.05) .21 20 21 R2 .55** .64** .59** 22 2 23 R .11** .12** .08** 24 Step 3 25 26 Disgust toward Islam .25***(0.04) .26 .07(0.04) .07 .09*(0.04) .09 27 Disgust toward Muslims -.24***(0.05) -.24 .04(0.04) .04 .10(0.05) .09 28 29 R2 .56** .65** .60** 30 R2 .01** .01* .01** 31 32 F 306.40*** 445.30*** 361.30*** 33 34 Step 1 35 36 USA Fear of Islam .06(0.10) .07 .06(0.08) .07 .18(0.09) .18 (n = 295) 37 Fear of Muslims .23*(0.10) .24 .14(0.09) .15 .17(0.10) .17 38 39 R2 .50** .56** .56** 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 74 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Step 2 4 5 Anger toward Islam .49***(0.12) .56 .44***(0.10) .46 .34**(0.12) .33 6 Anger toward Muslims .08(0.14) -.05 .07(0.13) .07 .15(0.15) .14 7 8 R2 .59** .66** .62** 9 R2 .09** .11** .06** 10 11 Step 3 12 13 Disgust toward Islam .14(0.13) .14 -.04(0.11) -.05 -.06(0.13) -.06 14 Disgust toward MuslimsFor-.23(0.14) Peer -.22Review.16(0.13) .16 .09(0.14) .08 15 16 R2 .59** .67** .62** 17 R2 .00 .00 .00 18 19 F 69.74*** 95.90*** 79.13*** 20 21 22 Germany Step 1 (n = 293) 23 Fear of Islam .15*(0.07) .14 .09(0.07) .09 .06(0.08) .06 24 25 Fear of Muslims .03(0.07) .03 .07(0.07) .06 .21*(0.08) .20 26 R2 .39** .39** .31** 27 28 Step 2 29 Anger toward Islam .41***(0.08) .41 .21**(0.07) .22 .08(0.08) .09 30 31 Anger toward Muslims .01(0.09) .01 .26**(0.08) .22 .14(0.09) .14 32 2 33 R .60** .61** .40** 34 R2 .21** .23** .09** 35 36 Step 3 37 Disgust toward Islam 0.50***(0.07) .48 0.22**(0.07) .22 0.17*(0.08) .19 38 39 Disgust toward Muslims -.28**(0.10) -.21 .14(0.10) .11 .10(0.11) .09 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 75 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 R2 .66** .65** .42** 4 2 5 R .06** .03** .02** 6 F 90.71*** 87.14*** 34.89*** 7 8 9 Poland Step 1 10 (n = 297) Fear of Islam .16*(0.06) .22 .14*(0.06) .18 .18*(0.07) .21 11 12 Fear of Muslims .03(0.06) .05 .10(0.06) .13 .08(0.07) .10 13 2 14 R For .25**Peer Review.38** .34** 15 Step 2 16 17 Anger toward Islam .13(0.07) .18 .25***(0.07) .31 .11(0.08) .13 18 Anger toward Muslims .17*(0.08) .24 .17*(0.07) .23 .14(0.08) .17 19 20 R2 .34** .53** .45**

21 2 22 R .09** .15** .12** 23 Step 3 24 25 Disgust toward Islam .10(0.07) .13 -.04(0.07) -.05 0.07(0.08) .08 26 Disgust toward Muslims -.11(0.08) -.14 .03(0.08) .04 .10(0.09) .11 27 28 R2 .35** .53** .46** 29 R2 .00 .00 .01 30 31 F 25.91*** 54.61*** 41.16*** 32 33 34 France Step 1 (n = 289) 35 Fear of Islam .14(0.08) .16 .06(0.06) .08 .21**(0.08) .22 36 37 Fear of Muslims .14(0.09) .14 .18*(0.07) .18 .11(0.09) .11 38 R2 .46** .56** .52** 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 76 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Step 2 4 5 Anger toward Islam .44***(0.09) .45 .22**(0.07) .24 .09(0.09) .09 6 Anger toward Muslims -.08(0.12) -.07 .05(0.09) .05 .17(0.12) .14 7 8 R2 .57** .70** .62** 9 R2 .11** .14** .10** 10 11 Step 3 12 13 Disgust toward Islam 0.30**(0.09) .28 0.16*(0.07) .15 0.20*(0.09) .17 14 Disgust toward MuslimsFor-.18(0.12) Peer -.15Review.29**(0.09) .26 .22(0.12) .18 15 16 R2 .59** .72** .64** 17 R2 .02** .02** .02** 18 19 F 67.28*** 122.30*** 82.75*** 20 21 22 India Step 1 (n = 292) 23 Fear of Islam .27**(0.09) .29 .14(0.08) .16 .27**(0.09) .28 24 25 Fear of Muslims -.11(0.11) -.12 -.09(0.09) -.10 -.04(0.10) -.04 26 R2 .47** .51** .56** 27 28 Step 2 29 Anger toward Islam .32*(0.13) .34 .17(0.11) .20 .05(0.12) .05 30 31 Anger toward Muslims .28(0.15) .30 .34**(0.13) .38 .54***(0.14) .55 32 2 33 R .56** .64** .65** 34 R2 .09** .13** .08** 35 36 Step 3 37 Disgust toward Islam 0.16(0.14) .17 0.20(0.11) .23 0.20(0.13) .21 38 39 Disgust toward Muslims -.20(0.15) --.21 -.04(0.13) -.04 -.20(0.14) -.20 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 77 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 R2 .56** .64** .65** 4 2 5 R .00 .00 .00 6 F 60.69*** 85.55*** 89.92*** 7 8 9 Note. All standardized estimates are from the last step of the analyses. 10 11 * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. 12 13 14 For Peer Review 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 78 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Table S8 4 5 6 Study 1 – Single-Country Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Global Fit Measures for One-Factor, Two-Factor, and Three-Factor Islamophobia 7 8 Models (USA, Germany, Poland, France and India) N = 1466. 9 10 2 χ difference 11 12 13 Country Factors χ2/df CFI SRMR RMSEA RMSEA CI Upper AIC χ2 df p < 14 For Peer Review difference 15 16 1 18.85 .926 .051 .110 .115 55479.398 – 85 .001 17 5 Countries 18 2 9.37 .966 .037 .076 .080 54666.157 815.240 84 .001 19 (N = 1466) 20 21 3 5.16 .983 .029 .045 .050 54336.215 363.942 82 .001 22 23 24 25 1 5.29 .922 .046 .121 .132 11104.512 – 85 .001 26 USA 27 28 2 3.27 .959 .039 .088 .099 10931.472 175.040 84 .001 29 (n = 295) 30 3 2.66 .971 .035 .075 .085 10879.282 56.191 82 .001 31 32 33 34 35 Germany 1 5.85 .883 .066 .129 .140 10647.446 – 85 .001 36 37 (n = 293) 2 3.80 .933 .049 .098 .109 10471.598 177.848 84 .001 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 79 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 3 2.15 .973 .032 .063 .075 10332.078 143.520 82 .001 4 5 6 7 8 1 3.25 .926 .055 .087 .099 11770.263 – 85 .001 9 Poland 10 2 2.37 .956 .047 .068 .080 11695.090 77.173 84 .001 11 (n = 297) 12 3 1.80 .975 .042 .052 .065 11647.754 51.337 82 .001 13 14 For Peer Review 15 16 17 1 4.01 .930 .054 .102 .114 10128.309 – 85 .001 18 France 19 2 2.26 .971 .036 .066 .078 9980.882 151.421 84 .001 20 21 (n = 289) 22 3 1.82 .982 .032 .053 .067 9943.370 40.427 82 .001 23 24 25 26 1 5.15 .925 .047 .119 .130 10990.176 – 85 .001 27 India 28 29 2 3.04 .963 .038 .084 .096 10809.444 182.281 84 .001 30 (n = 292) 31 3 2.68 .971 .037 .076 .088 10777.403 36.345 82 .001 32 33 Notes. Robust SEM Model-fit (Satorra-Bentler correction; Mplus Variant). 34 35 36 The One-Factor Model was constructed with all items representing one latent factor. In the Two-Factor Model, all items referring to Islam 37 38 constituted on latent variable and all items referring to Muslims formed a second latent variable. In the Three-Factor Model, the proposed tripartite 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 80 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 structure was modelled representing anti-Muslim prejudice, anti-Islam sentiment, and conspiracy beliefs. We also tested all possible two-factor 4 5 6 models. The results can be found in Table S9 in this file. As reported in Table S8, single country CFAs indicated acceptable modification indices 7 8 (CFI, AIC, SRMR, RMSEA) with only India and the USA showing RMSEA values slightly above the threshold of .080 (USA: RMSEA = 0.085; 9 10 India: RMSEA = 0.088). Hence, a few modifications were applied to achieve better fit of the models for the remaining analysis. In order to improve 11 12 the model fit indices for the models, we explored the modification indices in each country sample. Additional covariances were introduced into the 13 14 For 2Peer Review 15 models in theoretically justified and significant cases (χ difference > 10) among the modification indices. We allowed error items of the same latent 16 17 constructs, but not between items measuring different latent constructs to covary, resulting in the re-specification of five parameters for the overall 18 19 sample in total: one residual covariance for anti-Islamic sentiment (Isl_4 ~~ Isl_5); one residual covariance for anti-Muslim prejudice (Musl_1 ~~ 20 21 22 Musl_3), and three residual covariances for conspiracy beliefs (Consp_3 ~~ Consp_5; Consp_2 ~~ Consp_3 + Consp_5). The MI analysis was 23 24 conducted including these re-specifications. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 81 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Table S9 4 5 6 Study 1 – Single-Country Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Global Fit Measures for all Alternative Two-Factor Combinations of the Islamophobia 7 8 Model (USA, Germany, Poland, France and India; N = 1466). 9 10 2 χ difference 11 12 13 Country Two-Factor Model χ2/df CFI SRMR RMSEA RMSEA CI Upper AIC χ2 df p < 14 For Peer Review difference 15 16 2 3.27 .959 .039 .088 .099 10931.472 – 84 .001 17 USA 18 2.1 4.22 .942 .043 .104 .116 11011.327 79.854 84 .001 19 (n = 295) 20 21 2.2 5.06 .927 .046 .117 .128 11081.790 70.464 84 .001 22 23 24 25 2 3.80 .933 .049 .098 .109 10471.598 – 84 .001 26 27 Germany 28 2.1 3.99 .929 .050 .101 .112 10486.976 15.379 84 .001 29 (n = 293) 30 2.2 4.95 .906 .064 .116 .127 10568.327 81.35 84 .001 31 32 33 34 35 Poland 2 2.37 .956 .047 .068 .080 11695.090 – 84 .001 36 37 (n = 297) 2.1 2.54 .950 .050 .072 .084 11709.467 14.377 84 .001 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 82 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 2.2 2.87 .940 .052 .079 .091 11736.602 27.135 84 .001 4 5 6 7 8 2 2.26 .971 .036 .066 .078 9980.882 – 84 .001 9 France 10 2.1 3.27 .948 .048 .089 .101 10065.150 84.268 84 .001 11 (n = 289) 12 2.2 3.73 .938 .052 .097 .109 10103.798 38.649 84 .001 13 14 For Peer Review 15 16 17 2 3.04 .963 .038 .084 .096 10809.444 – 84 .001 18 India 19 2.1 4.11 .944 .046 .103 .115 10901.290 91.846 84 .001 20 (n = 292) 21 22 2.2 4.88 .930 .047 .115 .126 10966.357 65.067 84 .001 23 24 Notes. Robust SEM Model-fit (Satorra-Bentler correction; Mplus Variant). 25 26 In the first Two-Factor Model (2), all items referring to Islam constituted on latent variable and all items referring to Muslims (anti-Muslim 27 28 29 Prejudice and conspiracy beliefs) formed a second latent variable (this version, which showed the best fit to data, was also used as comparative two- 30 31 factor model in the main analysis (see Table S8 in this file). The second Two-Factor Model (2.1) was constructed with anti-Muslim prejudice items 32 33 and anti-Islam sentiment items representing one latent factor and conspiracy belief items representing the second latent factor. In the third Two- 34 35 Factor Model (2.2) items from anti-Islam sentiment and conspiracy beliefs components formed one latent factor, while anti-Muslim prejudice 36 37 38 formed the second latent variable. 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 83 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Table S10 4 5 6 Regression results using the Tripartite Islamophobia Scale as the Criterion Variable (n = 1466). 7 8 b beta sr2 9 Country Predictor b 95% CI beta 95% CI sr2 95% CI r Fit Difference 10 [LL, UL] [LL, UL] [LL, UL] 11 5 Countries Step 1 12 (N = 1466) (Intercept) 1.23** [1.15, 1.30] Adj. R2 = .574** 13 14 Fear Islam & Muslims For0.68** [0.65, Peer 0.71] 0.76 [0.72,Review 0.79] .57 [.54, .60] .76** 95% CI [.54,.60] 15 16 17 Step 2 18 (Intercept) 1.03** [0.96, 1.10] 2 2 19 Adj. R = .687** R = .113** Fear Islam & Muslims 0.28** [0.24, 0.33] 0.32 [0.27, 0.37] .04 [.03, .05] .76** 20 95% CI [.66,.71] 95% CI [.09, .13] 21 Anger Islam & Muslims 0.52** [0.47, 0.56] 0.55 [0.51, 0.60] .11 [.09, .13] .81** 22 23 24 Step 3 25 (Intercept) 1.03** [0.96, 1.09] 26 2 2 27 Fear Islam & Muslims 0.28** [0.24, 0.32] 0.32 [0.27, 0.36] .04 [.03, .05] .76** Adj. R = .689** R = .002** 28 Anger Islam & Muslims 0.44** [0.36, 0.51] 0.46 [0.39, 0.54] .03 [.02, .04] .81** 95% CI [.67,.71] 95% CI [-.00, .00] 29 Disgust Islam & Muslims 0.10** [0.03, 0.16] 0.10 [0.03, 0.17] .00 [-.00, .00] .76** 30 31 32 USA Step 1 33 34 (n = 295) (Intercept) 1.05** [0.88, 1.21] Adj. R2 = .616** 35 Fear Islam & Muslims 0.72** [0.66, 0.79] 0.78 [0.71, 0.86] .62 [.55, .67] .78** 95% CI [.55,.67] 36 37 38 Step 2 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 84 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 (Intercept) 0.90** [0.75, 1.04] Adj. R2 = .706** 4 R2 = .091** Fear Islam & Muslims 0.27** [0.17, 0.38] 0.30 [0.18, 0.42] .02 [.00, .04] .78** 95% CI [.65,.75] 5 95% CI [.05, .13] 6 Anger Islam & Muslims 0.55** [0.44, 0.67] 0.57 [0.45, 0.69] .09 [.05, .13] .83** 7 8 9 Step 3 10 (Intercept) 0.90** [0.75, 1.04] 11 2 2 12 Fear Islam & Muslims 0.28** [0.17, 0.39] 0.30 [0.18, 0.42] .02 [.00, .04] .78** Adj. R = .706** R = .000 13 Anger Islam & Muslims 0.58** [0.39, 0.76] 0.60 [0.41, 0.79] .04 [.01, .06] .83** 95% CI [.65,.74] 95% CI [-.00, .00] 14 Disgust Islam & Muslims For-0.03 [-0.21, Peer 0.15] -0.03 [-0.21,Review 0.15] .00 [-.00, .00] .78** 15 16 17 Germany Step 1 18 19 (n = 293) (Intercept) 1.19** [1.01, 1.36] 20 Adj. R2 = .434** 21 Fear Islam & Muslims 0.67** [0.58, 0.76] 0.66 [0.57, 0.75] .43 [.35, .50] .66** 22 95% CI [.35,.50] 23 24 25 Step 2 26 (Intercept) 0.90** [0.75, 1.04] 27 Adj. R2 = .644** R2 = .210** Fear Islam & Muslims 0.19** [0.09, 0.29] 0.19 [0.09, 0.29] .02 [-.00, .04] .66** 28 95% CI [.58,.69] 95% CI [.15, .27] 29 Anger Islam & Muslims 0.64** [0.55, 0.74] 0.66 [0.56, 0.76] .21 [.15, .27] .79** 30 31 32 Step 3 33 (Intercept) 0.86** [0.71, 1.00] 34 2 2 35 Fear Islam & Muslims 0.20** [0.10, 0.30] 0.20 [0.10, 0.29] .02 [.00, .04] .66** Adj. R = .676** R = .032** 36 Anger Islam & Muslims 0.36** [0.22, 0.50] 0.37 [0.23, 0.51] .03 [.01, .05] .79** 95% CI [.62,.72] 95% CI [.01, .06] 37 38 Disgust Islam & Muslims 0.34** [0.22, 0.47] 0.34 [0.21, 0.46] .03 [.01, .06] .76** 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 85 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Poland Step 1 4 (n = 297) (Intercept) 2.09** [1.90, 2.28] Adj. R2 = .415** 5 6 Fear Islam & Muslims 0.46** [0.39, 0.52] 0.64 [0.56, 0.73] .41 [.33, .49] .64** 95% CI [.33,.49] 7 8 9 Step 2 10 (Intercept) 1.83** [1.66, 2.01] 11 Adj. R2 = .566** R2 = .151** 12 Fear Islam & Muslims 0.23** [0.16, 0.30] 0.32 [0.22, 0.42] .06 [.02, .10] .64** 95% CI [.49,.62] 95% CI [.09, .21] 13 Anger Islam & Muslims 0.37** [0.29, 0.44] 0.51 [0.41, 0.60] .15 [.09, .21] .71** 14 For Peer Review 15 16 Step 3 17 (Intercept) 1.83** [1.66, 2.00] 18 19 Fear Islam & Muslims 0.23** [0.16, 0.30] 0.32 [0.22, 0.42] .06 [.02, .10] .64** Adj. R2 = .567** R2 = .001 20 Anger Islam & Muslims 0.33** [0.21, 0.45] 0.45 [0.29, 0.62] .04 [.01, .08] .71** 95% CI [.49,.62] 95% CI [-.00, .01] 21 22 Disgust Islam & Muslims 0.05 [-0.07, 0.16] 0.06 [-0.09, 0.21] .00 [-.00, .01] .62** 23 24 25 France Step 1 26 (n = 289) (Intercept) 1.01** [0.87, 1.15] Adj. R2 = .606** 27 Fear Islam & Muslims 0.71** [0.64, 0.77] 0.78 [0.71, 0.85] .61 [.54, .66] .78** 95% CI [.54,.66] 28 29 30 Step 2 31 32 (Intercept) 0.82** [0.70, 0.94] Adj. R2 = .729** R2 = .124** 33 Fear Islam & Muslims 0.28** [0.19, 0.37] 0.31 [0.21, 0.41] .04 [.01, .06] .78** 34 95% CI [.68,.77] 95% CI [.08, .17] 35 Anger Islam & Muslims 0.59** [0.49, 0.69] 0.58 [0.48, 0.68] .12 [.08, .17] .83** 36 37 38 Step 3 39 (Intercept) 0.78** [0.66, 0.90] Adj. R2 = .743** R2 = .013* 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 86 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Fear Islam & Muslims 0.28** [0.19, 0.37] 0.31 [0.21, 0.41] .03 [.01, .06] .78** 95% CI [.69,.78] 95% CI [.00, .03] 4 Anger Islam & Muslims 0.34** [0.18, 0.50] 0.34 [0.18, 0.50] .02 [.00, .03] .83** 5 6 Disgust Islam & Muslims 0.30** [0.15, 0.45] 0.28 [0.13, 0.42] .01 [-.00, .03] .81** 7 8 9 India Step 1 10 (n = 292) (Intercept) 1.30** [1.13, 1.47] Adj. R2 = .582** 11 12 Fear Islam & Muslims 0.67** [0.60, 0.73] 0.76 [0.69, 0.84] .58 [.51, .64] .76** 95% CI [.51,.64] 13 14 Step 2 For Peer Review 15 16 (Intercept) 1.13** [0.98, 1.28] Adj. R2 = .688** R2 = .105** 17 Fear Islam & Muslims 0.18** [0.07, 0.29] 0.20 [0.08, 0.33] .01 [-.00, .02] .76** 95% CI [.63,.73] 95% CI [.06, .15] 18 19 Anger Islam & Muslims 0.58** [0.47, 0.70] 0.65 [0.52, 0.78] .11 [.06, .15] .82** 20 21 22 Step 3 23 (Intercept) 1.13** [0.98, 1.28] 24 2 2 25 Fear Islam & Muslims 0.18** [0.06, 0.29] 0.20 [0.07, 0.33] .01 [-.00, .02] .76** Adj. R = .688** R = .000 26 Anger Islam & Muslims 0.55** [0.34, 0.77] 0.61 [0.38, 0.85] .03 [.01, .05] .82** 95% CI [.63,.73] 95% CI [-.00, .00] 27 Disgust Islam & Muslims 0.03 [-0.17, 0.24] 0.04 [-0.19, 0.27] .00 [-.00, .00] .80** 28 29 30 31 Note. A significant b-weight indicates the beta-weight and semi-partial correlation are also significant. b represents unstandardized regression 32 weights. beta indicates the standardized regression weights. sr2 represents the semi-partial correlation squared. r represents the zero-order 33 34 correlation. LL and UL indicate the lower and upper limits of a confidence interval, respectively. 35 36 * p < .05. ** p < .01. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 87 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Table S11 4 5 6 Regression Results Using the Tripartite Islamophobia Subscales as the Criterion Variables. 7 8 Country Intergroup emotions Anti-Islam Sentiment Anti-Muslim Prejudice Conspiracy Beliefs 9 B (SE) β B (SE) β B (SE) β 10 5 Countries Step 1 11 (N = 1466) 12 Fear .27***(0.03) .25 .24***(0.02) .26 .35***(0.03) .35 13 R2 .43** .52** .51** 14 Step 2 For Peer Review 15 16 Anger .50***(0.05) .50 .49***(0.04) .49 .31***(0.05) .30 17 18 R2 .52** .64** .59** 19 R2 .09** .12** .08** 20 21 Step 3 22 23 Disgust -.01(0.04) -.01 .10**(0.04) .10 .20***(0.04) .18 24 R2 .52** .65** .60** 25 26 R2 .00 .01** .01** 27 F 529.00*** 891.30*** 722.10*** 28 29 Step 1 30 31 USA Fear .28***(0.07) .29 .20***(0.06) .21 .35***(0.07) .35 32 (n = 295) 2 33 R .50** .56** .56** 34 Step 2 35 36 Anger .65***(0.12) .63 .57***(0.10) .56 .52***(0.12) .48 37 R2 .57** .66** .62** 38 39 R2 .07** .10** .06** 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 88 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Step 3 4 5 Disgust -.15(0.11) -.14 .07(0.09) .07 -.01(0.11) .01 6 R2 .58** .66** .62** 7 8 R2 .00 .00 .00 9 F 132.50*** 190.60*** 159.20*** 10 11 12 Germany Step 1 13 (n = 293) 14 Fear For.18***(0.07) Peer .15Review.16**(0.06) .14 .26***(0.07) .25 15 R2 .34** .38** .31** 16 17 Step 2 18 Anger .43***(0.10) .37 .45***(0.08) .41 .19*(0.09) .19 19 20 R2 .53** .62** .40**

21 2 22 R .19** .23** .09** 23 Step 3 24 25 Disgust 0.37***(0.09) .30 0.37***(0.08) .32 0.29**(0.09) .27 26 R2 .56** .65** .42** 27 28 R2 .02** .03** .02** 29 F 121.40*** 175.80*** 69.43*** 30 31 32 Poland Step 1 33 (n = 297) 34 Fear .18***(0.04) .25 .24***(0.04) .30 .26***(0.05) .30 35 R2 .25** .38** .33** 36 37 Step 2 38 Anger .29***(0.08) .40 .42***(0.07) .52 .26**(0.08) .29 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 89 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 R2 .34** .53** .45** 4 2 5 R .09** .15** .12** 6 Step 3 7 8 Disgust -0.00(0.07) -.01 -0.02(0.06) -.03 0.16*(0.08) .18 9 R2 .34** .53** .46** 10 11 R2 .00 .00 .01* 12 13 F 50.46*** 109.80*** 82.78*** 14 For Peer Review 15 France Step 1 16 (n = 289) 17 Fear .28***(0.07) .28 .23***(0.05) .24 .33***(0.06) .31 18 R2 .43** .55** .52** 19 20 Step 2 21 22 Anger .48***(0.12) .43 .30***(0.09) .28 .25*(0.11) .21 23 R2 .51** .69** .62** 24 2 25 R .08** .14** .09** 26 Step 3 27 28 Disgust 0.05(0.11) .04 0.43***(0.08) .38 0.42***(0.11) .33 29 R2 .51** .72** .64** 30 31 R2 .00 .03** .02** 32 33 F 101.10*** 244.20*** 166.90*** 34 35 India Step 1 36 (n = 292) 37 Fear .19*(0.08) .21 .07(0.06) .08 .25***(0.07) .26 38 R2 .46** .51** .56** 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 90 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Step 2 4 5 Anger .62***(0.14) .64 .50***(0.12) .55 .54***(0.13) .53 6 R2 .54** .63** .64** 7 8 R2 .08** .12** .08** 9 Step 3 10 11 Disgust -0.09(0.14) -.10 0.16(0.11) .18 0.04(0.12) .04 12 2 13 R .54** .64** .64** 14 R2 For Peer.00 Review.00 .00 15 16 F 112.60*** 168.90*** 174.70*** 17 18 19 Note. All standardized estimates are from the last step of the analyses. 20 * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 91 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Table S12 4 5 6 Means, Standard Deviations, Scales, and Intercorrelations Between Variables (N = 213, USA: Sample 6). 7 8 M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 9 1. Social dominance orientation 2.01 0.97 - 10 11 2. Ingroup identification 3.73 1.07 .26** 12 13 3. Political orientation 2.13 1.42 .53** .34** 14 4. Fear of Islam 2.23For1.37 .39** Peer.31** .33** Review 15 16 5. Fear of Muslims 2.12 1.32 .45** .31** .45** .84** 17 18 6. Anger toward Islam 2.27 1.34 .43** .24** .40** .78** .70** 19 7. Anger toward Muslims 1.98 1.23 .53** .28** .54** .72** .83** .81** 20 21 8. Disgust of Islam 2.17 1.34 .44** .22** .42** .75** .71** .93** .83** 22 23 9. Disgust of Muslims 1.94 1.27 .55** .27** .50** .71** .79** .79** .94** .85** 24 10. Fear of Islam & Muslims 2.17 1.29 .44** .32** .40** .96** .96** .77** .80** .76** .78** 25 26 11. Anger Islam & Muslims 2.12 1.23 .50** .27** .49** .79** .80** .96** .95** .93** .91** .83** 27 28 12. Disgust Islam & Muslims 2.06 1.26 .51** .25** .47** .76** .78** .90** .91** .97** .96** .80** .95** 29 13. Anti-Islam Sentiment 2.50 0.96 .36** .34** .43** .62** .61** .76** .70** .75** .66** .64** .77** .73** 30 31 14. Anti-Muslim Prejudice 2.08 0.97 .52** .37** .58** .67** .73** .71** .80** .73** .78** .73** .79** .78** .79** 32 33 15. Conspiracy-Beliefs 2.38 1.36 .47** .34** .57** .66** .69** .73** .78** .75** .75** .71** .80** .78** .81** .87** 34 16. Tripartite Islamophobia Scale 2.35 1.04 .48** .37** .55** .70** .73** .78** .80** .78** .77** .75** .83** .80** .92** .94** .94** 35 36 ** p < .01. 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 92 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Table S13 4 5 6 Study 2 – Single-Country Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Global Fit Measures for One-Factor, Two-Factor, and Three-Factor Islamophobia 7 8 Models (USA) N = 213. 9 10 2 χ difference 11 12 13 Country Factors χ2/df CFI SRMR RMSEA RMSEA CI Upper AIC χ2 df p < 14 For Peer Review difference 15 16 1 3.65 .912 .046 .133 .148 7606.189 – 90 .001 17 18 2 2.42 .951 .039 .082 .093 7443.303 113.183 89 .001 19 USA 20 21 2.1 2.82 .936 .041 .092 .127 7499.862 77.319 89 .001 22 (n = 213) 23 2.2 3.09 .913 .047 .118 .134 7531.050 53.251 89 .001 24 25 3 1.73 .975 .040 .072 .099 7356.948 177.854 87 .001 26 27 28 Notes. Robust SEM Model-fit (Satorra-Bentler correction; Mplus Variant). 29 30 The One-Factor Model was constructed with all items representing one latent factor. In the Two-Factor Model, all items referring to Islam 31 32 constituted on latent variable and all items referring to Muslims formed a second latent variable. In the Three-Factor Model, the proposed tripartite 33 34 35 structure was modelled representing anti-Muslim prejudice, anti-Islam sentiment, and conspiracy beliefs. 36 37 As in Study 1, we also tested all possible two-factor models. The first alternative Two-Factor Model (2.1) was constructed with anti-Muslim 38 39 prejudice items and anti-Islam sentiment items representing one latent factor and conspiracy belief items representing the second latent factor. In the 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 93 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 second alternative Two-Factor Model (2.2) items from anti-Islam sentiment and conspiracy beliefs components formed one latent factor, while anti- 4 5 6 Muslim prejudice formed the second latent variable. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 For Peer Review 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 94 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Table S14 4 5 6 Translation of Intergroup Emotions into respective languages. 7 8 English German French Polish 9 10 Anger Islam Wut Islam Colère / Islam Gniew Islam 11 12 I feel angry when I think of Islamic Ich fühle Wut, wenn ich an die Je suis en colère quand je pense à la Czuję gniew, kiedy myślę o religii 13 14 For Peer Review 15 religion. islamische Religion denke. religion islamique. islamskiej. 16 17 Czuję niezadowolenie, kiedy myślę 18 I feel displeased when I think of Ich fühle mich genervt, wenn ich an Je suis énervé·e quand je pense à la 19 o religii islamskiej. 20 21 Islamic religion. die islamische Religion denke. religion islamique. 22 23 24 I feel irritated when I think of Ich fühle mich gereizt, wenn ich an Je suis irrité·e quand je pense à la Czuję irytację, kiedy myślę o religii 25 26 Islamic religion. die islamische Religion denke. religion islamique. islamskiej. 27 28 29 Ich fühle mich aufgebracht, wenn Czuję wściekłość, kiedy myślę o 30 I feel furious when I think of Islamic Je suis furieux·se quand je pense à la 31 ich an die islamische Religion religii islamskiej. 32 religion. religion islamique. 33 denke. 34 35 Disgust Islam Ekel Islam Dégoût / Islam Obrzydzenie Islam 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 95 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 I feel disgusted when I think of Ich fühle Abscheu, wenn ich an die Je ressens du dégoût quand je pense Czuję obrzydzenie, kiedy myślę o 4 5 6 Islamic religion. islamische Religion denke. à la religion islamique. religii islamskiej. 7 8 I feel contemptuous when I think of Die islamische Religion empfinde La religion islamique m’inspire de la Czuję pogardę, kiedy myślę o religii 9 10 Islamic religion. ich als verächtlich. méfiance. islamskiej. 11 12 I feel repelled when I think of the Die islamische Religion empfinde Czuję odrazę, kiedy myślę o religii 13 La religion islamique me répugne. 14 For Peer Review 15 Islamic religion. ich als abstossend. islamskiej. 16 17 I feel sick when I think of the Ich fühle Übelkeit, wenn ich an die J’ai la nausée quand je pense à la Jest mi niedobrze, kiedy myślę o 18 19 Islamic religion. islamische Religion denke. religion islamique. religii islamskiej. 20 21 22 23 24 Fear Islam Angst Islam Peur / Islam Strach Islam 25 26 I feel afraid when I think of Islamic Ich fühle Angst, wenn ich an die J’ai peur quand je pense à la religion Odczuwam strach, kiedy myślę o 27 28 29 religion. islamische religion denke. islamique. religii islamskiej. 30 31 I feel fearful when I think of Islamic Ich fühle mich ängstlich, wenn ich Je suis angoissé·e quand je pense à Odczuwam lęk, kiedy myślę o religii 32 33 religion. an die islamische Religion denke. la religion islamique. islamskiej. 34 35 I feel worried when I think of Ich fühle mich besorgt, wenn ich an Je suis inquiet·ète quand je pense à Martwię się, kiedy myślę o religii 36 37 38 Islamic religion. die islamische Religion denke. la religion islamique. islamskiej. 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 96 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Je suis apeuré·e quand je pense à la Odczuwam niepokój, kiedy myślę o 4 I feel anxious when I think of Ich fühle mich beängstigt, wenn ich 5 6 religion islamique. religii islamskiej. 7 Islamic religion. an die islamische Religion denke. 8 9 10 Anger Muslims Wut Muslims Colère / Musulmans Gniew Muzułmanie 11 12 13 I feel angry when I think of Muslim Ich fühle Wut, wenn ich an Je ressens de la colère quand je 14 For Peer Review 15 Czuję gniew, kiedy myślę o 16 individuals. muslimische Personen denke. pense à des personnes musulmanes. 17 Muzułmanach. 18 19 Czuję niezadowolenie, kiedy myślę 20 I feel displeased when I think of Ich fühle mich genervt, wenn ich an Je suis énervé·e quand je pense à des 21 22 o Muzułmanach. 23 Muslim individuals. muslimische Personen denke. personnes musulmanes. 24 25 26 I feel irritated when I think of Ich fühle mich gereizt, wenn ich an Je suis irrité·e quand je pense à des Czuję irytację, kiedy myślę o 27 28 29 Muslim individuals. muslimische Personen denke. personnes musulmanes. Muzułmanach. 30 31 I feel furious when I think of Ich fühle mich aufgebracht, wenn Je suis furieux·se quand je pense à Czuję wściekłość, kiedy myślę o 32 33 Muslim individuals. ich an muslimische Personen denke. des personnes musulmanes. Muzułmanach. 34 35 36 37 38 Disgust Muslims Ekel Muslime Dégôut / Musulmans Obrzydzenie Muzułmanie 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 97 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 I feel disgusted when I think of Ich fühle Abscheu, wenn ich an Je ressens du dégoût quand je pense Czuję obrzydzenie, kiedy myślę o 4 5 6 Muslim individuals. muslimische Personen denke. à des personnes musulmanes. Muzułmanach. 7 8 I feel contemptuous when I think of Muslimische Personen empfinde ich Les personnes musulmanes Czuję pogardę, kiedy myślę o 9 10 Muslim individuals. als verächtlich. m’inspirent de la méfiance. Muzułmanach. 11 12 I feel repelled when I think of Muslimische Personen empfinde ich Les personnes musulmanes me Czuję odrazę, kiedy myślę o 13 14 For Peer Review 15 Muslim individuals. als abstossend. répugnent. Muzułmanach. 16 17 I feel sick when I think of Muslim Ich fühle Übelkeit, wenn ich an J’ai la nausée quand je pense à des Jest mi niedobrze, kiedy myślę o 18 19 individuals. muslimische Personen denke. personnes musulmanes. Muzułmanach. 20 21 22 Fear Muslims Angst Muslime Peur / Musulmans Strach Muzułmanie 23 24 I feel afraid when I think of Muslim Ich fühle Angst, wenn ich an J’ai peur quand je pense à des Odczuwam strach, kiedy myślę o 25 26 individuals. muslimische Personen denke. personnes musulmanes. Muzułmanach. 27 28 29 I feel fearful when I think of Muslim Ich fühle mich ängstlich, wenn ich Je me sens angoissé·e quand je Odczuwam lęk, kiedy myślę o 30 31 individuals. an muslimische Personen denke. pense à des personnes musulmanes. Muzułmanach. 32 33 I feel worried when I think of Ich fühle mich besorgt, wenn ich an Je me sens inquiet·ète quand je Martwię się, kiedy myślę o 34 35 Muslim individuals. muslimische Personen denke. pense à des personnes musulmanes. Muzułmanach. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 98 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 I feel anxious when I think of Ich fühle mich beängstigt, wenn ich Je suis apeuré·e quand je pense à des Odczuwam niepokój, kiedy myślę o 4 5 6 Muslim individuals. an Muslimische Personen denke. personnes musulmanes. Muzułmanach. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 For Peer Review 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 99 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Table S15 4 5 6 Translation of Tripartite Islamophobia Scale into respective languages. 7 8 English German French Polish 9 10 Anti-Muslim Prejudice Anti-Muslimische Vorurteile Préjugés anti-musulmans Antymuzułmańskie Uprzedzenia 11 12 Muslims are not really Muslime sind nicht wirklich Les musulmans ne sont pas Muzułmanie nie są godni zaufania. 13 14 For Peer Review 15 trustworthy. vertrauenswürdig. vraiment dignes de confiance. 16 17 The Islamist terrorist find Die Islamistischen Terroristen finden Les terroristes islamistes trouvent Islamscy terroryści są mocno wspierani 18 19 strong support among starke Unterstützung unter den un fort soutien parmi les przez społeczność muzułmańską. 20 21 22 Muslims. Muslimen. musulmans. 23 24 Muslims appear to be rather Im Vergleich zu nicht-Muslimen in En comparaison avec les non- Muzułmanie wydają się być raczej 25 26 irrational, compared to non- diesem Land, scheinen Muslime eher musulmans de ce pays, les irracjonalni, w porównaniu z nie- 27 28 29 Muslims in this country. sehr irrational zu sein. musulmans ont l’air d’être moins muzułmańskimi mieszkańcami kraju. 30 31 rationnels. 32 33 Muslims are a social and Muslime sind eine soziale und Les musulmans sont une chargeMuzułmanie są socjalnym i 34 35 economic burden for the ökonomische Belastung für Deutschland. sociale et économique pour laekonomicznym obciążeniem dla Polski. 36 37 38 [Residents Country]. France. 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 100 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Muslims attract more Muslime fallen häufiger durch ihr Les musulmans attirent plus souventMuzułmanie przyciągają więcej uwagi 4 5 6 attention due to their aggressives Verhalten auf. l’attention que les autres en raison deze względu na swoje agresywne 7 8 aggressive behavior. leur comportement agressif. zachowanie. 9 10 Muslims are an enrichment Muslime sind eine Bereicherung für Les musulmans sont un atout pour Muzułmanie wzbogacają Polskę.* 11 12 for the [Residents Deutschland.* la France.* 13 14 For Peer Review 15 Country].* 16 17 Muslim practices fit Muslimische Praktiken passen perfekt in Les pratiques musulmanes Praktyki związane z religia islamską 18 19 perfectly in our [Residents unsere westliche Welt.* s’intègrent parfaitement dans notre pasują do zachodniego świata.* 20 21 22 Country].* monde occidental.* 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Anti-Islamic Sentiment Anti-Islamisches Sentiment Sentiment anti-islamique Antyislamskie opinie 30 31 Islam is a sexist religion. Die islamische Religion ist La religion islamique est hostile aux Religia islamska jest seksistowska. 32 33 frauenfeindlich. femmes. 34 35 Islam is a violence- Die islamische Religion ist La religion islamique glorifie la Religia islamska jest religią 36 37 38 glorifying religion. gewaltverherrlichend. violence. gloryfikującą przemoc. 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 101 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Islam is an antisemitic Der Islam ist eine antisemitische L’Islam est une religion antisémite. Religia islamska jest antysemicka. 4 5 6 religion. Religion. 7 8 The Islamic religion is Die islamische Religion ist schädlich für La religion islamique menace la Religia islamska działa na szkodę 9 10 harmful for world peace. den Weltfrieden. paix dans le monde. światowego pokoju. 11 12 The Islamic religion is by Die islamische Religion ist von seiner La religion islamique, par sa nature, Religia islamska jest z założenia 13 14 For Peer Review 15 default not compatible with Natur aus nicht vereinbar mit der est incompatible avec la modernité. niespójna z nowoczesnością. 16 17 modernity. Moderne. 18 19 Islam has produced an Der Islam hat eine bewundernswerte L’Islam a engendré une civilisation Religia islamska stworzyła kulturę, 20 21 22 admirable culture.* Kultur hervorgebracht.* digne d’admiration.* którą można podziwiać.* 23 24 Islamic culture fits perfectly Die Islamische Religion past perfekt in La religion islamique s’intègre Religia islamska pasuje do zachodniego 25 26 in our Western World/Indian unsere westliche Welt.* parfaitement à notre monde świata.* 27 28 29 Nation.* occidental.* 30 31 32 33 Anti-Muslim Conspiracy Islamophobe Théories du complot Islamofobiczne 34 35 Beliefs Verschwörungstheorien islamophobes Teorie Spiskowe 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 102 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Muslims are planning to Muslime planen den Westen Schritt für Les musulmans ont pour but Muzułmanie planują, krok po kroku, 4 5 6 Islamize the West step by Schritt zu Islamisieren. d’islamiser progressivement zislamizowanie zachodu. 7 8 step. l’Occident. 9 10 Actually, Muslims are Insgeheim streben Muslime an die Secrètement, les musulmans W tej chwili Muzułmanie usiłują 11 12 striving to establish the Scharia in Deutschland zu etablieren. aspirent à établir la charia en wprowadzić prawo Szariatu w Polsce. 13 14 For Peer Review 15 Sharia in the [Residents France. 16 17 Country]. 18 19 Muslims secretly plot for an Muslime streben insgeheim die Les musulmans aspirent secrètement Muzułmanie spiskują w celu 20 21 22 Islamization of the Islamisierung von Deutschland an. à l’islamisation de la France. zislamizowania Polski. 23 24 [Residents Country]. 25 26 Muslims would like to Muslime würden gerne die Les musulmans voudraient bien Muzułmanie chcieliby kontrolować 27 28 29 control the international internationalen politischen Institutionen contrôler les institutions politiques międzynarodowe instytucje polityczne. 30 31 political institutions. kontrollieren. internationales. 32 33 Muslims achieve their Muslime erreichen ihre kollektiven Ziele Les musulmans atteignent leurs Muzułmanie osiągają swoje wspólne 34 35 collective goals by secret durch geheime Absprachen. objectifs communs par des accords cele na drodze tajnych porozumień. 36 37 38 agreements. secrets. 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 103 of 256 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 Note. For the questionnaire used in India, we used the English version of the items. English language proficiency was a necessary requirement for 4 5 6 the Amazon MTurk participants and participants were chosen accordingly using Amazon MTurk demographic information as well as indicating on 7 8 the HIT board that English language proficiency was a necessary requirement. Additionally, we included an attention check in each survey to sort 9 10 out non-sensical / random responses. Furthermore, some items in the Islamophobia construct were modified for the Indian context. Specifically, 11 12 items referring to the “Western World” or “Western Culture” were changed to “India” or “Indian Culture.” Similar to Amazon MTurk, PROLIFIC 13 14 For Peer Review 15 online academic research participant recruitment services provide the possibility to include/exclude specific socio-demographic target groups. To 16 17 recruit only German, Polish, and French speaking candidates who live in either Germany, Poland, or France, the respective requirements were 18 19 chosen from the online preset choices (birthplace, current country of residence, and native language). 20 21 22 * Reverse coded items 23 24 25 26 Consent Form, Debriefing Material, Online Study Description, and socio-demographic variables were also translated into the respective languages 27 28 29 and can be obtained by the first author of this study. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Page 104 of 256

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE MATERIALS: NATURE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA 1 2 3 References 4 5 6 Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York, NY, US: Guilford Publications. 7 8 Meade, A. W., & Bauer, D. J. (2007). Power and precision in confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement invariance. Structural Equation 9 10 Modeling, 14(4), 611–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575461 11 12 Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement Invariance Conventions and Reporting: The State of the Art and Future Directions for 13 14 For Peer Review 15 Psychological Research. Developmental Review: DR, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004 16 17 Schoemann, A. M., Boulton, A. J., & Short, S. D. (2017). Determining Power and Sample Size for Simple and Complex Mediation Models. Social 18 19 Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617715068 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pspb 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60